Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief
Soil surface roughness (SSR) and porosity were evaluated from soils located in two farms belonging to the Plant Breeding Institute of the University of Sidney. The sites differ in their soil management practices; the first site (PBI) was strip-tilled during early fall (May 2010), and the second site...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-01-01
|
| Series: | Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/608275 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850224205724909568 |
|---|---|
| author | R. Garcia Moreno T. Burykin M. C. Diaz Alvarez J. W. Crawford |
| author_facet | R. Garcia Moreno T. Burykin M. C. Diaz Alvarez J. W. Crawford |
| author_sort | R. Garcia Moreno |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Soil surface roughness (SSR) and porosity were evaluated from soils located in two farms belonging to the Plant Breeding Institute of the University of Sidney. The sites differ in their soil management practices; the first site (PBI) was strip-tilled during early fall (May 2010), and the second site (JBP) was under power harrowed tillage at the end of July 2010. Both sites were sampled in mid-August. At each location, SSR was measured for three 1 m2 subplots using shadow analysis. To evaluate porosity and aggregation, soil samples were scanned using X-ray computed tomography with 5 μm resolution. The results show a strong negative correlation between SSR and porosity, 20.13% SSR and 41.38% porosity at PBI versus 42.00% SSR and 18.35% porosity at JBP. However, soil images show that when soil surface roughness is higher due to conservation and soil management practices, the processes of macroaggregation and structural porosity are enhanced. Further research must be conducted on SSR and porosity in different types of soils, as they provide complementary information on the evaluation of soil erosion susceptibility. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-52431eaa2fcf4125a33476a9a7cb756c |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1687-7667 1687-7675 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-52431eaa2fcf4125a33476a9a7cb756c2025-08-20T02:05:42ZengWileyApplied and Environmental Soil Science1687-76671687-76752012-01-01201210.1155/2012/608275608275Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface MicroreliefR. Garcia Moreno0T. Burykin1M. C. Diaz Alvarez2J. W. Crawford3Centre for Studies and Research on Agricultural and Environmental Risk Management (CEIGRAM), School of Agricultural Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s.n., 28040 madrid, SpainFaculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Australian Technology Park, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, Sydney, NSW 2015, AustraliaCentre for Studies and Research on Agricultural and Environmental Risk Management (CEIGRAM), School of Agricultural Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s.n., 28040 madrid, SpainFaculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Australian Technology Park, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, Sydney, NSW 2015, AustraliaSoil surface roughness (SSR) and porosity were evaluated from soils located in two farms belonging to the Plant Breeding Institute of the University of Sidney. The sites differ in their soil management practices; the first site (PBI) was strip-tilled during early fall (May 2010), and the second site (JBP) was under power harrowed tillage at the end of July 2010. Both sites were sampled in mid-August. At each location, SSR was measured for three 1 m2 subplots using shadow analysis. To evaluate porosity and aggregation, soil samples were scanned using X-ray computed tomography with 5 μm resolution. The results show a strong negative correlation between SSR and porosity, 20.13% SSR and 41.38% porosity at PBI versus 42.00% SSR and 18.35% porosity at JBP. However, soil images show that when soil surface roughness is higher due to conservation and soil management practices, the processes of macroaggregation and structural porosity are enhanced. Further research must be conducted on SSR and porosity in different types of soils, as they provide complementary information on the evaluation of soil erosion susceptibility.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/608275 |
| spellingShingle | R. Garcia Moreno T. Burykin M. C. Diaz Alvarez J. W. Crawford Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| title | Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief |
| title_full | Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief |
| title_fullStr | Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief |
| title_short | Effect of Management Practices on Soil Microstructure and Surface Microrelief |
| title_sort | effect of management practices on soil microstructure and surface microrelief |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/608275 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rgarciamoreno effectofmanagementpracticesonsoilmicrostructureandsurfacemicrorelief AT tburykin effectofmanagementpracticesonsoilmicrostructureandsurfacemicrorelief AT mcdiazalvarez effectofmanagementpracticesonsoilmicrostructureandsurfacemicrorelief AT jwcrawford effectofmanagementpracticesonsoilmicrostructureandsurfacemicrorelief |