Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Ramp Locations along Freeways: A Dynamic Programming Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Soil Aggregate Construction: Contribution from Functional Soil Amendment Fertilizer Derived from Dolomite
Previous Article in Journal
Promoting Sustainability within the Nordic-Arctic Region’s Food System: Challenges and Trends
Previous Article in Special Issue
Deep Placement of Compost into Vineyard Soil Affecting Physical Properties of Soils, Yield and Quality of Grapes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159717
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Medium-Term No-Tillage, Additional Compaction, and Chiseling as Affecting Clayey Subtropical Soil Physical Properties and Yield of Corn, Soybean and Wheat Crops

by
Luis Eduardo Akiyoshi Sanches Suzuki
1,*,
Dalvan José Reinert
2,
Marlene Cristina Alves
3 and
José Miguel Reichert
2
1
Center of Technological Development, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas 96010-610, RS, Brazil
2
Soils Department, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-9000, RS, Brazil
3
Faculty of Engineering, São Paulo State University, Ilha Solteira 15385-000, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9717; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159717
Submission received: 12 July 2022 / Revised: 5 August 2022 / Accepted: 5 August 2022 / Published: 7 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Tillage Systems and New Practices for Sustainable Farmland Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Understanding the soil-plant relationship is important to determine critical limits of soil properties that influence crop growth and yield. The objectives were to quantify the influence of soil compaction levels on physical properties and crop growth and yield in a clayey Oxisol. An experiment was performed having in the main plots, levels of soil compaction (NT: no-tillage during six years, NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine in the agricultural year 2003/2004, and Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004), and in the sub-plots, the summer crops soybean and corn, and wheat in the winter season. We measured soil physical and mechanical properties, along with yield of corn, soybean and wheat, and root growth of that last two crops. After four passes of a 10 Mg machine, the soil resistance to penetration increased to a 0.12 m depth, while Chisel disrupted the 0–0.20 m soil layer, with the effects persisting for at least nine months. Soil compaction in no-tillage concentrated in the 0.05–0.15 m layer. Corn yield was similar among the treatments, soybean yield was highest in NT, and the highest yield of wheat was in the sequence with soybean under NT.

1. Introduction

Besides the impact on soil and plants, soil compaction also causes economic losses associated with loss in crop yield [1], environmental pollution, and soil erosion [2]. Keller et al. [3] estimated that the influence of soil compaction on costs due to decreased soil productivity (on-site costs) and increased flood incidence (off-site costs) is in the order of magnitude of several hundred M€ yr−1 in Sweden.
With the advance and modernization of mechanization, larger and heavier machines have been developed [3], thus increasing the soil compaction problem, especially in no-tillage [4,5,6].
In Brazil, no-tillage is present in 33,052,969 ha distributed in 553,382 farms [7]. In 1999, no-tillage was adopted on about 45 million ha worldwide, increasing to 72 million ha in 2003 and to 111 million ha in 2009. South America has the largest area under no-tillage, representing 46.8% of the total [8]. This shows the importance of no-tillage worldwide, and potential problems related to surface soil compaction. Furthermore, a significant part of agriculture in the world is performed on clayey Oxisol soil, with a broad amplitude for agriculture and other uses. In Brazil, it is the most representative soil with 32.85% (2,797,173.54 km2) [9], while in the world, it represents 7.50% (9,811,000 km2) [10].
An understanding of the soil-plant relationship is important for subtropical environments, especially to establish critical limits of soil properties related to the soil compaction degree that influence crop growth and yield, which has been pursued by researches for bulk density [4,11,12,13,14] and for soil resistance to penetration [11,14,15,16,17,18]. Furthermore, the impact of mechanization and soil management and uses (traffic and tillage, for example) on subtropical soils has been studied [19], but there is a need to improve our understanding of crop response to soil compaction/tillage [5,6,14,20].
Studies related to soil indicators (porosity, bulk density, resistance to penetration, among others) and of the plant (height, root, yield) and crop response to compaction levels are required to quantify yield decrease and define the best strategy for soil and crop management. In a review on the effect of soil compaction and its management for sustainable crop production, Shaheb et al. [21] mention, as future research needs, the development of strategies to reduce soil compaction and ameliorate compacted soils to maximize crop yield, and develop crops with root that penetrate the compacted soil layer and access water and nutrients.
Our hypothesis was that additional compaction negatively affects soil properties and crop growth and yield, while loose soil (chiseling) reduces soil compaction but does not increment crop yield. The objectives were to quantify the influence of levels of soil compaction in the soil physical properties of corn, soybean, and wheat growth and yield in clayey Oxisol.

2. Materials and Methods

An experiment was conducted in the technologic field of a farmers’ cooperative, located in the municipality of Ijuí, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, in a Latossolo Vermelho distroférrico típico according to the Brazilian System of Soil Classification [22], or Oxisol according to the Soil Taxonomy [23]. The local climate is Cfa according to the Köppen classification, with mean annual temperature and rainfall, respectively, 19.5 °C and 1966 mm. August and October are, respectively, the dryer and rainier months. January is the hottest month with an average of 24.3 °C, and July is the month with the lower temperature, with average of 13.8 °C [24]. Figure 1 shows the rainfall during the experiment.
A completely randomized experimental design was used, in a bifactorial with split plots, with three replicates. Three levels of soil compaction were allocated in the main plots, namely as NT: no-tillage during six years, NTC: no-tillage during six years + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004, and Chisel: no-tillage during six years + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004), while in the sub-plots, we grew the summer-crops soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays), and winter-crop wheat (Triticum aestivum). The size of each plot was 10 m in width and 15 m in length. The stages and main activities performed in the experiment are chronologically represented in the Figure 2, and further described in detail below.
Soil compaction (treatment NTC) was performed with a 10-Mg loader machine, mark CASE model W20. Tire specifications were Goodyear type 45 17.5-25 SGL D/L-2A L-2/G-2. Soil-tire contact was 70.5-cm length and 40-cm width. Treatments with chiseling and harrowing (Chisel) and compaction (NTC) were applied on 8 December 2003, and soil resistance to penetration was measured right afterwards.
The summer-crops soybean (spacing of 0.45 m), cultivar BRS 153, and corn (spacing of 0.90 m), cultivar AGN 35 A 42, were sown on 10 December 2003. Basal fertilization at planting consisted of 300 kg ha−1 of 02-20-20 (N-P-K) for soybean, and 350 kg ha−1 of 05-20-20 for corn. Side-dressing fertilization for corn consisted of 150 kg ha−1 of urea. Phytosanitary control was based on applications of fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, when necessary.
Soil samples with preserved structure were taken in the 0–0.05, 0.05–0.10, 0.10–0.15, 0.15–0.20, 0.20–0.25 and 0.25–0.30 m layers, on 5 February 2004, with core samplers of a 3 cm height and 5.55 cm in diameter, to determine total porosity, macroporosity and microporosity by the tension table method [25], bulk density [26], and volumetric soil moisture. Additionally, core samples with a 2.5 cm height and 6.1 cm diameter, two samples per plot, were taken in the 0.08–0.13 m layer, and then equilibrated to 33 kPa suction using pressure chambers [27] and submitted to the uniaxial compression test with successive and static loads of 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 kPa in a Boart Longyear consolidometer. From this laboratory test, we determined the volumetric moisture and saturation degree at the beginning of the test, bulk density and soil deformation at the end of the test, and precompression stress and the compression index by the Casagrande method [28]. Furthermore, disturbed soil samples were taken to determine particle size distribution, and soil resistance to penetration was measured in the field.
Particle size distribution was determined by the pipette method [29], with three replicates. The soil samples were dispersed using horizontal shaking with 120 rpm during 4 h, using glasses of 100 mL with 20 g of soil, 10 mL of NaOH 6% (chemical dispersant), 50 mL of distilled water and two balls of nylon with a 3.04 g weight, 1.71 cm diameter, and 1.11 g cm−3 density [30]. Sand (coarse and fine, respectively, 2–0.25 mm and 0.25–0.053 mm diameter) was determined by sieving, clay (<0.002 mm diameter) by sedimentation and silt (0.053–0.002 mm diameter) by calculation. Textural classification was performed in the textural triangle from the “National Resource Conservation Service/United States Department of Agriculture” [31]. The particle size distribution of soil is presented in Figure 3.
Soil resistance to penetration was measured with a digital penetrometer Remik CP 20 Ultrasonic Cone Penetrometer, with electronic storage of data and a conical tip with a penetration angle of 30°. The readings, taken in 1.5 cm depth intervals, were performed within and also between crop lines, namely 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 m to the left and to the right of the soybean line of the seeding; 0.15, 0.30, and 0.45 m to the left and to the right of the corn line of the seeding; and 0.03 and 0.06 m to the left and to the right of the wheat line of the seeding. These readings provided a profile of the soil resistance to penetration. During measurements of the profile of soil resistance to penetration, soil moisture was determined using a TDR (Time Domain Reflectometry) from Soil Moisture. The rods were inserted horizontally in the soil profile at a 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, and 0. 35 m depth.
Corn height and the first evaluation of soybean height were measured on 3 March 2004, while the second evaluation of soybean height was done on 20 March 2004. Soybean and corn yield, and the soil resistance to penetration were evaluated on 19 April 2004. For corn, plant height was measured in the phase of milky grain (phase R2), and for soybean, in the beginning of grain formation (phase R5) and 17 days after the first evaluation (phase R5). Six plants were evaluated in each treatment (two plants per plot). Corn height was quantified as the distance from the first node until the tassel insertion, while for soybean, we considered the distance from the first to the last node of the main stem. Soybean and corn yield were evaluated through sampling three lines of 2 m for soybean, and two lines of 4 m for corn, and three replicates for each treatment. Crop yield was calculated in kg ha−1 at 13% wet base.
Wheat cultivar BRS-Angico was sown on 2 June 2004, with spacing of 0.18 m. Basal fertilization was 250 kg ha−1 of 05-20-20. The first side-dressing fertilization for the wheat crop was done on 5 July 2004, with 100 kg ha−1 of urea, and the second on 20 July 2004, with 50 kg ha−1 of urea. Phytosanitary control was based on applications of fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, when necessary.
Wheat root distribution and soil resistance to penetration were determined on 19 September 2004. Distribution of wheat roots was evaluated at wheat flowering, by means of the cultural profile described for Böhm [32], using a frame of a 0.50 m width × 0.30 m height, with 0.05 m × 0.05 m mesh. Wheat yield was evaluated harvesting all plots and, thus, no statistical analysis was done, and the data were presented as total grain of the plots.
The data comparing treatments and soil depths were statistically analyzed using the least significance difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05. Before the ANOVA, the data were checked for normality and homoscedasticity.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Physical and Mechanical Properties

After four passes of the 10-Mg machine to compact soil in the NTC treatment, soil resistance to penetration had a significative increase until the 0.12 m depth, reaching values greater than 2 MPa (Figure 4). Soil resistance to penetration in the soybean and corn crops was greater in NTC, and different at the surface layer (until 0.10 m depth) (Figure 5a,b) due to additional compaction applied 59 days before measurement. Even almost 60 days after seeding of soybean and corn, soil compaction persisted in the NTC.
Smaller resistance in the Chisel soil until 0.20 m shows the influence of chiseling in the 0–0.20 m layer, even with lower soil moisture compared to the other treatments (Figure 6), and duration of chiseling for at least 59 days. Considering the soil moisture of the samples equilibrated at 33 kPa suction as a reference (see Table 1, NTC = 0.38 m3 m−3, NT = 0.37 m3 m−3 and Chisel = 0.32 m3 m−3), soil moisture at the measurement of the resistance to penetration is higher than the field capacity.
Soil physical and mechanical properties in the Chisel differed from the other treatments (NTC and NT) (Table 1). Due to the disturbance during chiseling and harrowing, the soil precompression stress, moisture, and saturation degree of soil samples equilibrated at 33 kPa suction were lower in the Chisel (Table 1), associated with the smaller bulk density (Figure 7), microporosity (Table 2), and soil resistance to penetration (Figure 5) in the soil layer disturbed, while soil deformation and the compression index were higher (Table 1). Additional compaction (NTC) did not influence soil mechanical properties compared to NT (Table 1) 59 days after four passes of a 10-Mg machine, corroborating with the soil resistance to penetration results (Figure 5), showing that the influence of crops to alleviate additional soil compaction (Figure 4) is not yet detectable. Corn crop decreased resistance to penetration in the surface soil of no-tillage, although the resistance was already lower (Figure 5).
Soil precompression stress increased in the sequence Chisel (101.1 kPa) < NTC (130.4 kPa) < NT (167.1 kPa) (Table 1), while highest bulk density was observed in the 0.05–0.20 m layer, especially in the no-tillage treatments (NTC and NT) (Figure 7). Soil porosity varied with the treatments. In general, Chisel soil had increased macroporosity and decreased microporosity compared with no-tillage soil (NTC and NT), especially in the 0–0.20 m layer (Table 2).
Chiseled soil presented higher macroporosity and smaller microporosity due to the effect of soil disruption by chiseling and harrowing in the 0–0.20 m layer and differed from no-till soil (Table 2). Below 0.20 m depth, soil macroporosity was similar among treatment, demonstrating Chisel and NTC influence soil properties only until this depth. Macroporosity in NT and NTC was smaller than 0.10 m3 m−3, a value considered minimum for adequate development of the plant [33].
Total porosity was different among treatments only in the soil surface (0–0.10 m), where Chisel had the greatest volume of pores, especially macropores from the chiseling and harrowing (Table 2). For all depths, soil microporosity was significantly different for the treatments, with greatest values in the no-tillage (NTC and NT) in the 0–0.15 m layer.
Soil resistance to penetration was similar for soybean and corn crops, for each level of compaction (Figure 8). In the NTC, the values were greater in the soil surface, while in the NT, values greater than 2 MPa were verified below 0.10 m in the soil. In the Chisel, the greatest resistance was in the 0.25–0.30 m layer, a depth not reached by chiseling. However, in some cases, the soil layer with larger resistance was not uniform, allowing for root growth in spaces of lower resistance.
The smaller resistance in NTC occurs in the line of seeding because of furrow aperture during soybean seeding (Figure 8a). Further, this low-resistance soil allowed for pivoting-root growth until around the 0.05–0.08 m depth in the NTC system, while in the NT and Chisel, the soybean pivoting roots were found around the 0.20–0.22 m depth.
Soil volumetric moisture decreased in the sequence NTC > NT > Chisel (Figure 9), while greatest resistance was in the NTC. Soil moisture during the measurement of the resistance to penetration was lower than the field capacity (see Table 1—soil moisture of the samples equilibrated at 33 kPa suction: NTC = 0.38 m3 m−3, NT = 0.37 m3 m−3, and Chisel = 0.32 m3 m−3).

3.2. Growth and Yield of Soybean and Corn

Corn plants were higher in NT, differing from Chisel that differed from NTC. Despite higher plants in NT, there was no significative difference in corn yield among treatments (Table 3). Soybean plants were higher in NT and Chisel, and different from the NTC, while yield was greater in NT and differed from NTC and Chisel (Table 3).
Considering the price of USD 38.47 for 60 kg of soybean in Brazil (quotation of 14 April 2022 available at CEPEA—Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada) [34], when compared with NT the economic loss based on soybean yield is USD 366.24 ha−1 for Chisel and USD 597.06 ha−1 for NTC.
In the field, we observed that soybean pivoting root reached 0.05–0.08 m depth in NTC, while in NT and Chisel, it reached 0.20–0.22 m. Poor soil physical properties (bulk density, porosity, resistance to penetration) in NTC, especially in the 0.05–0.20 m layer, may have impaired the roots to explore deeper to reach water and nutrients in periods of water deficit.
Water demand during the corn and soybean cycle is around, respectively, 500 to 800 mm and 450 to 850 mm, and this demand depends on, besides the crops, soil properties associated with the ability to store water, and environment conditions [35]. The total rainfall during the corn and soybean cycle was larger than 500 mm (10 December 2003 to 19 April 2004), but the distribution of rainfall along the cycle is more important than the monthly amount, and February was the month with the lower rainfall, around 60 mm (Figure 1), which may have influenced the growth of the aerial plant part and impaired grain yield in NTC.
Adequate soil physical properties, and probably chemical and biological, support the larger soybean yield in NT, which differed from the NTC and Chisel (Table 3). Water deficit was important for NT to show its ability to improve crops development under critical conditions compared to the other treatments. Figure 7 and Figure 9, show greater soil volumetric moisture in NTC, but this water may not be available for plants, while Chisel presented the smallest values. A decrease in the number of corn plants was observed in Chisel, while for soybean, this fact was not observed.

3.3. Wheat Crop

3.3.1. Soil Resistance to Penetration

During the wheat crop, soil resistance to penetration was high (Figure 10), and soil moisture was low (Figure 11) compared to the previous evaluation during corn and soybean crops growth (Figure 6 and Figure 9). The resistance was high in the topsoil of NTC, while in the NT, the 2 MPa critical value was near 0.05 m, whereas in the Chisel, except in the sequence with corn, the critical value was around 0.10–0.15 m depth. The soil layer with resistance of >2 MPa was not uniform, which allowed the root growth in the points of smaller resistance, as observed in Figure 12, and it is possible to observe that the layer of larger resistance is deeper in the sequence Chisel > NT > NTC.
Volumetric moisture of soil decreased in the sequence NTC > NT > Chisel (Figure 11), while the greater resistance in NTC, similarly to that observed during soybean and corn growth. Using as reference the soil moisture of samples equilibrated to 33 kPa suction (see Table 1, NTC = 0.38 m3 m−3, NT = 0.37 m3 m−3, and Chisel = 0.32 m3 m−3), soil resistance to penetration measurement values were lower.

3.3.2. Wheat Root Growth and Yield

In each level of soil compaction, the development of wheat root, where corn or soybean previously was, is similar (Figure 12). Comparing levels of soil compaction, where NTC roots are mostly shallow, concentrated until the 0.10 m depth, although some roots were present until 0.20 m, according to the variability soil resistance to penetration with depth. In Chisel, there were more roots than in NT, but both treatments presented a satisfactory root distribution, reaching the 0.30 m depth. Although not measured, we visually observed in the field a smaller wheat height in NTC.
The larger yield of wheat was in the sequence with soybean, showing the sequence legume-grass was better than grass-grass considering the yield of wheat (Table 4). The larger yield of wheat in the sequence soybean was obtained in NT, while in the sequence with corn was in NTC.
Considering the USD 384.62 cost of one ton of wheat in Brazil (quotation of 14 April 2022 available at CEPEA-Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada) [36], compared with NT, the economic loss based on wheat yield in the sequence of soybean is USD 58.46 ha−1 for Chisel and USD 65.00 ha−1 for NTC.
Even after almost nine months (8 December 2003 to 19 September 2004) from the four passes of a 10 Mg machine, soil resistance to penetration and wheat roots concentrating at 0 to 0.10 m soil layer is evidence of the persistent effect of additional compaction. Similarly, the effect of chiseling until almost 0.20 m also still persists when evaluated by soil resistance to penetration and wheat root growth.

4. Discussion

We observed an increase of soil resistance to penetration only until the 0.12 m depth after four passes of a 10-Mg loader to compact the soil in the NTC treatment (Figure 4). Deeper effects in the soil were observed in Oxisol with 784 g kg−1 of clay; it increased down to the 0.23 m depth after eight wheelings of a harvester [37]. Those differences may be associated to soil type, structure and organic matter, loading history, elasticity, and precompression stress [38]. Knowledge on depth and intensity of soil compaction is important because these variables may help to define strategies to alleviate soil compaction; for example, biologically using plants or mechanically using chiseling or harrowing.
Soil disturbance decreased load-bearing capacity and increased susceptibility to compaction, and these findings corroborate with other studies that have demonstrated that soils with low bulk density and precompression stress values and high permeability are highly vulnerable to soil compaction [39,40]. The higher the soil deformation at the end of the uniaxial compression test, the greater its susceptibility to compaction [40]. In the field, a soil without structure/loose condition (lower bulk density and soil resistance to penetration) will have more porous space to deform when a load is applied by machine traffic or animal trampling; consequently, the more susceptible to compaction (compression index) and lower load-bearing capacity (precompression stress) this soil will be before loading. Thus, although soil disturbance (chiseling and harrowing) alleviates soil compaction, the soil is more susceptible to recurrence of soil compaction.
Soil precompression stress was high for Chisel (101.1 kPa), very high for NTC (130.4 kPa), and extremely high for NT (167.1 kPa), using the classification proposed by Horn and Fleige [41] based on moisture (pF = 1.8 and 2.5), bulk density, and shear strength parameters. The authors classified the precompression stress as very low (<30 kPa), low (30–60 kPa), medium (60–90 kPa), high (90–120 kPa), very high (120–150 kPa), and extremely high (>150 kPa). Defined as the resistance of the soil to decrease its volume when subjected to pressure, soil compressibility depends on soil resistance, particle size distribution, type of clay mineral, content and type of organic substances, distribution of roots, soil bulk density, pore size distribution and continuity in soil and aggregates, and water content and/or water potential [42].
The highest bulk density was observed in the 0.05–0.20 m layer, especially in the no-tillage treatments (NTC and NT). This observation agrees with bulk density values larger than 1.33 to 1.36 Mg m−3, considered critical for plant growth due to aeration in clay soil [14]. Soil bulk density increases with increasing compaction, and this increase is greater in soils with low or moderate initial bulk density; for soils with higher bulk density, this increase is small, a fact attributed to the difficulty of compressing the smaller pores, caused by the high bulk density, and filled with water [43].
While we observed that soil porosity varied among treatments, and generally greater macroporosity, due to chiseling and harrowing, and lower microporosity in Chisel soil compared with no-tillage (NTC and NT) (Table 2), after two years of three and five tractor passes in Typic Argiudoll, Soracco et al. [44] did not observe any persistent changes in soil bulk density, total and macroporosity, but saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil pore orientation were modified.
The greatest microporosity values in the no-tillage (NTC and NT) in the 0–0.15 m layer is related to accumulation of pressures by the traffic of machines, decreasing the larger pores, especially (macropores), and increasing the smaller pores (micropores). During soil compaction, the larger pores, responsible for soil aeration, decrease and are replaced by smaller pores, especially pores responsible for water retention, and this decrease of aeration porosity may be 1.5–2 times larger than the decrease of the total porosity [45].
In some cases, we observed that the soil layer with larger resistance to penetration was not uniform, allowing root growth in positions of lower resistance, which was similarly observed by Suzuki et al. [14] for different soils. According to Queiroz-Voltan et al. [46], soil compaction is not present as a continuous layer; then, roots search for low-resistance spaces in the soil to grow. Furthermore, the soils are not compacted evenly by the traffic of machines. For instance, Unger and Kaspar [47] argued that the traffic, for many operations in the field, is parallel to the sowing line and, thus, traffic is concentrated in-between rows. As a result, traffic may cause great differences in soil physical properties in the trafficked and not trafficked areas between rows. Besides, the potential crop growth and soil physical properties define the root growth rate and its size [45]. In Central and Oriental Europe, Lipiec and Simota [48] reported that roots of corn and sugar beet are very responsive to compaction, while barley and wheat are less responsible than soybean, under the same conditions.
From the significant differences in crop yield (Table 3), soybean was more sensitive to soil compaction than corn. Soybean yield was greater in NT and differed from NTC (decrease of 35%) and Chisel (decrease of 21%). Similarly, soybean grain yield was reduced due to both soil chiseling and heavy traffic by the harvester compared with no-tillage in Oxisol [37]. The number of grains per ear and number of ears per plant are the components of production most affected by water deficit when it occurs during the critical period of corn [49].
Water deficit was important for NT, showing its ability to maintain crop development under critical conditions compared with the other treatments. The productivity of no-tillage is higher under dry conditions compared with wetter conditions [50]. The impact of compaction on soybean yield was more significant in drier than wetter years when plant growth was less constrained by water availability in Typic Argiudoll [1]. Soybean yield decreased in 9 and 19%, respectively, by the traffic of a machine of 10 and 20 Mg, compared with no-traffic in Mollic Ochraqualf (18.7, 42.4, and 38.9%, respectively, of sand, silt, and clay in soil surface) [51], and decrease of 9 and 14%, respectively, for chiseling and harrowing compared with no-tillage.
The use of a seeder equipped with fixed shank openers, acting down to the 0.17 m depth, caused an increase in soil porosity, and decrease in bulk density, soil resistance to penetration and degree of compactness in the layer between 0.07 and 0.17 m. These effects lead to deeper root growth of corn, and consequently to better development of plants with higher stalk diameter, root density, and root length, presenting the potential to mitigate the compaction of clayey soils under no-tillage [52]. Results from 1977 to 1984, in Oxisol showed that wheat and soybean yield were greater in no-tillage than in minimum and conventional tillage [53], while chiseling of Rhodic Eutrudox was an unnecessary practice due to absence of productive and morphological improvement for soybean and wheat cropping in Paraná State, Brazil [54].
A decrease in the number of corn plants was observed in Chisel, which was not observed for soybean. This outcome may be associated to faster germination and better soil water use by soybeans. The lower soil-seed contact and high temperature in Chisel, due to soil disturbance and less cover [55], may also have contributed to the smaller germination.
A high degree of compactness reduces soil aeration and restricts root growth due to increase in soil resistance to penetration, while a low degree of compactness or loose soil may limit water retention and having poor soil-seed contact [5]. Lipiec et al. [56] verified that soil moisture or water potential is important in crop response because water directly affects plant growth and indirectly other important factors such as aeration, mechanical resistance, and soil temperature. Soil compaction reduced water extraction in the cotton plant due to physical limitations for roots growth, resulting in yield loss and a decrease in soil water recharge [57]. Moraes et al. [37] verified that mechanical impedance had a major effect on soybean root growth in the compacted soil, while in the loose soil (chiseling), the matric potential (water stress) represented the major soil physical limitation to root growth. This is probably what happened in our results of soybean root growth and yield.
Chiseling has the objectives to break the compacted layer temporarily, producing benefits of decreased bulk density and increased porosity, aeration, and water infiltration [58]. However, for the conditions of water deficit in the period of study, this was not a good option, especially for soybean. Almost nine months (8 December 2003 to 19 September 2004) after application of the treatments with four passes of a 10 Mg machine and chiseling and harrowing, the effect of compaction levels on soil resistance to penetration persisted and the wheat roots are concentrated until, respectively, the 0.10 m and 0.20 m soil layer. Nunes et al. [6] verified that the chiseling in Nitisol decreased soil compaction in no-tillage, but this effect last for 12 to 24 months depending on soil depth.
The sequence legume-grass (soybean-wheat) was better than grass-grass (corn-wheat) considering the yield of wheat (Table 4). Continuous soybean monocropping may reduce crop yield and degrade soil health indicators; however, in rotation with cereal crops, the yield might be recovered because their residues return more carbon and new carbon sources to the soil than soybean, improving soil carbon storage and microbial activity (via respiration activity), in a clay loam soil (mesic Typic Argiaquolls) of Ontario, Canada [59]. Santos et al. [60] also verified a smaller soybean yield in monoculture, while soybean after wheat presented a larger yield in Oxisol in Rio Grande do Sul State. In Vertisol, there was significant reduction in wheat root growth in the layer under the wheel tracks compared with those between wheel tracks, while there was no difference in wheat yield [61].
Compared to conventional tillage, the adoption of no-tillage overall leads to a yield decrease of maize, rice, and wheat, but the combination of no-tillage with crop rotation and soil cover tends to increase crop yield compared without those practices [50]. Besides, diversification in crop rotation is economically advantageous and increases crop yield [62]. Radford et al. [63] did not observe a significative effect of compaction in the yield of wheat, perhaps because soil moisture was not critical. Returning wheat straw to croplands combined with mineral fertilizers helps alleviate soil compaction and improves soil nitrogen and phosphorus availability in the plough horizon and, consequently, resulting in high wheat yields [64]. Corroborating with other studies [1,3], soil compaction resulted in income loss based on the yield decrease of summer and winter crops.
The results herein presented may help farmers to define the best tillage and crop sequence for clay soil to minimize losses of crop yield and economical returns due to soil compaction and water deficit. Furthermore, our data present the cost of soil compaction to the farmer.

5. Conclusions

Four passes of a 10 Mg machine on clayey Oxisol with six years under no-tillage (NTC) increased soil resistance to penetration until the 0.12 m depth, while chiseling and harrowing (Chisel) disrupted and disaggregated the 0–0.20 m soil layer, decreasing bulk density, microporosity, and resistance to penetration, and increasing macroporosity. The effects of additional compaction and chiseling persisted for at least almost nine months. Chiseling decreased soil load-bearing capacity and increased susceptibility to compaction, while additional compaction of no-tillage soil (NT) did not modify mechanical properties.
Highest bulk density and lowest macroporosity was observed in the 0–0.20 m soil layer in no-tillage (NTC and NT), reaching critical values (bulk density of 1.33 to 1.36 Mg m−3 and macroporosity = 0.10 m3 m−3) for plant growth, especially in NTC. Furthermore, the soil layer with greatest resistance to penetration is not uniform, allowing the root to grow up deeper at positions of smaller resistance. Soil volumetric moisture followed the sequence NTC > NT > Chisel, but this water may not be available for plants in NTC, while water deficit was important for NT, showing its ability to improve the crops development under critical conditions.
Corn yield was similar statistically among treatments, while soybean yield was larger in NT and this crop is more sensitive to soil compaction than corn. The sequence legume-grass (soybean-wheat) is better than grass-grass (corn-wheat) for wheat yield. Soil compaction (NTC) and loose soil (Chisel) cause economical losses based on yield decrease, being larger for summer soybean (USD 366.24 ha−1 for Chisel and USD 597.06 ha−1 for NTC) than winter wheat crops (USD 58.46 ha−1 for Chisel and USD 65.00 ha−1 for NTC).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.E.A.S.S., D.J.R. and J.M.R.; formal analysis, L.E.A.S.S., D.J.R., M.C.A. and J.M.R.; investigation, L.E.A.S.S. and D.J.R.; methodology, L.E.A.S.S., D.J.R., M.C.A. and J.M.R.; resources, D.J.R. and J.M.R.; writing—original draft, L.E.A.S.S. and D.J.R.; writing—review and editing, M.C.A. and J.M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

CAPES—Finance code 001, for granting the scholarship to the first author. CNPq, for granting productivity scholarships. Fapergs, for granting the scholarship to the graduation students.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

To the “Cooperativa Regional Tritícola Serrana Ltd.a-COTRIJUÍ”, city of Ijuí, Rio Grande do Sul state for the logistical support, maintenance of the experiment and for the possibility of using their area to carry out this study; Capes for granting the scholarship to the first author, CNPq for granting research fellowships, and Fapergs, for granting the scholarship to the graduation students.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Botta, G.F.; Antille, D.L.; Nardon, G.F.; Rivero, D.; Bienvenido, F.; Contessotto, E.E.; Ezquerra-Canalejo, A.; Ressia, J.M. Zero and controlled traffic improved soil physical conditions and soybean yield under no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 215, 105235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zabrodskyi, A.; Šarauskis, E.; Kukharets, S.; Juostas, A.; Vasiliauskas, G.; Andriušis, A. Analysis of the impact of soil compaction on the environment and agricultural economic losses in Lithuania and Ukraine. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Keller, T.; Sandina, M.; Colombia, T.; Horn, R.; Or, D. Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reichert, J.M.; Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Horn, R.; Håkansson, I. Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 102, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reichert, J.M.; Reinert, D.J. Degree of compactness, soil physical properties and yield of soybean in six soils under no-tillage. Soil Res. 2013, 51, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nunes, M.R.; Pauletto, E.A.; Denardin, J.E.; Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; van Es, H.M. Dynamic changes in compressive properties and crop response after chisel tillage in a highly weathered soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Produção Agrícola Municipal 2007; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2008. Available online: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rs/ijui/pesquisa/24/76693 (accessed on 28 December 2021).
  8. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Hongwen, L. Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 26–37. Available online: https://ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/view/223/114 (accessed on 28 December 2021).
  9. IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Banco de Dados de Informações Ambientais: Pedologia; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2021. Available online: https://bdiaweb.ibge.gov.br/#/consulta/pedologia (accessed on 28 December 2021).
  10. Beinroth, F.H.; Eswaran, H.; Palmieri, F.; Reich, P.F. Properties, Classification, and Management of Oxisols. The Guy D. Smith Memorial Slide Set. 1996. Available online: https://www.icgc.cat/content/download/74051/637716/version/2/file/igc_iec_llibre08_7.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2022).
  11. De Maria, I.C.; Castro, O.M.; Dias, H.S. Atributos físicos do solo e crescimento radicular de soja em Latossolo Roxo sob diferentes métodos de preparo do solo. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 1999, 23, 703–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sato, M.K.; Lima, H.V.; Oliveira, P.D.; Rodrigues, S. Critical soil bulk density for soybean growth in Oxisols. Int. Agrophys. 2015, 29, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Carneiro, K.A.A.; Oliveira, F.P.; Araujo, M.C.S.P.; Fernandes, L.F.; Abrantes, E.G.; Vendruscolo, J. Influência da compactação do solo no crescimento de milho (Zea mays L.) em Latossolo Vermelho-Amarelo. Colloq. Agrar. 2018, 14, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Alves, M.C.; Reichert, J.M. Critical limits for soybean and black bean root growth, based on macroporosity and penetrability, for soils with distinct texture and management systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Taylor, H.M.; Roberson, G.M.; Parker Junior, J.J. Soil strength-root penetration relations for medium to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Sci. 1966, 102, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Canarache, A. PENETR—A generalized semi-empirical model estimating soil resistance to penetration. Soil Tillage Res. 1990, 16, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beutler, A.N.; Centurion, J.F. Compactação do solo no desenvolvimento radicular e na produtividade da soja. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 2004, 39, 581–588. [Google Scholar]
  18. Beutler, A.N.; Centurion, J.F.; Centurion, M.A.P.C.; Silva, A.P. Efeito da compactação na produtividade de cultivares de soja em Latossolo Vermelho. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2006, 30, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Reichert, J.M.; Bervald, C.M.P.; Rodrigues, M.F.; Kato, O.R.; Reinert, D.J. Mechanized land preparation in eastern Amazon in fire-free forest-based fallow systems as alternatives to slash-and-burn practices: Hydraulic and mechanical soil properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 192, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fasinmirin, J.T.; Reichert, J.M. Conservation tillage for cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) production in the tropics. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 113, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shaheb, M.R.; Venkatesh, R.; Shearer, S.A. A review on the effect of soil compaction and its management for sustainable crop production. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 46, 417–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Santos, H.G.; Jacomine, P.K.T.; Anjos, L.H.; Oliveira, V.A.; Lumbreras, J.F.; Coelho, M.R.; Almeida, J.A.; Araujo Filho, J.C.; Oliveira, J.B.; Cunha, T.J.F. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos; Embrapa: Brasília, Brazil, 2018; Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/199517/1/SiBCS-2018-pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021)ISBN -9788570358004.
  23. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/taxonomy/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 (accessed on 8 December 2021).
  24. Climate-data.org. Clima Ijuí (Brasil). Available online: https://pt.climate-data.org/america-do-sul/brasil/rio-grande-do-sul/ijui-43847/ (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  25. Almeida, B.G.; Freitas, P.L.; Teixeira, W.G.; Viana, J.H.M.; Donagemma, G.K. Porosidade. In Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo; Teixeira, P.C., Donagemma, G.K., Fontana, A., Teixeira, W.G., Eds.; Embrapa: Brasília, Brazil, 2017; pp. 82–94. Available online: http://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1085209 (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  26. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Klute, A. Water retention: Laboratory methods. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 635–660. [Google Scholar]
  28. Holtz, R.D.; Kovacs, W.D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gee, G.W.; Or, D. Particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 5th ed.; Dane, J.H., Topp, C., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 255–293. [Google Scholar]
  30. Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reichert, J.M.; Albuquerque, J.A.; Reinert, D.J.; Kaiser, D.R. Dispersion and flocculation of Vertisols, Alfisols and Oxisols in Southern Brazil. Geoderma Reg. 2015, 5, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. National Resource Conservation Service-NRCS/United States Department of Agriculture—USDA. Soil Texture Calculator. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs142p2_054167 (accessed on 30 December 2021).
  32. Böhm, W. Methods of Studying Root Systems; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  33. Vomocil, J.A.; Flocker, W.J. Effect of soil compaction on storage and movement of soil, air and water. Trans. ASAE 1966, 4, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. CEPEA—Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Indicador da soja CEPEA/ESALQ—Paraná. 2022. Available online: https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/indicador/soja.aspx (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  35. Carvalho, I.R.; Korcelski, C.; Pelissari, G.; Hanus, A.D.; Rosa, G.M. Demanda Hídrica das Culturas de Interesse Agronômico. Enciclopédia Biosf. 2013, 9, 969–985. [Google Scholar]
  36. CEPEA—Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Preço Médio do Trigo CEPEA/ESALQ-Rio Grande do Sul. 2022. Available online: https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/indicador/trigo.aspx (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  37. Moraes, M.T.; Debiasi, H.; Franchini, J.C.; Mastroberti, A.A.; Levien, R.; Leitner, D.; Schnepf, A. Soil compaction impacts soybean root growth in an Oxisol from subtropical Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 200, 104611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Braida, J.A.; Reichert, J.M.; Reinert, D.J.; Sequinatto, L. Elasticidade do solo em função da umidade e do teor de carbono orgânico. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2008, 32, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Horn, R.; Vossbrink, J.; Becker, S. Modern forestry vehicles and their impacts on soil physical properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 79, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Reichert, J.M.; Lima, C.L.R. Estimativa da suscetibilidade à compactação e do suporte de carga do solo com base em propriedades físicas de solos do Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2008, 32, 963–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Horn, R.; Fleige, H. A method for assessing the impact offload on mechanical stability and on physical properties of soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 73, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Horn, R.; Lebert, M. Soil compactability and compressibility. In Soil Compaction in Crop Production; Soane, B.D., van Ouwerkerk, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdan, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 45–69. [Google Scholar]
  43. Powers, R.F.; Scott, D.A.; Sanchez, F.G.; Voldseth, R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Elioff, J.D.; Stonef, D.M. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 220, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Soracco, C.G.; Lozano, L.A.; Villarreal, R.; Palancar, T.C.; Collazo, D.J.; Sarli, G.O.; Filgueira, R.R. Effects of compaction due to machinery traffic on soil pore configuration. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2015, 39, 408–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Boone, F.R.; Veen, B.W. Mechanisms of crop responses to soil compaction. In Soil Compaction in Crop Production; Soane, B.D., van Ouwerkerk, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 237–264. [Google Scholar]
  46. Queiroz-Voltan, R.B.; Nogueira, S.S.S.; Miranda, M.A.C. Aspectos da estrutura da raiz e do desenvolvimento de plantas de soja em solos compactados. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 2000, 35, 929–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Unger, P.W.; Kaspar, T.C. Soil compaction and root growth: A review. Agron. J. 1994, 86, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lipiec, J.; Simota, C. Role of soil and climate factors in influencing crop responses to soil compaction in Central and Eastern Europe. In Soil Compaction in Crop Production; Soane, B.D., van Ouwerkerk, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdan, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 365–390. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bergamaschi, H.; Dalmago, G.A.; Bergonci, J.I.; Bianchi, C.A.M.; Müller, A.G.; Comiran, F.; Heckler, B.M.M. Distribuição hídrica no período crítico do milho e produção de grãos. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 2004, 39, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Su, Y.; Gabrielle, B.; Makowski, D. A global dataset for crop production under conventional tillage and no tillage systems. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Flowers, M.D.; Lal, R. Axle load and tillage effects on soil physical properties and soybean grain yield on a mollic ochraqualf in northwest Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 1998, 48, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nunes, M.R.; Denardin, J.E.; Pauletto, E.A.; Faganello, A.; Pinto, L.F.S. Mitigation of clayey soil compaction managed under no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 148, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Derpsch, R.; Sidiras, N.; Roth, C.H. Results of studies made from 1977 to 1984 to control erosion by cover crops and no-tillage techniques in Paraná, Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 1986, 8, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moraes, M.T.; Debiasi, H.; Franchini, J.C. Soybean and wheat response to cropping and tillage system after two decades in an oxisol under subtropical climate in Brazil. Rev. Sci. 2017, 18, 146–153. Available online: https://revistas.ufpr.br/agraria/article/view/51553/33602 (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  55. Awe, G.O.; Reichert, J.M.; Timm, L.C.; Wendroth, O.O. Temporal processes of soil water status in a sugarcane field under residue management. Plant Soil 2015, 387, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lipiec, J.; Tarkiewicz, S.; Kossowski, J.; Hakansson, I. Soil physical properties and growth of spring barley related to the degree of compactness of two soils. Soil Tillage Res. 1991, 19, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jamali, H.; Nachimuthu, G.; Palmer, B.; Hodgson, D.; Hundt, A.; Nunn, C.; Braunack, M. Soil compaction in a new light: Know the cost of doing nothing—A cotton case study. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 213, 105158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pedrotti, A.; Dias Junior, M.S. Compactação do solo: Como evitá-la. Agropecu. Catarin. 1996, 9, 50–52. [Google Scholar]
  59. Agomoh, I.V.; Drury, C.F.; Yang, X.; Phillips, L.A.; Reynolds, W.D. Crop rotation enhances soybean yields and soil health indicators. Soil Water Manag. Conserv. 2021, 85, 1185–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Santos, H.P.; Lhamby, J.C.B.; Lima, M.R. Efeito de métodos de preparo do solo no inverno e de rotação de culturas no rendimento de grãos de soja. Pesq. Agropecu. Gaúcha 2001, 7, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chan, K.Y.; Oates, A.; Swan, A.D.; Hayes, R.C.; Dear, B.S.; Peoples, M.B. Agronomic consequences of tractor wheel compaction on a clay soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 89, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Canalli, L.B.S.; da Costa, G.V.; Volsi, B.; Leocádio, A.L.M.; Neves, C.S.V.J.; Telles, T.S. Production and profitability of crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 2020, 41, 2541–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Radford, B.J.; Bridge, B.J.; Davis, R.J.; Mcgarry, D.; Pillai, U.P.; Rickman, J.F.; Walsh, P.A.; Yule, D.F. Changes in the properties of a Vertisol and responses of wheat after compaction with harvester traffic. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 54, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guo, Z.; Wang, D.Z. Long-term effects of returning wheat straw to croplands on soil compaction and nutrient availability under conventional tillage. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 09717 g001 550
Figure 1. Rainfall during the leading of the experiment in the experimental site.
Figure 1. Rainfall during the leading of the experiment in the experimental site.
Sustainability 14 09717 g001
Sustainability 14 09717 g002 550
Figure 2. Timeline of main activities performed in the experiment.
Figure 2. Timeline of main activities performed in the experiment.
Sustainability 14 09717 g002
Sustainability 14 09717 g003 550
Figure 3. Particle size distribution in six soil layers of clay textural class, of the studied Oxisol.
Figure 3. Particle size distribution in six soil layers of clay textural class, of the studied Oxisol.
Sustainability 14 09717 g003
Sustainability 14 09717 g004 550
Figure 4. Soil resistance to penetration before and after four passes of a 10-Mg machine. Measurements taken on 8 December 2003. Horizontal bars compare values of resistance for each depth, by the LSD test at p < 0.05. ns and *: respectively, no significative and significative by the LSD test at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Soil resistance to penetration before and after four passes of a 10-Mg machine. Measurements taken on 8 December 2003. Horizontal bars compare values of resistance for each depth, by the LSD test at p < 0.05. ns and *: respectively, no significative and significative by the LSD test at p < 0.05.
Sustainability 14 09717 g004
Sustainability 14 09717 g005 550
Figure 5. Soil resistance to penetration during soybean (a) and corn (b) crops growth, for soil under treatments NTC, NT, and Chisel. Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments). Horizontal bars compare values for each depth, by the LSD test at p < 0.05. ns and *: respectively, no significative and significative by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 5. Soil resistance to penetration during soybean (a) and corn (b) crops growth, for soil under treatments NTC, NT, and Chisel. Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments). Horizontal bars compare values for each depth, by the LSD test at p < 0.05. ns and *: respectively, no significative and significative by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g005
Sustainability 14 09717 g006 550
Figure 6. Volumetric moisture of soil at the moment of soil resistance to penetration measurement on 5 February 2004 (59 days after treatment application). NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 6. Volumetric moisture of soil at the moment of soil resistance to penetration measurement on 5 February 2004 (59 days after treatment application). NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g006
Sustainability 14 09717 g007 550
Figure 7. Bulk density in the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and six soil layers. Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments). Means followed by the same letter according to the depth do not differ statistically by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004. In parentheses, the mean value of each treatment. - - -critical value for plant growth due to aeration in clay soil [14].
Figure 7. Bulk density in the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and six soil layers. Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments). Means followed by the same letter according to the depth do not differ statistically by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004. In parentheses, the mean value of each treatment. - - -critical value for plant growth due to aeration in clay soil [14].
Sustainability 14 09717 g007
Sustainability 14 09717 g008a 550Sustainability 14 09717 g008b 550
Figure 8. Profile of soil resistance to penetration according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Measurement realized on 19 April 2004 (133 days after application of treatments). Depth of soybean pivoting root. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 8. Profile of soil resistance to penetration according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Measurement realized on 19 April 2004 (133 days after application of treatments). Depth of soybean pivoting root. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g008aSustainability 14 09717 g008b
Sustainability 14 09717 g009 550
Figure 9. Volumetric moisture of soil in the moment of the soil resistance to penetration measurement on 19 April 2004 (133 days after application of treatments). NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 9. Volumetric moisture of soil in the moment of the soil resistance to penetration measurement on 19 April 2004 (133 days after application of treatments). NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g009
Sustainability 14 09717 g010 550
Figure 10. Profile of soil resistance to penetration for the treatments NTC, NT, and Chisel, and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Measurement performed on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 10. Profile of soil resistance to penetration for the treatments NTC, NT, and Chisel, and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Measurement performed on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g010
Sustainability 14 09717 g011 550
Figure 11. Volumetric moisture of soil in the moment of the soil penetration to resistance measurement on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 11. Volumetric moisture of soil in the moment of the soil penetration to resistance measurement on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g011
Sustainability 14 09717 g012 550
Figure 12. Wheat root according to treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Mesh of 0.05 m × 0.05 m. Evaluation realized on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Figure 12. Wheat root according to treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crop sequence (soybean/corn). Mesh of 0.05 m × 0.05 m. Evaluation realized on 19 September 2004. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Sustainability 14 09717 g012
Table
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of soil samples collected at the 0.08–0.13 m layer and equilibrated at 33 kPa suction, in the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel). Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after treatment application).
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of soil samples collected at the 0.08–0.13 m layer and equilibrated at 33 kPa suction, in the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel). Measurements taken on 5 February 2004 (59 days after treatment application).
TreatmentVMSDBDfinalDefPCSCI
m3 m−3%Mg m−3cmkPa
NTC0.38 a86.08 a1.67 ab0.272 b130.4 ab0.17 b
NT0.37 a77.84 a1.65 b0.380 b167.1 a0.27 b
Chisel0.32 b58.34 b1.69 a0.703 a101.1 b0.49 a
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ statistically by the LSD test at p < 0.05. VM and SD: respectively, volumetric moisture and saturation degree at the beginning of the compression test; BDfinal and Def: respectively, bulk density and soil deformation at the end of the compression test; PCS: precompression stress; CI: compression index. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: no-tillage during six years + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: no-tillage for six years + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Table
Table 2. Porosity to the treatments (NTC, NT and Chisel) in the Oxisol. Measurements realized 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments).
Table 2. Porosity to the treatments (NTC, NT and Chisel) in the Oxisol. Measurements realized 5 February 2004 (59 days after application of treatments).
Layer (m)TreatmentsAverage
NTCNTChisel
Total porosity (m3 m−3)
0–0.050.496 B0.520 AB0.573 A0.530
0.05–0.100.466 B0.466 B0.544 A0.492
0.10–0.150.460 A0.464 A0.530 A0.484
0.15–0.200.483 A0.482 A0.505 A0.490
0.20–0.250.497 A0.494 A0.513 A0.501
0.25–0.300.510 A0.510 A0.488 A0.503
Average0.4850.4890.526
Macroporosity (m3 m−3)
0–0.050.052 B0.091 B0.219 A0.120
0.05–0.100.020 B0.038 B0.163 A0.073
0.10–0.150.017 B0.033 B0.150 A0.066
0.15–0.200.031 B0.049 AB0.093 A0.057
0.20–0.250.021 A0.061 A0.094 A0.058
0.25–0.300.043 A0.086 A0.051 A0.060
Average0.0310.0590.128
Microporosity (m3 m−3)
0–0.050.444 A0.429 A0.354 B0.409
0.05–0.100.446 A0.429 A0.381 B0.419
0.10–0.150.442 A0.431 A0.380 B0.418
0.15–0.200.453 A0.433 AB0.413 B0.433
0.20–0.250.476 A0.433 B0.419 B0.443
0.25–0.300.467 A0.424 B0.437 AB0.443
Average0.4550.4300.397
Means followed by the same letter in the line do not differ statistically by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Table
Table 3. Average height and yield of corn and soybean crops according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel).
Table 3. Average height and yield of corn and soybean crops according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel).
Summer CropTreatments
NTCNTChisel
Heights, cm
Corn125 C193 A169 B
Soybean (1st evaluation)43 B57 A52 A
Soybean (2nd evaluation)46 B59 A54 A
Yield, kg ha−1
Corn3306 A4328 A3603 A
Soybean1769 B2700 A2129 B
Average values with the same letter in the line, do not differ statistically by the LSD test at p < 0.05. NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Table
Table 4. Yield of wheat according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crops sequence (soybean and corn).
Table 4. Yield of wheat according to the treatments (NTC, NT, and Chisel) and crops sequence (soybean and corn).
Crops SequenceTreatments
NTCNTChisel
kg ha−1
Soybean238225512399
Corn228720822257
NT: no-tillage for six years; NTC: NT + four passes of a 10 Mg machine to compact the soil in the agricultural year 2003/2004; Chisel: NT + chiseling and harrowing in the agricultural year 2003/2004.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Alves, M.C.; Reichert, J.M. Medium-Term No-Tillage, Additional Compaction, and Chiseling as Affecting Clayey Subtropical Soil Physical Properties and Yield of Corn, Soybean and Wheat Crops. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159717

AMA Style

Suzuki LEAS, Reinert DJ, Alves MC, Reichert JM. Medium-Term No-Tillage, Additional Compaction, and Chiseling as Affecting Clayey Subtropical Soil Physical Properties and Yield of Corn, Soybean and Wheat Crops. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suzuki, Luis Eduardo Akiyoshi Sanches, Dalvan José Reinert, Marlene Cristina Alves, and José Miguel Reichert. 2022. "Medium-Term No-Tillage, Additional Compaction, and Chiseling as Affecting Clayey Subtropical Soil Physical Properties and Yield of Corn, Soybean and Wheat Crops" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop