Analysis of Long-Term Effect of Tillage Systems and Pre-Crop on Physicochemical Properties and Chemical Composition of Soil
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Conditions of the Conducted Experiment
2.2. Chemical Analyses
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Significance of Source of Variability and V% for Estimated Soil Traits
3.2. Physicochemical Properties of Soil
3.3. Macro-Nutrients Contents in Soil
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jaskulski, D.; Jaskulska, I. Contemporary Methods and Systems of Farming in Agricultural Theory and Practice; Centrum Doradztwa Rolniczego W Brwinowie Oddział W Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2018; pp. 1–28. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Wagena, M.B.; Easton, Z.M. Agricultural conservation practices can help mitigate the impact of climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kraska, P. The content of some micronutrients in rendzina soil cultivated using different tillage systems and catch crops. Pol. J. Agron. 2011, 4, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
- Gaj, R.; Budka, A.; Niewiadomska, A.; Przybył, J.; Mioduszewska, N. Effect of different tillage methods on the nutritional status, yield and quality of sugar beets. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaskulski, D.; Jaskulska, I.; Janiak, A.; Boczkowski, T. Changes in some soil properties under the effect of diversified tillage for maize depending on the forecrop. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2015, 14, 61–71. [Google Scholar]
- Peigné, J.; Casagrande, M.; Payet, V.; David, C.; Sans, F.X.; Blanco-Moreno, J.M.; Cooper, J.; Gascoyne, K.; Antichi, D.; Bàrberi, P.; et al. How organic farmers practice conservation agriculture in Europe. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2016, 31, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, N.L.; Miller, P.C.H.; Orson, J.H.; Froud-Williams, R.J. The adoption of non-inversion tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and the environment—A review. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 108, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rühlemann, L.; Schmidtke, K. Evaluation of monocropped and intercropped grain legumes for cover cropping in no-tillage and reduced tillage organic agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 65, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Biczkowski, M. Importance and determinants of innovation in agriculture in Poland. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2013, 15, 124–131. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Kocira, S.; Lorencowicz, E.; Kocira, A.; Koszel, M. Value of agricultural land on farms with different agricultural production systems. In Farm Sustainable Agriculture—Poland and Portugal; Lorencowicz, E., Baptista, F., Silva, L.L., Marques da Silva, J.R., Eds.; University of Évora: Évora, Portugal, 2014; pp. 111–120. [Google Scholar]
- Żyłowski, T. The environmental and economical efficiency of conservation farming. Studia Rap. IUNG-PIB 2017, 52, 119–138. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Paas, W.; Accatino, F.; Bijttebier, J.; Black, E.J.; Gavrilescu, C.; Krupin, V.; Manevska-Tasevska, G.; Ollendorf, F.; Peneva, M.; San Martin, C.; et al. Particip atory assessment of critical thresholds for resilient and sustainable European farming systems. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 88, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mapy Klimatu Polski. Available online: https://klimat.imgw.pl/pl/climate-maps/#Precipitation/Yearly/1991-2020/1/Winter (accessed on 2 August 2022).
- Micheli, E.; Schád, P.; Spaargaren, O.; Dent, D.; Nachtergaele, F. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006: A Framework for International Classification, Correlation and Communication; World Soil Resources Reports 103; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 10381-2:2007; Soil Quality—Sampling—Part 2: Guidance on Sampling Techniques. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
- ISO 10390: 2021; Soil, Treated Biowaste and Sludge—Determination of pH. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
- ISO 11265:1994/Cor 1:1996; Soil Quality—Determination of the Specific Electrical Conductivity. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
- DIN-R-04027:1997; Agrochemical Soil Analysis—Determination of Hydrolytic Acidity in Mineral Soils. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warszawa, Poland, 2013.
- Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (IUNG). Laboratory Test Methods at Chemical and Agricultural Stations: Part I: Research of Soils; IUNG: Puławy, Poland, 1980; pp. 29–32, 35, 50, 59, 66, 71. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- DIN-R-04020:1994+Az1:2004; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil—Determination of Available Magnesium Content. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warszawa, Poland, 2020.
- Egner, H.; Riehm, H.; Domingo, W.R. Studies on chemical soil analysis as the basis for assessing the nutrient status of the soil. II. Chemical extraction methods for the determination of phosphorus and potassium. K. Lantbr. Ann. 1960, 26, 199–215. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Hill, T.; Lewicki, P. Statistics: Methods and Applications: A Comprehensive Reference for Science, Industry, and Data Mining; StatSoft, Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2006; p. 832. [Google Scholar]
- Mocarski, N.; Gibczyńska, M. Comparision in three cultivation systems of soil acidity analysed in KCl, CaCl2 and H2O extracts. Folia Univ. Agric. Stetin. Agric. 2004, 234, 261–266. [Google Scholar]
- Małecka, I.; Swędrzyńska, D.; Blecharczyk, A.; Dytman-Hagedorn, M. Impact of tillage systems for pea production on physical, chemical and microbiological soil properties. Fragm. Agron. 2012, 29, 106–116. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Rajewski, J.; Zimny, L.; Kuc, P. The effect of varying variants of sugar beet conservation tillage on chemical soil properties. Fragm. Agron. 2012, 29, 98–104. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Smagacz, J.; Kuś, J. Influence of cereal crop rotation on yielding of cereals and selected chemical soil properties. Fragm. Agron. 2010, 27, 119–134. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Czuba, R. Monitoring of the Chemistry of Arable Soils in Poland in 2010–2012, Inspection of Environmental Protection; Environmental Monitoring Library: Warsaw, Poland, 2012. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Palm, C.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; DeClerck, F.; Gatere, L.; Grace, P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naeem, M.; Mehboob, N.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S.; Hussain, S.; Ali, H.M.; Hussain, M. Impact of Different Barley-Based Cropping Systems on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Barley Growth under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woźniak, A.; Rachoń, L. Effect of Tillage Systems on the Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat Grain and Soil Properties. Agriculture 2020, 10, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, F.G.; Sorensenb, B.A.; Villamil, M.B. A comparison of soil properties after five years of no-till and strip-till. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 1339–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özpinar, S.; Çay, A. Effects of minimum and conventional tillage systems on soil properties and yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in clay-loam in the Çanakkale Region. Turk. J Agric. For. 2005, 29, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Z.; Wang, E.; Sun, O.J. Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powlson, D.S.; Stirling, C.M.; Jat, M.L.; Gerard, B.G.; Palm, C.A.; Sanchez, P.A.; Cassman, K.G. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 678–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotwica, K.; Breza-Boruta, B.; Bauza-Kaszewska, J.; Kanarek, P.; Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D. The cumulative effect of various tillage systems and stubble management on the biological and chemical properties of soil in winter wheat monoculture. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobierski, M.; Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D.; Dębska, B. Effect of a tillage system on the chemical properties of sandy loam soils. J. Elem. 2020, 25, 1463–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonteyne, S.; Burgueño, J.; Albarrán Contreras, B.A.; Andorio Enríquez, E.; Castillo Villaseñor, L.C.; Enyanche Velázquez, F.; Escobedo Cruz, H.; Espidio Balbuena, J.; Espinosa Solorio, A.; Garcia Meza, P.; et al. Effects of conservation agriculture on physicochemical soil health in 20 maize-based trials in different agro-ecological regions across Mexico. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 2242–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Małecka, I.; Blecharczyk, A.; Dobrzeniecki, T. Changes in soil physical and chemical properties caused by reduced tillage. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 24, 182–189. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Medvedeva, A.M.; Biryukova, O.A.; Kucherenko, A.V.; Ilchenko, Y.I.; Minkina, T.M.; Saglara, S.; Mandzhieva, S.S.; Mazarji, M. The effect of resource-saving tillage technologies on the mobility, distribution and migration of trace elements in soil. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaushik, U.; Raj, D.; Rani, P.; Anti, R.S. Impact of zero tillage on available nutrients status on pearlmillet wheat cropping system. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2018, 6, 2997–3000. [Google Scholar]
Trait | Layer m | Source of Variability | V% | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-Crop (F) | Tillage System (T) | Interaction FxT | |||
pHKCl | 0–0.05 | *** 1) | *** | ns 2) | 3.72 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | Ns | ns | 8.13 | |
Exchangeable aluminium | 0–0.05 | ns | *** | ns | 3.72 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | *** | ns | 9.65 | |
Hydrolytic acidity Hh | 0–0.05 | ns | *** | ns | 6.67 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | * | ns | 11.67 | |
Exchangeable acidity Hw | 0–0.05 | ** | ** | ns | 12.31 |
0.05–0.20 | ** | * | ns | 12.80 | |
Sum of base cations TEB | 0–0.05 | ns | Ns | ns | 11.23 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | Ns | ns | 14.63 | |
Cation exchange capacity CEC | 0–0.05 | *** | Ns | ** | 6.56 |
0.05–0.20 | ** | Ns | ns | 11.03 | |
Base saturation V | 0–0.05 | * | * | ns | 17.34 |
0.05–0.20 | * | * | ns | 18.00 | |
Electrical conductivity EC | 0–0.05 | ns | Ns | ns | 9.21 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | Ns | ns | 11.6 | |
Total nitrogen | 0–0.05 | *** | *** | ns | 5.36 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | ** | ns | 4.39 | |
Total carbon | 0–0.05 | *** | *** | * | 6.77 |
0.05–0.20 | ** | ** | ns | 7.82 | |
Total sulphur | 0–0.05 | ns | Ns | ns | 5.88 |
0.05–0.20 | ** | Ns | ns | 4.32 | |
C/N | 0–0.05 | * | * | ns | 2.41 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | ns | ns | 3.10 | |
Available magnesium | 0–0.05 | ** | * | ns | 12.63 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | ns | ns | 7.80 | |
Available potassium | 0–0.05 | ns | *** | ns | 12.43 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | *** | ns | 11.66 | |
Iron | 0–0.05 | *** | ns | ns | 5.72 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | ns | ns | 4.10 | |
Manganese | 0–0.05 | *** | ns | ns | 7.68 |
0.05–0.20 | *** | ns | ns | 8.45 | |
Copper | 0–0.05 | *** | ns | ns | 11.07 |
0.05–0.20 | * | ns | ns | 12.83 | |
Zinc | 0–0.05 | ns | ns | ns | 9.13 |
0.05–0.20 | ns | ns | ns | 6.72 |
Trait | Unit | Factor | Variant | Layer | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0–0.05 m | 0.05–0.20 m | ||||
pHKCl | - | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 4.37 a ± 0.064 | 4.75 a ± 0.169 |
Faba bean | 3.92 b ± 0.105 | 4.82 a ± 0.065 | |||
Tillage system | A | 4.50 a ± 0.069 | 5.01 a ± 0.125 | ||
B | 3.97 b ± 0.112 | 4.78 a ± 0.177 | |||
C | 3.98 b ± 0.116 | 4.57 a ± 0.133 | |||
Exchangeable aluminium | cmol kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 0.22 a ± 0.036 | 0.12 a ± 0.017 |
Faba bean | 0.26 a ± 0.029 | 0.15 a ± 0.043 | |||
Tillage system | A | 0.12 b ± 0.022 | 0.10 b ± 0.046 | ||
B | 0.37 a ± 0.028 | 0.15 a ± 0.043 | |||
C | 0.27 a ± 0.026 | 0.14 a ± 0.057 | |||
Hydrolytic acidity Hh | cmol kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 3.96 a ± 0.110 | 4.69 b ± 0.175 |
Faba bean | 3.82 a ± 0.206 | 5.54 a ± 0.156 | |||
Tillage system | A | 3.23 b ± 0.164 | 4.73 b ± 0.280 | ||
B | 4.20 a ± 0.080 | 5.15 ab ± 0.236 | |||
C | 4.24 a ± 0.074 | 5.47 a ± 0.185 | |||
Exchangeable acidity Hw | cmol kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 0.06 a ± 0.005 | 0.05 a ± 0.006 |
Faba bean | 0.04 b ± 0.005 | 0.03 b ± 0.004 | |||
Tillage system | A | 0.03 b ± 0.004 | 0.03 b ± 0.005 | ||
B | 0.06 a ± 0.007 | 0.03 a ± 0.006 | |||
C | 0.05 a ± 0.003 | 0.05 a ± 0.008 | |||
Sum of base cations TEB | cmol kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 2.24 a ± 0.184 | 3.30 a ± 0.636 |
Faba bean | 2.28 a ± 0.290 | 3.26 a ± 0.317 | |||
Tillage system | A | 2.75 a ± 0.236 | 3.80 a ± 0.378 | ||
B | 1.99 b ± 0.292 | 3.48 a ± 0.881 | |||
C | 2.04 b ± 0.295 | 2.56 a ± 0.391 | |||
Cation exchange capacity CEC | cmol kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 6.20 a ± 0.125 | 6.40 a ± 0.212 |
Faba bean | 4.06 b ± 0.113 | 5.30 b ± 0.112 | |||
Tillage system | A | 5.08 a ± 0.538 | 5.85 a ± 0.333 | ||
B | 5.04 a ± 0.341 | 5.76 a ± 0.243 | |||
C | 5.27 a ± 0.379 | 5.94 a ± 0.306 | |||
Base saturation V | % | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 35.7 b ± 2.42 | 44.6 b ± 5.13 |
Faba bean | 56.2 a ± 7.93 | 61.6 a ± 6.13 | |||
Tillage system | A | 57.6 a ± 7.79 | 65.6 a ± 6.60 | ||
B | 39.6 b ± 7.87 | 50.8 b ± 7.97 | |||
C | 40.6 b ± 7.41 | 43.0 b ± 6.05 | |||
Electrical conductivity EC | μS cm−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 46.9 a ± 2.70 | 91.3 a ± 7.27 |
Faba bean | 40.9 b ± 1.27 | 53.6 b ± 1.01 | |||
Tillage system | A | 40.4 b ± 2.05 | 72.1 a ± 8.58 | ||
B | 46.6 a ± 3.88 | 78.0 a ± 10.56 | |||
C | 44.7 a ± 1.68 | 67.3 a ± 9.27 |
Trait | Unit | Factor | Variant | Layer | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0–0.05 m | 0.05–0.20 m | ||||
Total nitrogen | % | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 0.062 b ± 0.0013 | 0.063 a ± 0.0018 |
Faba bean | 0.072 a ± 0.0023 | 0.066 a ± 0.0013 | |||
Tillage system | A | 0.061 c ± 0.0013 | 0.059 b ± 0.0010 | ||
B | 0.067 b ± 0.0025 | 0.066 a ± 0.0015 | |||
C | 0.073 a ± 0.0026 | 0.068 a ± 0.0016 | |||
Total carbon | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 0.58 b ± 0.014 | 0.58 b ± 0.021 | |
Faba bean | 0.70 a ± 0.030 | 0.64 a ± 0.013 | |||
Tillage system | A | 0.56 c ± 0.011 | 0.55 b ± 0.017 | ||
B | 0.64 b ± 0.030 | 0.62 a ± 0.019 | |||
C | 0.72 a ± 0.035 | 0.65 a ± 0.022 | |||
Total sulphur | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 0.005 a ± 0.0008 | 0.006 a ± 0.0006 | |
Faba bean | 0.004 a ± 0.0006 | 0.003 b ± 0.0005 | |||
Tillage system | A | 0.003 a ± 0.0010 | 0.004 a ± 0.0008 | ||
B | 0.005 a ± 0.0009 | 0.004 a ± 0.0004 | |||
C | 0.005 a ± 0.0005 | 0.005 a ± 0.0011 | |||
C/N | - | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 9.36 b ± 0.066 | 9.11 b ± 0.099 |
Faba bean | 9.68 ba ± 0.128 | 9.69 a ± 0.050 | |||
Tillage system | A | 9.30 a ± 0.082 | 9.32 a ± 0.151 | ||
B | 9.53 ab ± 0.135 | 9.44 a ± 0.145 | |||
C | 9.73 b ± 0.147 | 9.45 a ± 0.137 | |||
Available magnesium | mg kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 110.1 a ± 12.58 | 81.5 a ± 1.73 |
Faba bean | 68.4 b ± 11.84 | 83.6 a ± 1.72 | |||
Tillage system | A | 77.9 b ± 5.68 | 82.8 a ± 2.35 | ||
B | 88.4 ab ± 14.56 | 81.0 a ± 1.45 | |||
C | 101.5 a ± 16.82 | 83.8 a ± 2.51 | |||
Available potassium | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 109.5 a ± 6.34 | 89.2 b ± 7.46 | |
Faba bean | 112.5 a ± 5.36 | 118.3 a ± 3.42 | |||
Tillage system | A | 90.7 b ± 5.90 | 84.1 b ± 10.01 | ||
B | 119.0 a ± 4.85 | 111.3 a ± 5.34 | |||
C | 123.3 a ± 3.95 | 115.8 a ± 6.02 |
Trait | Unit | Factor | Variant | Layer | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0–0.05 m | 0.05–0.20 m | ||||
Iron | mg kg−1 | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 469 b ± 10.7 | 469 b ± 8.2 |
Faba bean | 766 a ± 8.8 | 792 a ± 7.4 | |||
Tillage system | A | 631 a ± 55.4 | 647 a ± 58.0 | ||
B | 606 a ± 60.4 | 623 a ± 59.9 | |||
C | 614 a ± 56.2 | 621 a ± 66.8 | |||
Manganese | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 80.5 b ± 2.69 | 85.2 b ± 3.70 | |
Faba bean | 143.8 a ± 2.73 | 147.7 a ± 2.16 | |||
Tillage system | A | 117.8 a ± 12.45 | 115.6 a ± 10.62 | ||
B | 109.2 a ± 11.79 | 111.7 a ± 14.00 | |||
C | 109.4 a ± 12.84 | 122.0 a ± 12.07 | |||
Copper | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 1.37 a ± 0.033 | 1.48 a ± 0.037 | |
Faba bean | 1.08 b ± 0.057 | 1.28 b ± 0.080 | |||
Tillage system | A | 1.26 a ± 0.092 | 1.44 a ± 0.076 | ||
B | 1.23 a ± 0.058 | 1.38 a ± 0.097 | |||
C | 1.18 a ± 0.084 | 1.33 a ± 0.080 | |||
Zinc | Pre-crop | Sugar-beet | 5.16 a ± 0.152 | 5.46 a ± 0.126 | |
Faba bean | 5.10 a ± 0.123 | 5.51 a ± 0.080 | |||
Tillage system | A | 5.32 a ± 0.190 | 5.37 a ± 0.102 | ||
B | 5.05 a ± 0.074 | 5.77 a ± 0.114 | |||
C | 5.02 a ± 0.204 | 5.31 a ± 0.105 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Stankowski, S.; Jaroszewska, A.; Osińska, B.; Tomaszewicz, T.; Gibczyńska, M. Analysis of Long-Term Effect of Tillage Systems and Pre-Crop on Physicochemical Properties and Chemical Composition of Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092072
Stankowski S, Jaroszewska A, Osińska B, Tomaszewicz T, Gibczyńska M. Analysis of Long-Term Effect of Tillage Systems and Pre-Crop on Physicochemical Properties and Chemical Composition of Soil. Agronomy. 2022; 12(9):2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092072
Chicago/Turabian StyleStankowski, Sławomir, Anna Jaroszewska, Beata Osińska, Tomasz Tomaszewicz, and Marzena Gibczyńska. 2022. "Analysis of Long-Term Effect of Tillage Systems and Pre-Crop on Physicochemical Properties and Chemical Composition of Soil" Agronomy 12, no. 9: 2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092072