Estimating Soil Penetration Resistance of Paddy Soils in the Plastic State Using Physical Properties
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Preparation
2.1.1. Sample Collection
2.1.2. Central Composition Rotatable Design
2.1.3. Soil Sample Preparation
2.2. Soil Penetration Resistance Tests in the Laboratory
- Step 1.
- The measuring rod was raised until the zero mark of the screw rod was horizontal with the top of the recording disk;
- Step 2.
- The soil penetrometer was placed vertically in the container, and the handle was fixed with one hand while the manual handle was slowly rotated with the other hand at a constant speed to start the measurement;
- Step 3.
- The measuring rod was pressed down and the cone probe was wedged into the soil driven by the bevel gear; then, the internal spring was pressed and deformed with data recordings on the paper tape. The ratio between the real soil penetration depth and the value on the recording tape was 2:1;
- Step 4.
- When the screw on the screw rod collided with the recording disk, the recording pen (separated from the recording paper) was lowered down and the soil penetrometer was pulled out, after which one measurement was completed. Every soil sample was evenly distributed into three subsamples; thus, the measurement was repeated three times for every soil sample.
- Step 5.
- Repeat steps 1 to 4 for all the 20 subsamples. After the measurement, the soil samples were immediately taken in soil cores and stored in sealed bags for initial water content and density measurements.
2.3. Data Processing and Analysis
2.3.1. Model Establishment
2.3.2. Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
2.4. Computation of the SPR
2.5. Verification for Model Accuracy
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Experimental Results
3.2. Impact of Single Factors on SPR
3.3. Analysis of Interactive Factors
3.4. Model Validation
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Lima, R.P.; da Silva, A.P.; Giarola, N.F.B.; da Silva, A.R.; Rolim, M.M. Changes in soil compaction indicators in response to agricultural field traffic. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 162, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Cavallo, E.; Capello, G.; Biddoccu, M. Reducing soil compaction after thinning work in agroforestry plantations. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 1765–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ampoorter, E.; Van Nevel, L.; De Vos, B.; Hermy, M.; Verheyen, K. Assessing the effects of initial soil characteristics, machine mass and traffic intensity on forest soil compaction. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 1664–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lebert, M.; Böken, H.; Glante, F. Soil compaction—Indicators for the assessment of harmful changes to the soil in the context of the german federal soil protection act. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 82, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carrara, M.; Castrignanò, A.; Comparetti, A.; Febo, P.; Orlando, S. Mapping of penetrometer resistance in relation to tractor traffic using multivariate geostatistics. Geoderma 2007, 142, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colombi, T.; Torres, L.C.; Walter, A.; Keller, T. Feedbacks between soil penetration resistance, root architecture and water uptake limit water accessibility and crop growth—A vicious circle. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 1026–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otto, R.; Da Silva, A.; Franco, H.C.J.; Oliveira, E.; Trivelin, P. High soil penetration resistance reduces sugarcane root system development. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bécel, C.; Vercambre, G.; Pagès, L. Soil penetration resistance, a suitable soil property to account for variations in root elongation and branching. Plant Soil 2012, 353, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, R.; Hartzell, S.; Ferraz, A.P.F.; Almeida, A.; Lima, J.R.D.S.; Antonino, A.C.D.; De Souza, E.S. Dynamics of soil penetration resistance in water-controlled environments. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 205, 104768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martino, D.L.; Shaykewich, C.F. Root penetration profiles of wheat and barley as affected by soil penetration resistance in field conditions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1994, 74, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, M.; Tabatabaekoloor, R.; Mousavi Seyedi, S.R.; Aghili Nategh, N. Effects of puddling intensity on the in-situ engineering properties of paddy field soil. Aust. J. Agric. Eng. 2012, 3, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Mohanty, M.; Painuli, D.; Mandal, K. Effect of puddling intensity on temporal variation in soil physical conditions and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in a Vertisol of central India. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 76, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaz, C.M.; Bassoi, L.H.; Hopmans, J.W. Contribution of water content and bulk density to field soil penetration resistance as measured by a combined cone penetrometer—TDR probe. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 60, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tarkiewicz, S.; Nosalewicz, A. Effect of organic carbon content on the compactibility and penetration resistance of two soils formed from loess. Int. Agrophys. 2005, 19, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bayat, H.; Zadeh, G.E. Estimation of the soil water retention curve using penetration resistance curve models. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 144, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vepraskas, M.J. Bulk density values diagnostic of restricted root growth in coarse textured soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 1117–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dexter, A.; Czyż, E.; Gaţe, O. A method for prediction of soil penetration resistance. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, S.; Teng, X.; Zhang, B. Effects of rice straw incorporation and tillage depth on soil puddlability and mechanical properties during rice growth period. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whalley, W.; To, J.; Kay, B.; Whitmore, A. Prediction of the penetrometer resistance of soils with models with few parameters. Geoderma 2007, 137, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mambani, B.; De Datta, S.; Redulla, C. Land preparation requirements for rainfed rice as affected by climatic water balance and tillage properties of lowland soils. Soil Tillage Res. 1989, 14, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Scherer, T.F.; DeSutter, T.M.; Steele, D.D. Change of soil hardness and soil properties due to tile drainage in the Red River Valley of the North. In ASABE 2008 Annual International Meeting, Proceedings of the Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 29 June–2 July 2008; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2008; p. 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, C.; You, Y.; Wang, D.; Wang, G.; Lu, D.; Kaji, J.M.T. The effect of tine geometry during vertical movement on soil penetration resistance using finite element analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 130, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roscoe, K.H. The Influence of Strains in Soil Mechanics. Geotechnique 1970, 20, 129–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakobsen, B.F.; Dexter, A.R. Prediction of soil compaction under pneumatic tyres. J. Terramechanics 1989, 26, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansorge, D.; Godwin, R.J. The Effect of Tyres and a Rubber Track at High Axle Loads on Soil Compaction, Part 3: Prediction of Soil Compaction. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 104, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, M.M.H.; Coelho, A.P.; Da Silva, M.F.; Bertonha, R.S.; de Queiroz, R.F.; Furlani, C.E.A.; Fernandes, C. Estimation of soil penetration resistance with standardized moisture using modeling by artificial neural networks. Catena 2020, 189, 104505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upadhyaya, S.K.; Kemble, L.J.; Collins, N.E. Cone index prediction equations for Delaware soils. Trans. ASAE 1982, 82, 1452–1456. [Google Scholar]
- Canarache, A. PENETR—A generalized semi-empirical model estimating soil resistance to penetration. Soil Tillage Res. 1990, 16, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To, J.; Kay, B. Variation in penetrometer resistance with soil properties: The contribution of effective stress and implications for pedotransfer functions. Geoderma 2005, 126, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Gao, W.; Ren, T.; Whalley, W. A novel approach to estimate soil penetrometer resistance from water content, bulk density, and shear wave velocity: A laboratory study on a loamy sand soil. Geoderma 2020, 368, 114276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Whalley, W.R.; Tian, Z.; Liu, J.; Ren, T. A simple model to predict soil penetrometer resistance as a function of density, drying and depth in the field. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rui, W.; Zhang, W. Effect size and duration of recommended management practices on carbon sequestration in paddy field in Yangtze Delta Plain of China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 135, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM Standard D2487: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- American Society for Testing Materials International. Designation D 4318: Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Box, G.E.P.; Hunter, J.S. Multi-Factor Experimental Designs for Exploring Response Surfaces. Ann. Math. Stat. 1957, 28, 195–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.L.; Ismail, S.; Bhatia, S. Optimization of coagulation−flocculation process for palm oil mill effluent using response surface methodology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 2828–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ayers, P.D.; Perumpral, J.V. Moisture and Density Effect on Cone Index. Trans. ASAE 1982, 25, 1169–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbanna, E.; Witney, B. Cone penetration resistance equation as a function of the clay ratio, soil moisture content and specific weight. J. Terramechanics 1987, 24, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hummel, J.W.; Ahmad, I.S.; Newman, S.C.; Sudduth, K.; Drummond, S.T. Simultaneous soil moisture and cone index measurement. Trans. ASAE 2004, 47, 607–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, C.; Johnston, M.; Lorentz, S. The effect of soil compaction and soil physical properties on the mechanical resistance of South African forestry soils. Geoderma 1997, 78, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengough, A.G.; Campbell, D.J.; Sullivan, M.F.O. Penetrometer techniques in relation to soil compaction and root growth. Soil Environ. Anal. Phys. Methods 2000, 2, 377–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | Soil Texture | Plastic Limit (%) | Liquid Limit (%) | Plasticity Index (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27.9 | 49.8 | 22.3 | Loam | 24.0 | 51.8 | 27.8 |
2 | 11.3 | 62.6 | 26.1 | Silty clay loam | 23.5 | 49.0 | 25.5 |
3 | 5.5 | 63.7 | 30.8 | Silty clay loam | 23.5 | 49.0 | 25.5 |
4 | 4.0 | 60.0 | 36.0 | Silty loam | 31.5 | 52.5 | 21.0 |
5 | 2.5 | 56.9 | 40.6 | Silty clay | 22.0 | 49.5 | 27.5 |
Code | X1 (%) | X2 (%) | X3 (g·cm−3) |
---|---|---|---|
−1.682 | 22.3 | 30 | 1.8 |
−1 | 26.1 | 34 | 2.0 |
0 | 30.8 | 40 | 2.3 |
1 | 36.0 | 46 | 2.6 |
1.682 | 40.6 | 50 | 2.8 |
Run No. | Y/kPa | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 35.4 |
2 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 72.0 |
3 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 21.3 |
4 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 51.9 |
5 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 45.3 |
6 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 78.1 |
7 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 44.6 |
8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 60.4 |
9 | −1.682 | 0 | 0 | 44.3 |
10 | 1.682 | 0 | 0 | 58.6 |
11 | 0 | −1.682 | 0 | 40.1 |
12 | 0 | 1.682 | 0 | 34.2 |
13 | 0 | 0 | −1.682 | 26.3 |
14 | 0 | 0 | 1.682 | 74.1 |
15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48.3 |
16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50.9 |
17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49.2 |
18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51.3 |
19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49.2 |
20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48.3 |
Coefficient | Value | P | F |
---|---|---|---|
49.37 | <0.0001 | 22.41 | |
5.26 | 0.0013 | 19.67 | |
−4.58 | 0.0032 | 14.90 | |
14.37 | <0.0001 | 146.7 | |
1.98 | 0.2313 | 1.62 | |
−2.32 | 0.1644 | 2.25 | |
−2.87 | 0.0932 | 3.44 | |
1.74 | 0.1617 | 2.28 | |
−3.31 | 0.0167 | 8.22 | |
1.30 | 0.2855 | 1.27 | |
P1 | <0.0001 | ||
P2 | 0.08 | ||
RMSD (kPa) | 4.9 | ||
R2 | 0.95 |
Location | Clay (%) | Water (%) | Density (g cm−3) | SPR (kPa) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measured | Estimated | PBIAS | ||||
Hangzhou | 22 | 22.2 | 1.8 | 18.6 ± 1.2 | 16.8 | 9.7% |
Wuhu | 26 | 36.7 | 2.2 | 38.6 ± 1.7 | 34.4 | 8.5% |
Jiaxing | 31 | 50.4 | 2.0 | 15.0 ± 0.8 | 23.1 | 9.4% |
Huzhou | 36 | 40.1 | 1.9 | 40.6 ± 1.2 | 36.7 | 9.6% |
Yixing | 40 | 38.5 | 2.1 | 53.1 ± 1.0 | 51.1 | 3.8% |
Huzhou | 35 | 22.4 | 2.4 | 66.3 ± 1.8 | 62.7 | 5.4% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jiang, Q.; Cao, M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J. Estimating Soil Penetration Resistance of Paddy Soils in the Plastic State Using Physical Properties. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1914. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121914
Jiang Q, Cao M, Wang Y, Wang J. Estimating Soil Penetration Resistance of Paddy Soils in the Plastic State Using Physical Properties. Agronomy. 2020; 10(12):1914. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121914
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Qianjing, Ming Cao, Yongwei Wang, and Jun Wang. 2020. "Estimating Soil Penetration Resistance of Paddy Soils in the Plastic State Using Physical Properties" Agronomy 10, no. 12: 1914. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121914