Soil Compaction Mechanism and Improvement in Farmland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Matdserials
2.2. Experimental Design
2.2.1. Test Sample Preparation and Production
2.2.2. Soil Compression Experiment
2.2.3. Soil Improvement Experiment
2.3. Sample Collection and Detection
2.4. Compression Curve
3. Results
3.1. Compression Curve Results
3.2. Maximum Curvature of the Compression Curve
3.3. Pre-Consolidation Pressure Value
3.4. Analysis of Soil Improvement Effect
3.4.1. Effect of Different Improvers on Soil pH
3.4.2. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Soil Exchangeable Acids
3.4.3. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Economic Traits of Rice
3.4.4. Effect of Different Soil Amendments on Soil Compression Index
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gong, B.; Chen, B. The Regulation Analysis of Low-Carbon Orientation for China Land Use. In Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture IV; Li, D., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 602–609. [Google Scholar]
- Sierra, A.M.; Nakamaru, Y.M.; Garcia, C.M.; Garzón, F.J.M.; Peinado, F.J.M. The role of organic amendment in soils affected by re-sidual pollution of potentially harmnful elements. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, P.; Huang, Z.; Ren, Z.; Yu, J. Research and application progress of main degraded soil amendments in China. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2022, 40, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, D.; Li, L.; Li, W.; Sheng, L. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer on improving organic matter content and retarding acidity in red soil from China. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panhwar, Q.A.; Naher, U.A.; Shamshuddin, J.; Othman, R.; Ismail, M.R. Applying limestone or basalt in combination with bio-fertilizer to sustain rice production on an acid sulfate soil in Malaysia. Sustainability 2016, 8, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, M.D.D.; Swagemakers, P.; Schmid, O. The Commons Revisited: Revalorizing the Role of comuneiros in the Redesign of Urban Agro-Food and Agroforestry Systems. Urban Agric. Reg. Food Syst. 2017, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Gong, J. The empirical research on process evaluation of land intensive use in China. Econ. Geogr. 2006, 36, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, E.; Ray, S.; Kim, K.-H.; Yoon, H.-O.; Jeon, E.-C.; Kim, Y.S.; Cho, Y.-S.; Yun, S.-T.; Brown, R.J.C. Current Status of Trace Metal Pollution in Soils Affected by Industrial Activities. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 916705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jay, S.S.; Singh, D.P.; Kashyap, A.K. A comparative account of the microbial biomass-N and N-mineralization of soils under natural forest, grassland and crop field from dry tropical region, India. Plant Soil Environ. 2009, 55, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senesi, N.; Plaza, C. Organic matter actions in protecting soil from physical, chemical and biological degradation. In The Soils of Tomorrow: Soils Changing in a Changing World; Catena Verlag: Reiskirchen, Germany, 2008; pp. 285–297. [Google Scholar]
- Ketterings, Q.M.; Blair, J.M.; Marinissen, J.C.Y. Effects of earthworms on soil aggregate stability and carbon and nitrogen storage in a legume cover crop agroecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, X. Effect of antecedent moisture content on aggregate size distribution and characteristics of black soil compacted mechanically. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2009, 46, 241–247. Available online: https://trxben/article/abstract/2009460208 (accessed on 1 February 2009).
- Jang, G.; Zheng, Y.; Guanglei, W.; Liu, H.; Chi, Y.X.; Feng, S.; Yong, L.; Caihong, L.; Li, Z.; Su, B.; et al. High efficiency eco-agriculture model obtain both larger yield and economic benefit: A case study in Hongyi Organic Farm. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Coles, N.; Kong, Z.; Wu, J. Effects of aged and fresh biochars on soil acidity under different incubation conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, N. Quantifying the Effect of Soil Physical Properties on the Compressive Characteristics of Two Arable Soils Using Uniaxial Compression Tests. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 145, 216–223. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714001810 (accessed on 22 August 2022). [CrossRef]
- Osman, K.T. Soil Degradation, Conservation and Remediation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bao, S.D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Alaoui, A.H.; Woignier, T.; Scherer, G.W.; Phalippou, J. Comparison between flexural and uniaxial compression tests to measure the elastic modulus of silica aerogel. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2008, 354, 4556–4561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahin, M.A.; Cargeeg, A. Experimental Investigation into Multistage versus Conventional Triaxial Compression Tests for a C-Phi Soil. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 90–93, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, A.-M.; Cui, Y.-J.; Eslami, J.; Défossez, P. Analysing the form of the confined uniaxial compression curve of various soils. Geoderma 2009, 148, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, S.; Xue, Y.; Wu, J.; Li, Q. Modeling Visco-Elastic–Plastic Deformation of Soil with Modified Merchant Model. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 66, 1497–1504. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-011-1389-x (accessed on 22 August 2022). [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, T. Experimental and discrete element modeling study on suction stress characteristic curve and soil–water characteristic curve of unsaturated reticulated red clay. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2022, 81, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, D.K.; Kalidindi, S.R. Correlation of spherical nanoindentation stress-strain curves to simple compression stress-strain curves for elastic-plastic isotropic materials using finite element models. Acta Mater. 2016, 112, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, T. Mechanical behavior and constitutive relation of the interface between warm frozen silt and cemented soil. Transp. Geotech. 2021, 30, 100624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nye, P.H.; Ameloko, A. A Comparison of Measured and Theoretical Soil Acidity Diffusion Coefficients over a Wide Range of pH. J. Soil Sci. 1986, 37, 191–196. Available online: https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1986.tb00019.x (accessed on 22 August 2022). [CrossRef]
- Behera, S.K.; Shukla, A.K. Spatial Distribution of Surface Soil Acidity, Electrical Conductivity, Soil Organic Carbon Content and Exchangeable Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium in Some Cropped Acid Soils of India. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Validation of the Volume Change Behavior in SFG Model Using a Soil Consolidation Test and a Soil Water Characteristic Curve Experiment. Scientific.Net. Available online: https://www.scientific.net/AMR.446-449.1918 (accessed on 22 August 2022).
- Tozsin, G.; Oztas, T.; Arol, A.I.; Kalkan, E. Changes in the chemical composition of an acidic soil treated with marble quarry and marble cutting wastes. Chemosphere 2015, 138, 664–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, C.L.; Li, N.; Peng, J.; Gao, T.; Ma, L.; Han, X. Direct returning of maize straw or as biochar to the field triggers change in acidity and exchangeable capacity in soil. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2018, 24, 1205–1213. [Google Scholar]
- Naresh, R.K.; Dwivedi, A.; Gupta, R.K.; Rathore, R.S.; Dhaliwal, S.S.; Singh, S.P.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, R.; Singh, V.; Singh, V.; et al. Influence of Conservation Agriculture Practices on Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Soil and Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in the Subtropical Climatic Conditions: A Review. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 10, 1061–1080. [Google Scholar]
Test Soil | pH | Organic | Bulk Density | Mechanical Composition (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
>0.02 mm | 0.02–0.002 mm | <0.002 mm | ||||
CK | 5.71 | 13.24 | 1.36 | 64.53 | 9.81 | 25.66 |
A1 | 6.12 | 13.31 | 1.32 | 65.32 | 9.77 | 24.91 |
A2 | 6.29 | 13.26 | 1.33 | 65.56 | 9.75 | 24.69 |
A3 | 5.82 | 13.56 | 1.28 | 65.59 | 9.73 | 24.68 |
A4 | 6.50 | 13.22 | 1.25 | 65.68 | 9.66 | 24.66 |
A5 | 6.77 | 14.11 | 1.26 | 65.33 | 9.12 | 25.55 |
Numbering | Treatment | Amount (t/hm2) |
---|---|---|
CK | No modifier added | - |
A1 | adding biochar | 32 |
A2 | adding PAM | 32 |
A3 | adding CTS | 32 |
A4 | adding fly ash | 32 |
A5 | adding biochar-CTS | 32 |
Test Soil | (P1 S1) | (P2 S2) | (P3 S3) | (P4 S4) | (P5 S5) | (P6 S6) | (P7 S7) | (P8 S8) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 0.028 | 0.028 | 0.028 | 0.028 | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.022 |
A1 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.025 |
A2 | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.0219 | 0.021 | 0.0217 | 0.019 |
A3 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.048 |
A4 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.065 | 0.065 | 0.064 | 0.066 | 0.060 |
A5 | 0.073 | 0.072 | 0.072 | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.069 | 0.069 | 0.066 |
Test Soil | 10 kPa K | 50 kPa K | 80 kPa K | 100 kPa K | 150 kPa K | 200 kPa K | 300 kPa K | 400 kPa K |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 1.88 | 1.84 | 1.82 | 1.77 | 1.32 | 1.31 | 1.32 | 1.36 |
A1 | 1.77 | 1.74 | 1.72 | 1.67 | 1.32 | 1.32 | 1.33 | 1.40 |
A2 | 1.72 | 1.67 | 1.55 | 1.40 | 1.36 | 1.32 | 1.32 | 1.35 |
A3 | 1.31 | 1.31 | 1.32 | 1.31 | 1.32 | 1.31 | 1.39 | 1.51 |
A4 | 1.362 | 1.36 | 1.362 | 1.38 | 1.39 | 1.42 | 1.41 | 1.58 |
A5 | 1.39 | 1.39 | 1.40 | 1.41 | 1.44 | 1.46 | 1.48 | 1.60 |
Test Soil | 10 kPa e | 50 kPa e | 80 kPa e | 100 kPa e | 150 kPa e | 200 kPa e | 300 kPa e | 400 kPa e |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 1.20 | 1.19 | 1.18 | 1.16 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.68 |
A1 | 1.16 | 1.15 | 1.14 | 1.12 | 0.76 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.64 |
A2 | 1.14 | 1.12 | 1.06 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.69 |
A3 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 0.56 |
A4 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.52 |
A5 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.51 |
Test Soil | 10 kPa | 50 kPa | 80 kPa | 100 kPa | 150 kPa | 200 kPa | 300 kPa | 400 kPa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 158.00 | 156.68 | 155.37 | 152.73 | 105.33 | 102.70 | 100.06 | 89.53 |
A1 | 152.73 | 151.42 | 150.10 | 147.47 | 100.06 | 97.43 | 94.80 | 84.26. |
A2 | 150.10 | 147.47 | 139.57 | 126.40 | 119.81 | 111.91 | 98.75 | 90.85 |
A3 | 104.01 | 102.70 | 101.38 | 101.38 | 100.06 | 100.06 | 85.58 | 73.73 |
A4 | 89.53 | 89.53 | 89.53 | 86.90 | 85.58 | 81.63 | 82.95 | 68.46 |
A5 | 85.58 | 85.58 | 84.26 | 82.95 | 80.31 | 77.68 | 76.36 | 67.15 |
Processing Number | Exchangeable Al3+ | Exchangeable Acid | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
April 2018 | October 2018 | April 2018 | October 2018 | |
CK | 3.15 | 2.21 | 2.31 | 1.54 |
A1 | 2.81 | 1.93 | 2.10 | 1.32 |
A2 | 2.89 | 1.91 | 2.18 | 1.42 |
A3 | 2.20 | 1.92 | 1.71 | 1.55 |
A4 | 1.38 | 1.09 | 0.97 | 0.56 |
A5 | 1.31 | 1.05 | 0.89 | 0.43 |
Treatment | Effective Panicle (10 × 104/hm2) | Height (cm) | Base Stem Width (cm) | Thousand Seed Weight (g) | Theoretical Yield (Kg/hm2) | Actual Output (Kg/hm2) | Yield (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 17.13 ± 2.09 a | 19.27 ± 2.57 a | 2.15 ± 2.57 a | 24.89 ± 0.03 a | 12,279 ± 0.15 a | 11,051 ± 0.34 a | 7.59 ± 0.09 a |
A2 | 16.72 ± 2.09 a | 19.66 ± 2.57 a | 1.91 ± 2.57 a | 23.89 ± 0.03 a | 11,503 ± 0.15 a | 10,353 ± 0.34 a | 0.8 ± 0.09 a |
A3 | 17.11 ± 2.09 b | 20.97 ± 2.57 b | 2.12 ± 2.57 b | 24.01 ± 0.03 b | 11,831 ± 0.15 b | 10,648 ± 0.34 b | 3.6 ± 0.09 b |
A4 | 16.99 ± 2.09 b | 19.03 ± 2.57 b | 2.05 ± 2.57 b | 23.93 ± 0.03 b | 11,709 ± 0.15 b | 10,538 ± 0.34 b | 2.59 ± 0.09 b |
A5 | 17.26 ± 2.09 a | 21.15 ± 2.57 a | 2.20 ± 2.57 a | 25.87 ± 0.03 a | 12,859 ± 0.15 a | 11,573 ± 0.34 a | 12.6 ± 0.09 a |
CK | 16.05 ± 4.41 a | 18.61 ± 2.65 a | 1.91 ± 2.57 a | 3.80 ± 0.03 a | 11,412 ± 0.59 a | 10,271 ± 0.23 a | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fang, J.; Zeng, D.; Tian, X.; Duwal, K.B. Soil Compaction Mechanism and Improvement in Farmland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6801. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086801
Fang J, Zeng D, Tian X, Duwal KB. Soil Compaction Mechanism and Improvement in Farmland. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6801. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086801
Chicago/Turabian StyleFang, Jinfu, Defang Zeng, Xu Tian, and Krishna Bhakta Duwal. 2023. "Soil Compaction Mechanism and Improvement in Farmland" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6801. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086801