Next Article in Journal
Aligning Public Participation to Stakeholders’ Sustainability Literacy—A Case Study on Sustainable Urban Development in Phoenix, Arizona
Next Article in Special Issue
Features Analysis of Dry Stone Walls of Tuscany (Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Framing Processes in the Envisioning of Low-Carbon, Resilient Cities: Results from Two Visioning Exercises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 7
Issue 7
10.3390/su7078684
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

Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming

by
Abdul Mounem Mouazen
* and
Martin Palmqvist
Cranfield Soil and AgriFood Institute, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 OAL Bedford, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2015, 7(7), 8684-8708; https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684
Submission received: 21 May 2015 / Revised: 26 June 2015 / Accepted: 29 June 2015 / Published: 3 July 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Issues on Soil Management and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although controlled traffic farming (CTF) is an environmentally friendly soil management system, no quantitative evaluation of environmental benefits is available. This paper aims at establishing a framework for quantitative evaluation of the environmental benefits of CTF, considering a list of environmental benefits, namely, reducing soil compaction, runoff/erosion, energy requirement and greenhouse gas emission (GHG), conserving organic matter, enhancing soil biodiversity and fertiliser use efficiency. Based on a comprehensive literature review and the European Commission Soil Framework Directive, the choice of and the weighting of the impact of each of the environmental benefits were made. The framework was validated using data from three selected farms. For Colworth farm (Unilever, UK), the framework predicted the largest overall environmental benefit of 59.3% of the theoretically maximum achievable benefits (100%), as compared to the other two farms in Scotland (52%) and Australia (47.3%). This overall benefit could be broken down into: reducing soil compaction (24%), tillage energy requirement (10%) and GHG emissions (3%), enhancing soil biodiversity (7%) and erosion control (6%), conserving organic matter (6%), and improving fertiliser use efficiency (3%). Similar evaluation can be performed for any farm worldwide, providing that data on soil properties, topography, machinery, and weather are available.

1. Introduction

The high demand on food has resulted in increasing the size and weight of agricultural machinery, which has led to higher risk to soil damage and more energy has to be dedicated to cure this damage. The soil damage by agricultural machinery contributes considerably to deepen soil environmental threats, namely, compaction, erosion, increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and others. Therefore, soil has to be managed properly to ameliorate the damage, either by mechanical forces e.g., tillage, optimising machine parameters, e.g., reduced tyre inflation pressure or by appropriate management of traffic over the soil. The latter has recently attracted the attention of researchers and farmers. An underestimation of the field area trafficked during one crop cycle is common due to the eradication of wheel tracks by the following tillage. Typically, under conventional tillage with random traffic (RT), almost all field area is trafficked by wheels at least once every year [1]. However, in the last decades, farmers have attempted to concentrate field traffic on temporary or permanent tramlines [2,3].
Controlled farming system (CTF) ensures the crop zone is permanently separated from the traffic zone year after year [4]. It aims at keeping field traffic in the same lanes on the field every year [5]. Thus, the larger bearing capacity of the compacted traffic lanes improves the ability to drive on and the crop zone tends to stay in favourable conditions for growth without the need for deep tillage [4]. There are different ways to implement CTF, consistent for all is the simple principle to not drive at random on the soil [6]. Different guidance systems have been used in CTF to keep the wheels exactly in the same positions from year to year, ranging from concrete tracks [7] to electrical wires and physical markers [8]. However, the recent development of cost effective global positioning systems (GPS) has made it easy to adopt a precise CTF system on farm scale [9,10]. Although CTF has been advocated a long time by scientists in a number of countries, adoption of the new system on large scale has been rare, with one possible exception in Central Queensland, Australia, were over 100,000 ha was converted to CTF over a five year period [10]. This might be attributed to lack of studies, which provide quantitative evaluation of economic and environmental benefits of CTF.
Literature confirms the environmental benefits of CTF, including reduced soil compaction, control of erosion, enhanced soil biodiversity, conserving organic matter, reduced tillage energy requirement, increased fertiliser use efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emission from the soil [11]. Soil compaction caused by anthropogenic activities such as heavy farm machinery or the result of cyclic tillage is a big concern for farmers as it is directly related to crop growth and potentially to yield. Other factors can also lead to soil compaction occurrence e.g., natural conditions. According to the natural soil susceptibility to compaction, Houšková and Montanarella [12] divided soils in Europe into four categories of low, medium, high, and very high susceptibility to compaction. Soil compaction is associated with increase in bulk density (BD) and penetration resistance (PR), while significant reduction in porosity and pore space may be expected [13]. Therefore, soil compaction also affects the hydraulic properties of the soil. The decrease in infiltration rate leads to surface run off, which enhances soil erosion particularly in areas with intensive rainfall [14]. This also increases the risk of flooding, particularly in areas with steep slopes that experience intensive rainfall [15]. The increase of soil resistance to penetration affects not only plant growth but also leads to increased energy requirement for tillage. Therefore, the occurrence of soil compaction should be avoided otherwise a proper management of tillage should be utilised. Chamen and Longstaff 1995 and Sedaghatpour et al., 1995 [16,17] noted a decrease in soil BD and PR when adopting CTF. Botta et al., 2007 [18] observed peak PR and BD under the third year of RT, reaching levels up to 3890 kPa and 1.72 Mg m−3, respectively, as compared to corresponding CTF peaks of 2556 kPa and 1.53 Mg m−3. As a result of compaction amelioration by the adoption of CTF, Meek et al., 1989 and 1990 [19,20] reported improvement of the infiltration rate in cotton production. No tillage combined with CTF retained the highest infiltration rates during the following cotton season, which was probably due to better preservation of macro pores [20]. Similarly, McHugh et al., 2003 [21] experienced a four-fold increase of hydraulic conductivity at 10 cm depth after 22 months of CTF practice in broad acre arable land in Australia. The effect of CTF on water erosion was examined in a number of studies mainly in Australia. Results ranged from a reduction in runoff reaching to 36.3%, which increased to 47.2% when CTF was combined with no tillage (Li et al., 2007), to almost no change in runoff at all [22]. Tullberg et al., 2001 [23] found 44% larger runoff from trafficked plots than from CTF plots. Concerning biodiversity, reports confirmed CTF to increase the number of macrofouna. Pangnakorn et al., 2003 [24] found the number of earthworms to be larger under CTF than under RT, with the highest number tending to occur under no tillage combined with CTF. Literature has not proved that CTF can alleviate soil organic matter (SOM) decline. Potter and Chichester (1993) [25] concluded that no tillage combined with CTF appears to be a longterm sustainable solution. They showed an increase in soil organic carbon when soil was not disturbed by primary tillage. Steadily greater nitrogen content in the CTF swards has resulted in more efficient use of fertiliser than in conventionally farmed plots. As proportion of the nitrogen fertiliser applied, the nitrogen content of the yield was 86% and 64%, for CTF and RT, respectively, nonetheless a reduced ground pressure treatment was almost as good as CTF with 81% of the nitrogen applied being harvested [26]. Soil compaction has a large influence on N2O emission, mainly due to increased anaerobic conditions [27,28]. However, the quantity of released gas is also related to crop and environmental conditions [29]. Vermeulen et al., 2007 [30] evaluated the impact of seasonal controlled traffic farming (SCTF) on GHG emission, adopting RT during harvest and primary tillage followed by all the other traffic in controlled traffic lanes. They concluded that SCTF resulted in reduction of both N2O and CH4 emission as compared to total RT farming.
Models to evaluate the impact of tillage and traffic on crop production are available. For instance the advanced PERFECT model was used by Li et al., 2008 [31,32] to predict runoff, plant available water, infiltration rate and yield. Using PERFECT, Li et al., 2008 [31,32] ranked the benefits of tillage systems to be in the following descending order: controlled traffic with zero tillage, controlled traffic with stubble mulch, wheeled with zero tillage, and wheeled with stubble mulch. However, this model does not include all environmental benefits and does not rank them among each other. Furthermore, no overall scoring model for the entire environmental benefits of CTF can be found in the literature. Hamza and Anderson (2005) [33] only listed a range of environmental benefits, without ranking them according to their weight. It can be concluded from the brief literature review that although reports support the environmental benefits of CTF, a quantification of the overall environmental benefits of CTF has not been reported so far.
This study aims to develop a framework that predicts the overall environmental benefits of CTF for farms planning to convert to CTF. This framework considers soil and climate conditions, topography and the current machinery system. The framework is validated using three example farms, whose data were obtained from Unilever (UK) (one farm) and from the literature (two farms).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Framework Weighting

When establishing the prediction framework to rank the environmental benefits of CTF, several environmental threats were identified as key threats needed for the successful development of the matrix. The development of the prediction framework was based on three weighting systems, namely, environmental, scientific, and farm specific parameters (Figure 1). The framework was established based on a number of assumptions:
  • Environmental weight: Here 75% of weighting was assigned to soil threats and 25% for secondary issues. The importance of each of the soil threats was obtained from answers to a survey questionnaire carried out by the EU.
  • Scientific weight: Here also 75% of weighting was assigned to soil threats and 25% for secondary issues. The importance of each soil threat was evaluated based on the number of studies found in the literature confirming the positive or negative influence of the CTF relative to the random traffic. The magnitude of CTF benefit was calculated based on the % of benefit (e.g., in energy saving), as compared to random traffic.
  • Probability of occurrence and scale of problem is estimated by ten parameters, which are given two levels of internal weight/influence.
Sustainability 07 08684 g001 1024
Figure 1. The general structure of the framework for the calculation of the environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Figure 1. The general structure of the framework for the calculation of the environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Sustainability 07 08684 g001
The framework was built using Microsoft Excel, to ensure that the framework was flexible and easily amendable, as a complex model is harder to develop, understand, and validate [34].
Furthermore, a critical requirement when developing scoring functions in functional models is to document why a particular value was chosen as baseline or threshold value. Therefore, a thorough search and documentation of farm specific parameters and their ranges to be considered in this framework was undertaken.
Environmental Weighting. Under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, a soil framework directive prepared by the European Commission (EU Framework Directive 232, 2006) [35] identified nine soil threats, namely, soil compaction, soil erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides, and flooding. It was prepared after a web survey provided by soil scientists and research organisations. In this study, only environmental threats that are directly affected by implementing CTF were considered. These were ranked in the Framework Directive in dissenting order as; soil compaction, soil erosion, soil biodiversity loss, and soil organic matter decline. This ranking system was incorporated into the framework, and these soil threats were considered as the main environmental parameters.
Other parameters with indirect environmental benefits of CTF were identified as secondary environmental parameters, such as reduced GHG emissions from soil, reduced energy requirement of tillage, and increased fertiliser efficiency. However, these secondary parameters were not included in the EC Soil Framework Directive. The secondary parameters were assigned a weighting of 25% of the total environmental weighting to be divided equally among them, whereas the remaining 75% weighting was assigned to the main environmental parameters (soil threats). The structure of the environmental weighting part of the framework is illustrated in Figure 2.
Sustainability 07 08684 g002 1024
Figure 2. Environmental weighing system of prediction framework of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Figure 2. Environmental weighing system of prediction framework of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Sustainability 07 08684 g002
Scientific Weighting. A comprehensive literature review on CTF has been carried out to evaluate the scientific weighting based on the number of studies reported with positive effect in reducing the level of any of the main or secondary environmental parameters. Many journal papers, reports, and books on CTF were closely examined. However, a much larger number of studies available on e.g., soil compaction under RT can be found in the literature, which was not included in the scientific weighting of the framework. The reader is referred to the Appendix for more details about the studies used to calculate the weighting factors.
Studies about the environmental benefits of CTF were categorised under one soil threat and/or secondary parameter. The number of studies reported about a parameter was adopted to determine the scientific weight of that parameter. Some studies considered different parameters to represent a threat, e.g., soil compaction was indicated by BD, PR and/or infiltration rate. When the same study considered multiple compaction measures, the study was weighted once in the framework to eliminate double or triple weighting of a given parameter. Again the main environmental parameters were given 75% of the total scientific weighting, whereas the secondary parameters were given a total weighting of 25%. The structure of the scientific weighting part of the framework is illustrated in Figure 3.
Sustainability 07 08684 g003 1024
Figure 3. Scientific weighing system of prediction framework of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Figure 3. Scientific weighing system of prediction framework of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming (CTF).
Sustainability 07 08684 g003
Weighting of Farm Specific Parameters. The parameters considered as farm specific parameters were those related to selected soil properties, climate conditions, topography, and existing machinery system in the farm. These were soil moisture content at traffic and at tillage, annual rainfall, slope length and steepness, machine parameters, present tillage system (no tillage, reduced tillage and conventional tillage), soil texture, BD at traffic and at tillage, and SOM content. Each parameter was given a weighting factor ranged between 0 and 10, which affects the final ranking of the environmental benefits. The structure of the farm specific part of the framework is illustrated in Figure 4. Each farm specific parameter was assigned one or two +, based on its impact on soil threats and on secondary parameters (Table 1).
Sustainability 07 08684 g004 1024
Figure 4. The structure of framework part related to farm specific parameters.
Figure 4. The structure of framework part related to farm specific parameters.
Sustainability 07 08684 g004
Table
Table 1. Impact of farm specific parameters.
Table 1. Impact of farm specific parameters.
ItemMoisture at trafficMoisture at tillageRainfallSlopeMachine parameterPresent tillage systemSoil textureBulk density in traffic zonesBulk density in tillage zonesSoil organic matter
Soil erosion + 1+ ++ +
soil organic matter decline ++
Soil biodiversity loss ++ 2+ +
Soil compaction++ ++ ++ +
Emissions from soil ++ ++
Tillage energy ++ +++ ++
Fertiliser effeciency 3
1 Minor influence (+); 2 Major influence (++); 3 No specific influence on fertiliser efficiency found. Soil organic matter (SOM).
A parameter having a major influence scored two +, whereas a parameter having minor influence scored one + only. This impact categorisation was based on information available in the literature concerning CTF, as described here below.
Moisture Content at Traffic and at Tillage. The effect of soil moisture content on compaction occurrence is difficult to predict, since this is also dependent on soil texture, BD, and organic matter content. Based on the Proctor test, literature has shown optimal moisture contents for compaction occurrence, which varies with soil texture [36]. For simplicity, gravimetric soil moisture content was classified, with a linear scale into four different categories. In general, the wetter the soil at traffic, the lower is the soil resistance to compaction occurrence. Also, the dryer the soil at tillage, the higher is the draught and energy requirement of tillage. Based on these four categories a simple classification system of the framework impact points for moisture content, similar to that proposed by Spoor et al., 2003 [37] was adopted (Table 2).
Table
Table 2. Impact points of moisture content.
Table 2. Impact points of moisture content.
Wetness ConditionImpact Points
Wet (close to field capacity)10
Moist7
Dry (approaching permanent wilting point)4
Very dry0
If the framework is to be more precise in defining the exact trend of compaction occurrence according to soil moisture content during traffic for different soil textures, a more complicated function that correlates soil compaction occurrence with moisture content has to be adopted based on experimental data. Nonetheless, both moisture contents at traffic and at tillage are classified according to Table 2, with the moisture content at traffic has a negative effect on soil compaction occurrence, whereas soil moisture content at tillage has a positive effect on energy consumption due to tillage operations.
Rainfall. The mean annual precipitation was considered in the framework as the factor affecting erosion. High precipitation can also lead to increased soil moisture content, which in turn leads to increased GHG emission under anaerobic conditions. The scale of conversion proposed was linear with the exception of a smaller step at the lowest precipitation to distinguish the places with very low rainfall (Table 3).
Table
Table 3. Impact points of rainfall.
Table 3. Impact points of rainfall.
Mean annual Precipitation (mm)Impact Points
>200010
15,000–20008
1000–15006
500–10004
250–5002
Under 2500
Slope. The impact points for slope (SL) designated as slope factor (SF) were calculated in a similar way to that of the universal soil loss equation (USLE) method, by substituting the values of average slope steepness and length into Equation (1).
(SF) = (0.065 + 0.045S + 0.0065S2) × (L/22) n
where: SF is slope factor, S is slope steepness (%), L is slope length (m) and n is a constant calculated according to the slope value (Table 4).
Table
Table 4. Values of constant n for different values of slope.
Table 4. Values of constant n for different values of slope.
Slope (%)<11 < Slope < 33 < Slope < 5>5
n0.20.30.40.5
The final weighting scale was transformed into a framework of impact points using SF values calculated from Equation (1), and reported in Table 5.
Table
Table 5. Impact points of slope.
Table 5. Impact points of slope.
Slope FactorImpact Points
> 1.510
1.0–1.57
0.5–1.04
< 0.50
Machine Parameters. No precise relationship between axle load and soil compaction exists, probably because of the fact that there are many other factors affecting soil compaction occurrence. However, practical experience (thanks to the anonymous reviewer) showed a large axle load of 18 Mg to cause severe yield losses (at least 10%), whereas a 9 Mg load caused only short term damage to the soil and minor yield loss. Therefore, farms with light loads are less likely to benefit from CTF and less likely to adopt it regardless of environmental benefits.
The relative importance of tyre inflation pressure and axel load has been disputed for a long time [38]. The combination determines the compaction level, although the severity of compaction declines with depth. However, it is a challenge to create a simple model that can predict the actual level of compaction, as related to axle load and inflation pressure, since there is still an inter-correlation between those factors and other factors [38]. In the framework, the impact of the axle load and tyre inflation pressure during one crop cycle was considered.
The scale for this framework was based on a simple “rule of thumb” that the soil can withstand compaction damage from axle loads up to 6 Mg and 7.5 Mg at inflation pressure values of 150 kPa and 100 KPa, respectively [39]. From those two values, a linear regression was carried out to derive a matrix (not shown) about the impact of both tyre inflation pressure and axle load, which was used to derive the framework impact points.
Present Tillage System. The tillage system affects several soil threats and secondary parameters in the framework. In general, the higher the tillage intensity, the larger is the effect. Table 6 shows the framework impact points considered for different tillage systems. Conventional tillage represents primary tillage by mouldboard or disc plough followed by discs and/or tine harrows etc. and drilling with at least three passages. Reduced tillage involves shallow tillage followed by drilling, whereas no tillage consists of only direct drilling of soil.
Texture. The classification of texture considered in this study was based on FAO standard triangle soil texture classification. A scale of soil vulnerability to compaction proposed by Spoor et al., 2003 [37] formed the basis to establish impact points of different textures (Table 7). For example, clay soils were considered less vulnerable to compaction when compared to sandy soils at a same moisture content level.
Table
Table 6. Impact points of tillage system.
Table 6. Impact points of tillage system.
Tillage SystemImpact Points
Conventional tillage10
Reduced tillage5
No tillage0
Table
Table 7. Impact points of soil texture.
Table 7. Impact points of soil texture.
Texture (FAO–UNESCO)Impact Points
Light soilsCoarse
Medium (<18% clay)
Medium fine (<18% clay)		10
Medium soilsMedium (>18% clay)
Medium fine (>18% clay)		5
Heavy soilsFine
Very fine		0
Bulk Density at Traffic and at Tillage. Soil BD is a measure of soil compaction, which unlike PR is independent on moisture content at sampling [40]. Therefore, BD was adopted, since it is a more reliable measurement for establishing the scale of impact points. Furthermore, soil texture had to be taken into account, since BD is a function of soil texture [41]. The impact points scale, provided in Table 8 was based on a guideline for seedbed compaction [42], where BD has a different impact depending on the soil type considered. The limiting BD for root growth generally ranges from 1.45 Mg m−3 for clay soils to 1.85 Mg m−3 for loamy sands [41], which proves that Table 8 is of the correct magnitude.
Table
Table 8. Impact points of bulk density (BD).
Table 8. Impact points of bulk density (BD).
Bulk Density (Mg m−3)Impact Points
Light (Sandy) SoilsMedium (Loams)Heavy (Clay) Soils
> 1.810--
1.6–1.881010
1.4–1.6558
1.2–1.4135
< 1.2013
Soil Organic Matter. The “base limit” of SOM was correlated with clay content, so that the minimal SOM content tended to rise with clay content [43]. However, very limited data are available to make a texture based scale for SOM, and hence a simple linear scale was proposed (Table 9).
Table
Table 9. Impact points of soil organic matter (SOM).
Table 9. Impact points of soil organic matter (SOM).
Soil Organic Matter Content (%)<0.50.5–1.51.5–2.52.5–3.53.5–4.54.5<
Impact points1086420
Erosion Factor Using USLE. The USLE is an empirical model to calculate soil erodability as a function of dimension and dimensionless factors. However, if metric units are used to obtain the rainfall erosivity factor, a metrical value of soil loss will be derived according to the following equation [44].
E = R × K × L × S × C × P
where: E is the mean annual soil loss according to USLE (Mg ha−1), R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ ha−1 mm h−1), K is the soil erodibility factor, L × S is the slope factor, C is the crop management factor and P is the erosion control practice factor.
A USLE value estimating soil loss for a site or a field can be transformed into a framework point, as shown in Table 10, which was constructed after a classification proposed by Morgan (2005) [44]. When USLE is to be considered, the individual weight of the other factors involved in the calculation of the erosion factor has to be omitted from the matrix. This included rainfall, slope, soil organic matter and texture. In this case, the impact of moisture content at traffic and at tillage, machine parameters, present tillage system, bulk density at traffic and at tillage, and erosion factor using USLE were only considered.
Table
Table 10. Impact points of universal soil loss equation (USLE).
Table 10. Impact points of universal soil loss equation (USLE).
Soil Loss According to USLE (t ha−1)Impact Points
>10 High10
5–10 Moderate7
2–5 Slight4
<2 Very slight0

2.2. Effect of Farm Specific Parameters on Environmental Threats and Secondary Parameters

Soil Erosion. Erosion is a complicated environmental threat, whose occurrence is affected by many parameters. Morgan (2005) [44] identified a number of parameters affecting soil erosion, namely, rainfall amount and intensity, soil structure and texture, SOM, permeability, slope length and steepness, land use, and land cover. In the framework presented in this paper, all farm specific parameters, were considered equally to have a minor influence (one +) on erosion. However, since there already existed models on erosion prediction e.g., USLE [44] it would probably be more scientifically sound to use the USLE model, expressed as an erosion factor. This is particularly because of the fact that the internal weighting of parameters in USLE is more advanced and precise than that proposed for the specific farm parameters considered in the framework. Therefore, the calculation of erosion occurrence in the excel sheet matrix allowed for the use of both either the farm specific parameters or the erosion factor based on the USLE model. However, due to its relative simplicity the former option might be a better option for farmers.
Soil Organic Matter Decline. It is a challenge to find consistent data on factors affecting SOM decline. This is because some researchers suggested that no tillage systems might increase SOM content [45], whereas others stated that SOM is just relocated with depth [46,47]. However, the predominant result after a comprehensive evaluation of a large number of studies worldwide suggested that no tillage and reduced tillage systems, in descending order, increase SOM [48]. In conclusion, the present tillage system was regarded in the present study to have a minor influence (one +) on SOM decline. Even though, no literature about a high declining rate of SOM was found for any soil texture, texture was regarded as having a minor effect on SOM decline in the framework. This is because of the important water holding capacity and aggregate building capability and stability of SOM, which is particularly important for sandy soils. In fact, SOM decline is a larger problem on sandy than on clayey soils.
Soil Biodiversity. The incidence of occurrence of earthworms was studied by Pangnakorn et al., 2003 [24], who found that absence of tillage had a large positive effect on the occurrence. Also, fungal and bacterial biomasses were higher in surface soil when less disturbed by tillage [49]. Thus, the present tillage system was regarded as being a major influencing factor on soil biodiversity. In a model used by Fox et al., 2004 [50], the number of earthworms was positively correlated with increasing SOM and clay content. Consequently, soil biodiversity decline can be regarded as being a bigger problem in sandy soils with low organic matter. Therefore, texture and SOM were considered to have a minor influence on soil biodiversity in the framework.
Soil Compaction. The fact that soil compaction is, to a large extent, affected by the moisture content of the soil during traffic and by machine parameters (size, tyre inflation pressure, etc.) is well accepted and also supported by researchers [33]. Therefore, these parameters were regarded to have the major effect (two +) on soil compaction. Since SOM has marginal influence on compaction [33] it was considered to have only a minor effect in the framework. The vulnerability to soil compaction is also, to some extent, affected by soil texture [37,51]. However, texture was considered to have a minor effect in the framework. Initial BD at traffic also affects the degree of soil compaction occurrence. Furthermore, a low BD at traffic that occurs after tillage makes soil more vulnerable to compaction [52]. Therefore, BD at traffic was considered to have a minor influence (one +) in the framework. The same arguments apply to the present tillage system. The higher the intensity of tillage the higher is the soil vulnerability to compaction. However, it is not common to use these three tillage systems worldwide. For instance, Munkholm et al., 2003 [53] indicated the low adoption of reduced tillage systems and no tillage in Scandinavia, which was partly attributed to major problems associated with compaction of the topsoil. Therefore, no influence of the tillage system on soil compaction occurrence was assigned in the framework.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Soil. Since soil compaction and soil moisture content have a large effect on N2O emissions from soil [29], soil BD at traffic and annual rainfall were regarded as having a major influence (two +) on GHG emissions from soil. The relationship between emissions and tillage practices is not clear and rather complicated. The common idea is that a no tillage system sequesters carbon but this might be offset by a higher level of N2O emissions [29,54]. Therefore, no influence of the tillage system on GHG emission was assigned in the framework.
Energy Requirement of Tillage. Since a positive correlation between draught requirement and BD exists [55], BD at traffic was regarded as a major factor affecting energy consumption of tillage in the framework. The tillage system has also a major influence on the energy required [56], since more intensive tillage requires higher energy. It has been demonstrated that a higher moisture content resulted in a lower draught [55,57]. Thus, soil moisture content at tillage was considered to be a major influencing factor. Since clay soils (heavy soils) require higher energy to break up during tillage than sandy soils (light soils) [43], soil texture was considered to have a minor effect on energy consumption by tillage.
Fertiliser Use Efficiency. The benefit of fertiliser use efficiency was given an average value of five, which means that the benefit of CTF is regarded equally high regardless of how the user specifies the other parameters.
Construction of the Framework. The two different weighting parts, namely, environmental and scientific were combined in the excel-sheet framework, as shown in Figure 5. The percentage for each individual benefit was then multiplied by the weighting of the farm specific parameters (0–10). The sum of the individual values after dividing by 10 becomes 92.3%.
Sustainability 07 08684 g005 1024
Figure 5. Calculation of the overall ranking of the framework.
Figure 5. Calculation of the overall ranking of the framework.
Sustainability 07 08684 g005
This percentage was considered to be the maximum achievable environmental benefit at optimal soil and climate conditions, for topography and machinery systems for eliminating or reducing probability of occurrence of soil threats, and for secondary environmental parameters. For example, light rain, small slopes, small size agricultural machinery, stable aggregate soils and texture, etc. would result in reducing the probability of the occurrence of soil threats (e.g., soil erosion or compaction). However, the prevention of occurrence of soil threats is not practically possible and thus the maximum benefit level of 92.3% is not achievable. Therefore, this maximum benefit level was designated as “the theoretical maximum environmental benefit of CTF”.
The constant impact points assigned to the fertiliser efficiency (5), and the contradictory positive and negative impacts of soil moisture content during tillage and compaction is the reason for having a theoretical maximum of 92.3% instead of 100%. To overcome this issue, each individual benefit was rescaled in order to have the final evaluation presented to 100%, allowing the evaluation to range between 0 and 100%.

3. Sensitivity Analysis

When all farm specific parameters in the framework were assumed to be of an average impact of five (Figure 5), the overall environmental benefit of CTF becomes 54.2% of the theoretical maximum (100%). Relatively large differences of contribution from each benefit were revealed e.g., impact of reduced soil compaction was 19.8%, controlling erosion was 9.0%, reduced tillage energy consumption was 7.2%, declining impede organic matter was 6.0%, enhanced soil biodiversity was 5.9%, improved fertiliser efficiency was 3.2%, and reduced GHG emissions was 3.2%. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the magnitude of weighting seems to have been correctly assumed. This is because of the fact that the results of the sensitivity analysis were in line with those reported in the literature. Generally, reduced soil compaction, reduced tillage energy requirement, and controlling soil erosion are, according to the literature, the top three environmental benefits expected from CTF.

4. Validation of the Framework

Validation of the framework was conducted using two data sets obtained from the literature. The first data set was reported by Dickson et al., 1992 [58] and Dickson and Ritchie (1996 and 1996) [59,60], investigating the effect of no-traffic and reduced ground pressure traffic systems in an arable rotation in Scotland, whereas the second data set was reported by Li et al., 2007 [61], investigating the effect of wheel traffic and tillage on runoff and crop yield in Australia. A third validation data set was obtained from Colworth farm (Unilever, UK), where CTF trial fields to investigate the environmental and economic benefits of CTF were established.

4.1. Validation Study 1

When the farm specific parameters of Dickson et al., 1992 [58] and Dickson and Ritchie (1996 and 1996) [59,60] (Table 11), were substituted into the framework as shown in Table 12, the framework predicted an overall environmental benefit from CTF of 52.0% of the theoretical maximum, which is below the average environmental benefit of CTF of 54.2%.
Table
Table 11. Farm specific parameters from Dickson et al., 1992 [58] and Dickson and Ritchie (1996 and 1996) [59,60].
Table 11. Farm specific parameters from Dickson et al., 1992 [58] and Dickson and Ritchie (1996 and 1996) [59,60].
ParameterImpact Point
Moisture content at trafficMoist (assumed)
Moisture content at tillageMoist (assumed)
Annual rainfall (mm)845
Average slope steepness (%)6.7
Slope length (m)100 (assumed)
Highest axle load (Mg)4.59
Tyre inflation pressure (kPa)160
Present tillage systemConventional
Soil typeClay loam (fine)
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)~1.5
Bulk density at tillage (Mg m−3)~1.5
Soil organic matter (%)4.1
Table
Table 12. Framework impact points for validation study 1.
Table 12. Framework impact points for validation study 1.
ParameterImpact Point
Moisture content at traffic7
Moisture content at tillage7
Annual rainfall (mm)4
Slope factor7
Machine parameters3
Present tillage system10
Soil type0
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)8
Bulk density at tillage (Mg m−3)8
Soil organic matter content (%)2
This overall benefit is broken down into percentage units in descending order as: reduced soil compaction (13.6%), reduced tillage energy consumption (10.7%), controlling erosion (8.3%), enhanced soil biodiversity (6.5%), declining impeded organic matter (6.0%), reduced GHG emissions (3.8%) and improved fertiliser efficiency (3.2%).

4.2. Validation Study 2

When the farm specific parameters of Li et al., 2007 [61] of Table 13 were substituted into the framework as shown in Table 14, the framework predicted an overall environmental benefit from CTF of 47.3% of the theoretical maximum, which is also below the average environmental benefit of CTF of 54.2%. This overall benefit is broken down into percentage units in descending order as: reduced soil compaction (10.2%), reduced tillage energy consumption (9.5%), controlling erosion (8.3%), enhanced soil biodiversity (7.4%), declining impeded organic matter (6.0%), improved fertiliser efficiency (3.2%), and reduced GHG emissions (2.9%). Li et al., 2007 [61] did not examine all environmental benefits of CTF but only runoff, soil water, and crop production. They measured a reduced mean annual runoff of 36.3% with CTF, which increased to 47.2% when combined with no tillage practices. Therefore, the fact that the framework rates control erosion as the third most important environmental benefit may be argued. However, the benefit of controlling erosion contributed to a larger part of the overall benefit (8.3% of the total benefits of 47.3%), as compared to validation Study 1 (8.3% of the total benefits of 52.0%).
Table
Table 13. Farm specific parameters [61].
Table 13. Farm specific parameters [61].
ParameterImpact Point
Moisture content at trafficDry (assumed)
Moisture content at tillageMoist (assumed)
Annual rainfall (mm)789
Average slope steepness (%)7
Slope length (m)30
Highest axle load (Mg) 4.5
Tyre inflation pressure (kPa)100
Present tillage systemConventional
Soil typeVertisol (fine)
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)Assumed average due to lack of data
Bulk density at tillage(Mg m−3)Assumed average due to lack of data
Soil organic matter (%)Assumed average due to lack of data
Table
Table 14. Framework impact points for validation study 2.
Table 14. Framework impact points for validation study 2.
ParameterImpact Point
Moisture content at traffic4
Moisture content at tillage7
Annual rainfall (mm)4
Slope factor4
Machine parameters0
Present tillage system10
Soil type0
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)5
Bulk density at tillage (Mg m−3)5
Soil organic matter content (%)5

4.3. Validation Study 3

When the farm specific parameters of Colworth farm (Unilever, UK) shown in (Table 15) were substituted into the framework as described in Table 16, the framework predicted an overall environmental benefit from CTF of 59.3% of the theoretical maximum, which was higher than the average environmental benefit of CTF of 54.2%. This overall benefit is broken down into percentage units in descending order as: reduced soil compaction (24.3%), reduced tillage energy consumption (9.5%), enhanced soil biodiversity (7.1%), controlling erosion (6.5%), declining impeded organic matter (6.0%), improved fertiliser efficiency (3.2%), and reduced GHG emissions (2.9%). Alternatively, if the erosion factor of USLE soil loss value is used for weighting controlling erosion instead, an increase of benefit of control erosion by 0.7% is expected. This would raise the overall score of controlling erosion to 7.2%, overtaking soil biodiversity but leaving the remaining ranking of all other benefits unchanged.
Table
Table 15. Farm specific parameters of Colworth farm (Unilever, UK).
Table 15. Farm specific parameters of Colworth farm (Unilever, UK).
ParameterImpact Point
Moisture content at trafficMoist
Moisture content at tillageMoist
Annual rainfall (mm)611
Average slope steepness (%)2
Slope length (m)270
Highest axle load (Mg)11
tyre inflation pressure (kPa)160
Present tillage systemConventional
Soil typeFine, very fine
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)1.2–1.4
Bulk density at tillage (Mg m−3)1.2–1.4
Soil organic matter (%)2.5–3.5
Soil loss according to USLE is 2–5 Mg ha−1, which represents an erosion factor 4.
Table
Table 16. Framework impact points for Colworth farm.
Table 16. Framework impact points for Colworth farm.
Moisture Content at TrafficImpact Point
Moisture content at traffic7
Moisture content at tillage7
Annual rainfall (mm)4
Slope factor0
Machine parameters10
Present tillage system10
Soil type0
Bulk density at traffic (Mg m−3)5
Bulk density at tillage (Mg m−3)5
Soil organic matter content (%)4
The two largest benefits of CTF at Colworth farm (Unilever, UK), namely, reduced soil compaction and tillage energy consumption were also the highest ranked benefits in the framework due to their higher environmental and scientific weightings. Furthermore, the current research available in the literature confirms that these two benefits are of the highest importance. In fact, the reduction of soil compaction is interlinked with all other benefits, which also highlights the complexity of ranking the framework.
Among the three data sets, it is clear that the highest environmental benefit is expected at Colworth farm. The datasets used for the validation, based on Dickson et al., 1992 [58] and Dickson and Ritchie (1996) [59,60] and Li et al., 2007 [61] were generated in Scotland and Australia, respectively, representing two different farming, weather, topography, and soil conditions. This makes direct comparison between the two data sets very difficult. However, one factor that clearly differentiates these two conditions from those of Colworth farm was the high maximum axle load of machinery used under random traffic at Colworth farm. Consequently, the higher benefit of reduced compaction by CTF at Colworth farm as compared to the other two data sets with smaller axial load machinery is justified.
Although this study ranked environmental benefits in a prediction framework, it is recognised that many benefits of CTF tend to be relatively small, which corresponds well with a report from Spoor (1997) [5]. However, when all these small benefits are combined, they might add up to a significant overall benefit. The adoption of CTF depends on the overall benefits (including ecological and economic benefits) and not only on the environmental benefits. Ecological and economical evaluations of CTF have to be combined with environmental evaluation to achieve an overall evaluation system, which would encourage farmers to convert into CTF.

5. Conclusions

The evaluation of the overall environmental benefit of adopting CTF was successfully carried out based on a framework developed. The study confirms the following conclusions:
(1)
There is a substantial evidence in the literature of environmental benefits associated with CTF, which justifies the adoption of CTF, recognizing that even small benefits might add up to a significant sum of environmental benefits.
(2)
A framework for predicting the environmental benefits for farm converting to CTF is feasible to construct and implement. The framework is flexible and can be further modified responding to changes in local and/or national agricultural practices.
(3)
Literature is in line with the frameworks result, confirming that, reducing compaction, reducing tillage energy consumption and controlling soil erosion are the most pronounced environmental benefits of CTF.
(4)
The new framework introduced in this work can be implemented in practice today. Farmers wishing to implement CTF can in advance evaluate the environmental benefits of adopting CTF in their farms with specific practical and environmental conditions. Policy makers can also benefit from this framework by convincing farmers of the environmental benefits that they would expect if they were to adopt CTF.
Further research might be needed to determine the exact impact range of different environmental benefits of CTF subjected to availability of experimental data. This would make it possible to refine the framework, and convince farmers to convert to CTF, when economical benefits are also proved.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support from Unilever. The authors wish to thank Christof Walter and Tim Chamen for the useful discussion and for providing the data of the Unilever farm.

Author Contributions

The research in the current work was carried out by master student Martin Palmqvist with supervision of Abdul Mouazen. Palmqvist performed the literature review and data analysis, while the paper was written by Mouazen, based on the master thesis of Palmqvist. Both authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Table
Table A1. Weighting factor calculated for soil compaction comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices. Compaction indicators included bulk density, penetration resistance and infiltration rate.
Table A1. Weighting factor calculated for soil compaction comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices. Compaction indicators included bulk density, penetration resistance and infiltration rate.
MeasurementResults% of Relative ImprovementStudy
Bulk densityCTF positive90Botta et al., 2007 [18]
CTF positive83–91Campbell et al., 1986 [62]
CTF positive81–100Chamen and Longstaff, 1995 [16]
CTF positive93 *Unger, 1996 [63]
CTF positive90Dickson and Ritchie, 1996 [60]
CTF positive91McHugh et al., 2003 [21]
CTF positive83 *Raper and Reeves, 2007 [64]
CTF positive96Dickson et al., 1992 [58]
CTF positive85 *Bauder et al., 1985 [65]
CTF positive84 *Gerik et al., 1987 [66]
CTF positive88Voorhees et al., 1984 [67]
CTF positive87 *Wagger and Denton, 1989 [68]
CTF positive97 *Liebig et al., 1993 [69]
CTF positive85Sedaghatpour et al., 1995 [17]
CTF positive90Douglas et al., 1992 [26]
CTF positive80Braunack and McGarry, 2006 [70]
No difference100Braunack et al., 1995 [71]
CTF negative-Potter and Chichester, 1993 [25]
Penetration resistanceCTF positive-Sommer and Zach, 1992 [72]
CTF positive50 *Radcliffe et al., 1989 [73]
CTF positive57Carter et al., 1991 [74]
CTF positive-Willcocks, 1981 [75]
CTF positive-Raper et al., 1994 [76]
Infiltration rateCTF positive170Meek et al., 1989 [19]
CTF positive128Meek et al., 1990 [20]
* Studies comparing trafficked and un-trafficked row under ridge and furrow farming.
Table
Table A2. Weighting factor calculated for soil erosion, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A2. Weighting factor calculated for soil erosion, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResults% of Relative ImprovementStudy
RunoffCTF positive64Li et al., 2007 [61]
CTF positive50Li et al., 2001 [77]
CTF positive-Sedaghatpour et al., 1995 [17]
CTF positive70Tullberg et al., 2001 [23]
No difference0Reyes et al., 2005 [22]
No difference0Rohde and Yule, 2003 [78]
Table
Table A3. Weighting factor calculated for soil biodiversity, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A3. Weighting factor calculated for soil biodiversity, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResults% of Relative ImprovementStudy
EarthwormsCTF positive125Pangnakorn et al., 2003 [24]
Herbicide useCTF positive-Kurstjens, 2007 [79]
Table
Table A4. Weighting factor calculated for soil organic matter content, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A4. Weighting factor calculated for soil organic matter content, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResults% of Relative ImprovementStudy
Organic carbonCTF positive-Potter and Chichester, 1993 [25]
Table
Table A5. Weighting factor calculated for energy requirement, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A5. Weighting factor calculated for energy requirement, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResults% of Relative ImprovementStudy
Energy requirementsCTF positive50–80Chamen et al., 1992 [80]
CTF positive-McPhee et al., 1995 [56]
CTF positive75Lamers et al., 1986 [80]
CTF positive85Dickson and Campbell, 1990 [81]
CTF positive85Vermeulen and Klooster, 1992 [82]
CTF positive-Chamen and Cavalli, 1994 [83]
CTF positive70Chamen and Longstaff, 1995 [16]
CTF positive57Dickson and Ritchie, 1996 [59]
CTF positive-Willcocks, 1981 [75]
CTF positive50–68Dickson et al., 1992 [58]
CTF positive-Chamen et al., 1994 [84]
Table
Table A6. Weighting factor calculated for fertiliser use efficiency, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A6. Weighting factor calculated for fertiliser use efficiency, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResult% of Relative ImprovementStudy
Fertiliser useCTF positive70–80Dickson and Ritchie, 1996b [60]
CTF positive-Douglas et al., 1992 [26]
Table
Table A7. Weighting factor calculated for GHG emission from soils, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
Table A7. Weighting factor calculated for GHG emission from soils, comparing trafficked with un-trafficked practices.
MeasurementResult% of Relative ImprovementStudy
N2O-emissionsCTF positive-Ball et al., 1999 [85]
CTF positive-Vermeulen et al., 2007 [30]
CO2- and H2O-emissionsNo difference-Reicosky et al., 1999 [54]

References

  1. Soane, B.D.; Dickson, J.W.; Campbell, D.J. Compaction by agricultural vehicles: A review III. Incidence and control of compaction in crop production. Soil Tillage Res. 1982, 2, 3–36. [Google Scholar]
  2. McPhee, J.E.; Aird, P.L.; Hardie, M.A.; Corkrey, S.R. The effect of controlled traffic on soil physical properties and tillage requirements for vegetable production. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 149, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chamen, W.C.T.; Moxey, A.P.; Towers, W.; Balana, B.; Hallett, P.D. Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Taylor, J.H. Benefits of permanent traffic lanes in a controlled traffic crop production system. Soil Tillage Res. 1983, 3, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Spoor, G. Benefits from traffic control. Landwards 1997, 52, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chamen, W.C.T. “Controlled traffic” Farming: Literature Review and Appraisal of Potential Use in the U.K. In Research Review No. 59; HGCA: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Pollard, F.; Elliott, J.G. The effect of soil compaction and method of fertilizer placement on the growth of barley using a concrete track technique. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1978, 23, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lamers, J.G.; Perdok, U.D.; Lumkes, L.M.; Klooster, J.J. Controlled traffic farming systems in the Netherlands. Soil Tillage Res. 1986, 8, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Raper, R.L. Agricultural traffic impacts on soil. J. Terramech. 2005, 42, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tullberg, J.N.; Yule, D.F.; McGarry, D. Controlled traffic farming––From research to adoption in Australia. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 97, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Palmqvist, M. Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming. Master’s Thesis, The Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. Houšková, B.; Montanarella, L. The natural susceptibility of european soils to compaction. In JRC Scientific and Technical Report on Threats to Soil Quality in Europe; Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Rusco, E., Eds.; European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2008; pp. 23–33. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hakansson, I. A method for characterizing the state of compactness of the plough layer. Soil Tillage Res. 1990, 16, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Franzen, H.; Lal, R.; Ehlers, W. Tillage and mulching effects on physical properties of a tropical Alfisol. Soil Tillage Res. 1994, 28, 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Presbitero, A.L.; Rose, C.W.; Yu, B.; Ciesiolka, C.A.A.; Coughlan, K.J.; Fentie, B. Investigation of soil erosion from bare steep slopes of the humid tropic in Philippines. Earth Interact. 2005, 9, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chamen, W.C.T.; Longstaff, D.J. Traffic and tillage effects on soil conditions and crop growth on a swelling clay soil. Soil Use Manag. 1995, 11, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sedaghatpour, S.; Ellis, T.; Hignett, C.; Bellotti, B. Six Years of Controlled Traffic Cropping Research on a Red Brown Earth at Roseworthy in South Australia. In Proceedings of the National Controlled Traffic Conference, Rockhampton, Australia, 13–14 September 1995; pp. 69–75.
  18. Botta, G.F.; Pozzolo, O.; Bomben, M.; Rosatto, H.; Rivero, D.; Ressia, M.; Tourn, M.; Soza, E.; Vazquez, J. Traffic alternatives for harvesting soybean (Glycine max L.): Effect on yields and soil under a direct sowing system. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meek, B.D.; Rechel, E.A.; Carter, L.M.; DeTar, W.R. Changes in infiltration under alfalfa as influenced by time and wheel traffic. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1989, 53, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meek, B.D.; DeTar, W.R.; Rolph, D.; Rechel, E.R.; Carter, L.M. Infiltration rate as affected by an alfalfa and no-till cropping system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McHugh, A.; Tullberg, J.; Freebairn, D. Effects of field traffic removal on hydraulic conductivity, plant available water and water capacity. In Proceedings of the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation 16th Triennial conference, Brisbane, Australia, 13–18 July 2003; pp. 717–723.
  22. Reyes, M.R.; Raczkowski, C.W.; Reddy, G.B.; Gayle, G.A. Effect of wheel traffic compaction on runoff and soil erosion in no-till. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005, 21, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tullberg, J.N.; Ziebarth, P.J.; Li, Y.X. Tillage and traffic effects on runoff. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pangnakorn, U.; George, D.L.; Tullberg, J.N.; Gupta, M.L. Effect of tillage and traffic on earthworm populations in a vertosol in South-East Queensland. In Proceedings of the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation 16th Triennial Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 13–18 July 2003; pp. 881–885.
  25. Potter, K.N.; Chichester, F.W. Physical and chemical properties of a vertisol with continuous controlled-traffic, no-till management. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1993, 36, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Douglas, J.T.; Campbell, D.J.; Crawford, C.E. Soil and crop responses to conventional, reduced ground pressure and zero traffic systems for grass silage production. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 24, 421–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Machefert, S.E.; Dise, N.B.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Whitehead, P.G. Nitrous oxide emission from a range of land uses across Europe. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2002, 6, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, K.A.; Conen, F. Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use Manag. 2004, 20, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ball, B.C.; Parker, J.P.; Scott, A. Soil and residue management effects on cropping conditions and nitrous oxide fluxes under controlled traffic in Scotland 2. Nitrous oxide, soil N status and weather. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 52, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vermeulen, G.D.; Mosquera, J.; van der Wel, C.; van der Klooster, A.; Steenhuizen, J.W. Potential of Controlled Traffic Farming with Automatic Guidance on an Organic Farm in the Netherlands. In Precision Agriculture ’07; Stafford, J.V., Ed.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 473–481. [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Y.X.; Tullberg, J.N.; Freebairn, D.M.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Li, H.W. Effects of tillage and traffic on crop production in dryland farming systems: I. Evaluation of PERFECT soil-crop simulation model. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 100, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Y.X.; Tullberg, J.N.; Freebairn, D.M.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Li, H.W. Effects of tillage and traffic on crop production in dryland farming systems: II. Long-term simulation of crop production using the PERFECT model. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 100, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil compaction in cropping systems a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Sullivan, M.F.; Simota, C. Modelling the environmental impacts of soil compaction: A review. Soil Tillage Res. 1995, 35, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. European Commission Soil Framework Directive. 2006. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm (accessed on 21 May 2008).
  36. Abramson, L.W.; Lee, T.S.; Sharma, S.; Boyce, G.M. Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  37. Spoor, G.; Tijink, F.G.J.; Weisskopf, P. Subsoil compaction: Risk, avoidance, identification and alleviation. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 73, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arvidsson, J.; Keller, T. Soil stress as affected by wheel load and tyre inflation pressure. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nordström, T.; Rydberg, T.; Törner, L. Miljönyckeltal: Kväve, Fosfor, Kadmium, Energi och Markpackning. 2001. Available online: http://www2.slu.se/forskning/fakta/faktajordbruk/pdf01/Jo01-07.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2008).
  40. Mouazen, A.M.; Ramon, H. Expanding implementation of an on-line measurement system of topsoil compaction in loamy sand, loam, silt loam and silt soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 14th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  42. Biskupska, M.; Llewellyn, C. Soil Tillage and Management Laboratory Workbook; Cranfield University: Cranfield, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  43. Watts, C.W.; Clark, L.J.; Poulton, P.R.; Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P. The role of clay, organic carbon and long-term management on mouldboard plough draught measured on the Broadbalk wheat experiment at Rothamsted. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 22, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Morgan, R.P.C. Soil Erosion and Conservation, 3rd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rice, C.W. Organic Matter and Nutrient Dynamics, Encyclopedia of Soil Science, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, USA, 2006; pp. 1180–1183. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hermle, S.; Anken, T.; Leifeld, J.; Weisskopf, P. The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 98, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, X.M.; Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; Tan, C.S. Impacts of long-term and recently imposed tillage practices on the vertical distribution of soil organic carbon. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 100, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ogle, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Paustian, K. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 2005, 72, 87–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cookson, W.R.; Murphy, D.V.; Roper, M.M. Characterizing the relationships between soil organic matter components and microbial function and composition along a tillage disturbance gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fox, C.A.; Jarvis, I.; Behan-Pelletier, V.; Dalpé, Y.; Clapperton, J.; Prévost, D.; Joschko, M.; Lentzsch, P. Progress towards developing a soil biodiversity indicator for Canada. In Agricultural Impacts on Soil Erosion and Soil Biodiversity: Developing Indicators for Policy Analysis, In Proceedings of the OECD Expert Meeting, Rome, Italy, 25–28 March 2003; pp. 439–451.
  51. 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]
  52. Botta, G.F.; Jorajuria, D.; Draghi, L.M. Influence of the axle load, tyre size and configuration on the compaction of a freshly tilled clayey soil. J. Terramech. 2002, 39, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Munkholm, L.J.; Schjønning, P.; Rasmussen, K.J.; Tanderup, K. Spatial and temporal effects of direct drilling on soil structure in the seedling environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 71, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Reicosky, D.C.; Reeves, D.W.; Prior, S.A.; Runion, G.B.; Rogers, H.H.; Raper, R.L. Effects of residue management and controlled traffic on carbon dioxide and water loss. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 52, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mouazen, A.M.; Ramon, H. A numerical-statistical hybrid modelling scheme for evaluation of draught requirements of a subsoiler cutting a sandy loam soil, as affected by moisture content, bulk density and depth. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 63, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McPhee, J.E.; Braunack, M.V.; Garside, A.L.; Reid, D.J.; Hilton, D.J. Controlled traffic for irrigated double cropping in a semi-arid tropical environment: Part 2, Tillage operations and energy use. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1995, 60, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Arvidsson, J.; Keller, T.; Gustafsson, K. Specific draught for mouldboard plough, chisel plough and disc harrow at different water contents. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 79, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dickson, J.W.; Campbell, D.J.; Ritchie, R.M. Zero and conventional traffic systems for potatoes in Scotland, 1987–1989. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 24, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dickson, J.W.; Ritchie, R.M. Zero and reduced ground pressure traffic systems in an arable rotation 1. Cultivation power requirement. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 38, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dickson, J.W.; Ritchie, R.M. Zero and reduced ground pressure traffic systems in an arable rotation 2. Soil and crop responses. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 38, 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Y.X.; Tullberg, J.N.; Freebairn, D.M. Wheel traffic and tillage effects on runoff and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 97, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Campbell, D.J.; Dickson, J.W.; Ball, B.C.; Hunter, R. Controlled seedbed traffic after ploughing or direct drilling under winter barley in Scotland, 1980–1984. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 8, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Unger, P.W. Soil bulk density, penetration resistance, and hydraulic conductivity under controlled traffic conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 37, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raper, R.L.; Reeves, D.W. In-row subsoiling and controlled traffic effects on coastal plain soils. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2007, 50, 1109–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bauder, J.W.; Randall, G.W.; Schuler, R.T. Effects of tillage with controlled wheel traffic on soil properties and root growth of corn. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1985, 40, 382–385. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gerik, T.J.; Morrison, J.E., Jr.; Chichester, F.W. Effects of controlled-traffic on soil physical properties and crop rooting. Agron. J. 1987, 79, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Voorhees, W.B.; Lindstrom, M.J. Long-term effects of tillage method and soil tilth independent of wheel traffic compaction. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wagger, M.G.; Denton, H.P. Influence of cover crop and wheel traffic on soil physical properties in continuous no-till corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1989, 53, 1206–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Liebig, M.A.; Jones, A.J.; Mielke, L.N.; Doran, J.W. Controlled wheel traffic effects on soil properties in ridge tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993, 57, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Braunack, M.V.; McGarry, D. Traffic control and tillage strategies for harvesting and planting of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) in Australia. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 89, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Braunack, M.V.; McPhee, J.E.; Reid, D.J. Controlled traffic to increase productivity of irrigated row crops in the semi-arid tropics. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1995, 35, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sommer, C.; Zach, M. Managing traffic-induced soil compaction by using conservation tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 24, 319–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Radcliffe, D.E.; Manor, G.; Clark, R.L.; West, L.T.; Langdale, G.W.; Bruce, R.R. Effect of traffic and in-row chiselling on mechanical impedance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1989, 53, 1197–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Carter, L.M.; Meek, B.D.; Rechel, E.A. Zone production system for cotton: Soil response. Trans. ASAE 1991, 34, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Willcocks, T.J. Tillage of clod-forming sandy loam soils in the semi-arid climate of Botswana. Soil Tillage Res. 1981, 1, 323–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Raper, R.L.; Reeves, D.W.; Burt, E.C.; Torbert, H.A. Conservation tillage and traffic effects on soil condition. Trans. ASAE 1994, 37, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Li, Y.X.; Tullberg, J.N.; Freebairn, D.M. Traffic and residue cover effects on infiltration. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rohde, K.; Yule, D. Soil compaction and controlled traffic farming research in Central Queensland. In Proceedings of the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation 16th Triennial Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 13–18 July 2003; pp. 1020–1027.
  79. Kurstjens, D.A.G. Precise tillage systems for enhanced non-chemical weed management. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 97, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chamen, W.C.T.; Watts, C.W.; Leede, P.R.; Longstaff, D.J. Assessment of a wide span vehicle (gantry), and soil and cereal crop responses to its use in a zero traffic regime. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 24, 359–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dickson, J.W.; Campbell, D.J. Soil and crop responses to zero- and conventional-traffic systems for winter barley in Scotland, 1982–1986. Soil Tillage Res. 1990, 18, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vermeulen, G.D.; Klooster, J.J. The potential of a low ground pressure traffic system to reduce soil compaction on a clayey loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 24, 337–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chamen, W.C.T.; Cavalli, R. The effect of soil compaction on mole plough draught. Soil Tillage Res. 1994, 32, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chamen, W.C.T.; Dowler, D.; Leede, P.R.; Longstaff, D.J. Design, operation and performance of a gantry system: Experience in arable cropping. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1994, 59, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ball, B.C.; Scott, A.; Parker, J.P. Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 53, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mouazen, A.M.; Palmqvist, M. Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8684-8708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684

AMA Style

Mouazen AM, Palmqvist M. Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming. Sustainability. 2015; 7(7):8684-8708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mouazen, Abdul Mounem, and Martin Palmqvist. 2015. "Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming" Sustainability 7, no. 7: 8684-8708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop