Next Article in Journal
The Establishment of a Discrete Element Model of Wheat Grains with Different Moisture Contents: A Research Study
Previous Article in Journal
Fermented Mixed Feed Increased Egg Quality and Intestinal Health of Laying Ducks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture15111231
agriculture-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Preceding Crops, Soil Packing and Tillage System on Soil Compaction, Organic Carbon Content and Maize Yield

by
Krzysztof Orzech
1,
Maria Wanic
1 and
Dariusz Załuski
2,*
1
Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Department of Genetics, Plant Breeding and Bioresource Engineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(11), 1231; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 3 June 2025 / Accepted: 3 June 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Soils)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Crop rotation and simplified tillage affect soil properties and consequently crop yields. The use of heavy machinery in the tillage can affect soil degradation and reduce soil productivity. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of soil packing and different soil tillage methods applied before the sowing of maize cultivated after grassland and in monoculture on soil compaction, soil organic carbon content, and maize yield. A strip–split–plot experiment was conducted on-farm in northeastern Poland from 2017 to 2021. The soil compaction was measured in the soil layers: 0–10, 10–20 and 20–30 cm in the leaf development stage (BBCH 19), the flowering stage (BBCH 67) and the maize kernel development stage (BBCH 79). The experimental factors were as follows: 1. preceding crop—grassland, maize; 2. degree of soil packing—without soil packing, soil packing after harvesting the preceding crop; 3. different soil tillage—conventional plough tillage method, reduced tillage method. Maize cultivation following a multi-species grassland resulted in a modest 1.47% increase in soil organic carbon content compared to continuous maize monoculture. In monoculture maize, all investigated reduced tillage methods led to increased soil compaction by 0.61–0.67 MPa. However, this adverse effect was mitigated by prior grassland cultivation. Maize grown after a multi-species grassland exhibited 14% higher silage mass yields. Considering the reduction in soil compaction and the enhanced yield potential, this preceding crop is recommended for maize cultivation. Although soil packing did not significantly impact maize yields, reduced tillage methods, such as subsoiling at 40 cm, medium ploughing at 20 cm, and passive tillage, led to a significant reduction in silage mass compared to other treatments.

1. Introduction

Soil tillage methods have a significant effect on the conditions and outcomes of field crop production [1]. They also play an important role in increasing crop yields, thus improving global food security [2]. Individual crop complexes, as well as the whole range of tillage treatments, affect the soil structure (the size and distribution of macro- and microaggregates), including its porosity, compaction and density. This results in changes in soil aeration and moisture content, SOC content, macro and micronutrients, as well as their distribution and availability to plants, and the distribution and depth of plant root systems, and ultimately affects the volume of crop production [3,4,5,6]. A common tillage method used worldwide is plough tillage, which provides good conditions for the sowing and emergence of plants and their further vegetation while being good practice in controlling annual weeds [7].
The main disadvantage of plough tillage is the resulting increase in soil compaction due to its packing due to the repeated movement of heavy agricultural machinery and the passes of tractors with constantly increasing weight [8,9,10,11]. Densified soil can hinder the emergence and cause poorer development of the crop root system. It also adversely affects the physical properties of the soil [3,12]. Furthermore, heavy agricultural machinery damages soil aggregates, increases soil compaction, and reduces soil porosity and permeability [3,9,13,14]. Densification of soil reduces its aeration and water retention capacity and changes its chemical properties [4], leading to slow soil degradation [15] and consequently to a reduction in crop yields [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Conventional tillage (plough) contributes to faster mineralisation of organic matter and thus to greater C losses [13]. Plough tillage and ploughing, in particular, destroy soil aggregates that serve as physical protection for C in the soil [23,24].
Modern agriculture is moving toward reducing the intensity, number, and depth of soil tillage and loosening operations or even eliminating these practices altogether. Such an approach contributes to preserving the natural value and balance of ecosystems and to reducing production costs [10,11,25,26]. Reduced tillage methods can improve soil porosity, temperature, and moisture content and minimise the adverse effect on edaphic organisms [27,28]. They counteract the reduction in SOC content (due to mineralisation), which is of great importance both for soil fertility and climate change mitigation. The SOC content is an important indicator of soil fertility and its biological activity. Reduced tillage systems show an increase in sequestration compared to conventional plough tillage [24], especially when applying crop diversification [29,30]. A reduction in the frequency and intensity of cultivation can also reduce carbon emissions due to savings in machinery and energy consumption [19]. As a consequence, this leads to an increase and/or stabilisation of yields and a reduction in production costs [19]. Reduced tillage methods can counteract the reduction in SOC content (due to its mineralisation), which is of great importance for soil fertility and climate change mitigation. In the era of a sustainable farming system, expanded knowledge of the combined effects of soil packing, reduced tillage methods, and the appropriate selection of crops in rotation is necessary to develop tillage systems that will ensure sufficiently high crop yields while contributing to the lowest possible soil degradation, and protect it against organic carbon losses [31]. The enrichment of knowledge on the above topic is essential for the development of environmentally friendly tillage systems, i.e., those that can ensure stable crop yields with as little soil degradation as possible [31].
Taking into account the above, a research hypothesis was put forward that soil packing would increase soil compaction, and that varied tillage methods, including their depth and intensity, could be a mitigating factor in this process. This hypothesis was verified based on the implementation of a 5-year field experiment.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of soil packing and varied soil tillage methods applied before the sowing of maize cultivated after grassland and in monoculture on soil compaction, soil organic carbon content, and maize yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

The field experiment was carried out in the years 2017–2021 on a farm located in a hilly area in Northeast Poland in the Warmia and Mazury region (a village of Bałowo, 53°53′49″ N, 21°10′38″ E, 160 m a.s.l.). The experiment was carried out on Haplic Luvisol (Aric, Ochric) soil formed from loamy sand (LS) on sandy loam (SL). In its layer of 0–30 cm, the soil contained 63.6% sand, 16.5% coarse silt 16.2% fine silt, and 3.7% clay, and was characterised by a slightly acid reaction (pH 5.9–6.2), total N content of 13.0–15.3 mg·kg−1, medium to high contents of available forms of P (5.72–7.94 g·kg−1) and K (9.46–13.61 g∙kg−1), and a low content of available forms of Mg content (3.36–4.56 g∙kg−1). Soil acidity was determined by the potentiometric method. The total N content was determined by the Kjeldahl method, available forms of phosphorus and potassium were determined with the Egner–Riehm method, and Mg content was determined according to the Schachtschabel method. All analyses were carried out in the certified laboratory of the Chemical and Agricultural Station, Olsztyn, Poland.
Each year, maize was cultivated in two production fields, each with an area of 10 ha. In each year preceding maize sowing, fields were sown with the following: field 1: 2-year, multi-species grassland with the following species composition: Medicago sativa (36%), Lolium perenne (13%), Phleum pratense (13%), Trifolium pratense (11%) Lolium multiflorum (9%) Lolium hybridum (9%), and Festulolium spp. (9%); field 2: maize (Pioneer P8451 hybrid cultivar).
A three-factorial field experiment with a strip-split-plot (split-block-split-plot) design was set up. The experimental factors were as follows:
Factor A (whole plots)—preceding crop (A1 multi-species grassland; A2—maize),
Factor B (strip plots)—degree of presowing soil packing (B1—control plot without packing; B2—plot with soil packing after harvesting the preceding crop—a pass of a tractor + trailer combination with a weight of approximately 9 tonnes, track next to track).
Factor C (split plots)—four different soil tillage for the sowing of maize cultivated after multi-species grasslands and in monoculture:
After grassland:
Conventional plough tillage method (#1—control). After harvesting the preceding crop, skimming to 12 cm + harrowing, pre-winter ploughing to 28 cm; before sowing, tillage and sowing unit (cultivator + harrow + string roller).
Reduced tillage method (#2). Grubber 2×, medium ploughing to 25 cm, before sowing—passive tillage unit.
Reduced tillage method (#3). After harvesting the preceding crop—disk harrow, medium ploughing to 25 cm, pre-sowing tillage using a passive unit (cultivator + harrow + string roller).
Reduced tillage method (#4). After harvesting the preceding crop, subsoiler to 40 cm, medium ploughing to 28 cm, tillage, and sowing unit (cultivator + harrow + string roller).
Half of the field to be sown with maize cultivated after grassland and half of the field to be sown with maize cultivated in monoculture were packed (5 ha), while the second half (5 ha) was left unpacked. In both plots without soil packing and with soil packing, the four above-mentioned soil tillage methods were applied before maize sowing (each on an area of 1.25 ha). In each field, four plots with an area of 30 m2 were randomly designated, on which detailed tests were carried out. In total, each year of the experiment involved 64 plots (2 preceding crops × 2 packing methods × 4 soil tillage methods × 4 repetitions).
Maize was sown each year in the first 10-day period of May (7 May 2017, 5 May 2018, 3 May 2019, 8 May 2020, and 4 May 2021) at a density of 8–9 plants per 1 m2. Before maize sowing, the field was fertilised with slurry at 60 thousand dcm3 ha−1, and mineral fertilisation was applied at the following rates (kg ha−1 pure component): N (ammonium nitrate 34%)—176; P (superphosphate 18%)—60; K (potassium salt 60%)—90; S (ammonium sulphate 21% N, 60% SO3)—9. Maize was chemically protected against weeds according to the recommendations of the Institute of Plant Protection in Poznań, Poland. After maize emergence (BBCH 10–11), the Adengo 315 S.C (thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole) preparation was applied at a rate of 0.3 dcm3 ha−1.

2.2. Soil Compaction

Each year, soil compaction was measured using an attested SD-10 dynamic probe with a cone apex angle of 90° and a diameter of 35.7 mm (a design by the Drilling and Geological Tool Plant in Warsaw) [32]. The determinations were carried out on three dates: in the leaf development stage (BBCH 19), the flowering stage (BBCH 67), and the maize kernel development stage (BBCH 79). On each designated plot, ten measurements were taken each year.
The soil organic carbon (SOC) content was determined twice: before the start of the experiment in 2017 (20 March) and in 2021 and immediately before the maize harvest (BBCH 79). Before the start of the experiment, on designated plots (before soil packing and application of reduced tillage methods) and before maize harvest, soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–30 cm from randomly selected locations using an SD-10 Egner cane. The soil organic carbon was determined by the calorimetric method through oxidation with a solution of K2Cr2O7 + H2SO4 and an absorption measurement using a spectrophotometer [33] method in an attested laboratory of the Chemical and Agricultural Station in Olsztyn, Poland.

2.3. Maize Silage Mass Yield

In the maize kernel developmental stage (BBCH 79), when the water content in plants decreased to 35%, the green matter yields from each plot were determined, excluding the marginal strips on each side (with an area of 0.5 m2).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Initially, the results of the strip-split-plot design experiment were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Table 1). Subsequently, Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test at the 0.05 significance level was employed to assess significant differences among mean values.
In a subsequent analysis, Student’s t-test for independent samples was used to determine significant differences in mean soil compaction between plots with and without soil packing. Additionally, Dunnett’s test was utilised to compare mean soil compaction values for three reduced tillage systems against a conventional plough tillage control.
Statistical analyses were performed using STATISTICA 13.3 (TIBCO, Palo Alto, CA, USA) at a significant level of α = 0.05. Due to the lack of significant year-to-year variation, mean values for soil compaction and maize productivity were calculated across five years.

2.5. Atmospheric Conditions

The area in which the experiment was conducted is under the influence of the penetration of Atlantic and continental air masses. The local climate is significantly influenced by the large number of lakes located in the area. The average annual air temperature is 6.5 °C. In the summer months, air humidity ranges from 60% to 80%, while temperature ranges from 15.5 °C to 17.4 °C. Spring starts in mid-April and is relatively cold, and autumn is long and warm. Annual precipitation is 550 mm, with a maximum in June and July (75–95 mm). Weather pattern data during the study period against the multi-year (1962–2002) average values are provided in Table 2.
During the maize growing season in the research cycle (2017–2021), the average air temperature (14.6 °C) exceeded the average multi-year values, while the total precipitation (366.0 mm) was lower by 12.4 mm. April 2017 was dry, while in May, total precipitation exceeded average multiyear values for this month. In June, there was a shortfall in precipitation (35.4 mm—only 49% of the regular multiyear value). July was very warm (18.8 °C), and in August and September, precipitation levels, as compared to the average multiyear records, were nearly two times and three times higher, respectively. In 2018, April was dry (precipitation of 24.2 mm). In May and June, precipitation values were higher by 38.2% and 16.8%. Similarly, August and September appeared to be extremely humid, with total precipitation over two times higher than the average multi-year values. The year 2019 was classified as very humid, with total precipitation higher by more than 111 mm than the multiyear records for the area surrounding the village of Bałowo. April was dry, while in May, precipitation exceeded average multiyear values by more than 27%. In June, the humidity was lower than in May, and in July, the total precipitation exceeded the average multi-year values by more than two times. In 2020, total precipitation was lower than the average multi-year value by 26.6%. There was a drought from May to the end of July, with the lowest precipitation observed in June (precipitation of only 27.8 mm). On the other hand, August was warm (17.7 °C), and the total precipitation (103.1 mm) was higher by nearly 28 mm than the average multiyear values. In 2021, during the maize growing season, the average air temperature (14.9 °C) was at a level higher than the average multiyear values, while the total precipitation (320.4 mm) was lower than the average multi-year values from this period.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Compaction

A three-way analysis of variance with the strip-split-plot model that includes the preceding crop, soil packing, tillage system, and the interactions between these factors in general terms, considering the average values for the soil layers, showed that the preceding crop (factor A) significantly increased soil compaction in the cultivation of maize grown in monoculture compared to its cultivation after a multi-species grassland (Table 3 and Table 4).
Soil packing (factor B) also significantly differentiated the value of the analysed characteristic. On the soil packing plots, significantly higher soil compaction was observed compared to the plots without packing (Table 4). All reduced tillage methods (factor C) significantly increased soil compaction compared to plough tillage (control plot). The interactions between the preceding crop and the soil packing (A × B) and tillage system (A × C) showed a significant difference in soil compaction (Table 4). Reduced tillage methods (#2, #3, and #4) did not differentiate soil compaction for maize cultivated after grassland, while for maize cultivated in monoculture, they significantly increased the significance of the characteristic under study as compared to plough tillage (control plot). The interaction between soil packing and the tillage system (B × C) indicates the significance of the differences between all tillage methods in both plots without and with packing. In non-packing plots, the significantly highest compaction was noted following the application of a subsoiler, and medium ploughing carried out to the depth of 20 cm (system #4), while the significantly lowest one was noted following plough tillage (control plot). In the packing plots, significantly higher soil compaction was observed after the application of systems #2 and #3, while the statistically lowest compaction was observed after plough tillage (Table 4).
A detailed analysis considering soil layers (0–10, 10–20, and 20–30 cm) and the stages of maize (leaf development, flowering, and kernel development) showed that the experimental factors soil packing and soil tillage systems in the plots with maize cultivated after multi-species grassland and in monoculture, depending on the soil layer and the developmental stage under study, had a different effect on soil compaction (Table 5 and Table 6). Analysing the factor of soil packing, it can be concluded that after simplified tillage systems (#2, #3, and #4) the soil compaction was higher in the compacted plots compared to the non-compacted ones. In most cases, this difference was statistically significant and applied to the three soil layers studied (0–10, 10–20, and 20–30 cm) in the three observed developmental stages of maize plants. Occasionally, the 10–20 cm soil layer deviated from this rule, where the difference in the soil compaction between the compacted and non-compacted plots was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Such exceptions were observed both in stands after multi-species grasslands (Table 5) and in monoculture (Table 6).
The impact of simplified tillage systems on soil compaction was less predictable, as it depended on both the preceding crop and soil packing factors. In maize stands following multi-species grassland, on non-compacted plots, soil compaction after simplified tillage systems (#2, #3, and #4) was often lower compared to the control conventional plough tillage method (#1). The opposite relationship was observed on compacted plots, especially in the deepest soil layer of 20–30 cm (Table 5). In the case of maize in monoculture, both on compacted and non-compacted plots, simplified tillage systems resulted in significantly higher soil compaction compared to the control tillage system. This was observed in all three soil layers and across all observed phases of maize plant development (Table 6).

3.2. Soil Organic Content (SOC)

The initial SOC content of the soil ranged from 9.75 to 11.10 g·kg−1 (Table 7) prior to the commencement of the experiment in spring 2017. Subsequent analysis in 2021 revealed a general trend of increasing SOC levels. However, this increase was not consistently statistically significant across all experimental plots. In maize plots following multi-species grassland, the implementation of system #2 (non-compacted soil plot) and system #3 (compacted soil plot) resulted in significant enhancements in SOC content by 9% and 11%, respectively. In contrast, maize monoculture plots exhibited a more uniform response, with all compacted soil plots demonstrating a marked increase in SOC content, averaging 15%.
Post-experiment analysis in 2021 indicated that the soil organic carbon (SOC) content was significantly influenced by soil packing (factor B) and its interactions with tillage systems (A × C and B × C) (Table 3 and Table 8). Compacted plots exhibited a significantly higher mean SOC content compared to non-compacted plots (11.43 g·kg−1 vs. 10.49 g·kg−1). Tillage systems (factor C), particularly in combination with soil packing, had a significant impact on SOC. In maize plots following multi-species grassland (interaction A × C), reduced tillage systems (#2 and #3) led to significantly higher SOC levels (11.23 g·kg−1 and 11.19 g·kg−1, respectively). Conversely, in non-compacted fields (interaction B × C), conventional tillage (#1) resulted in the highest SOC (10.83 g·kg−1), while reduced tillage system #4 yielded the lowest SOC (10.10 g·kg−1). No significant differences were found in other comparisons.

3.3. Maize Silage Mass Yield

Based on a three-factor analysis of variance with a strip-split-plot model, it was shown that only the main effect of a preceding crop (factor A) and the main effect of a tillage system (factor C) had a statistically significant effect on maize yields (Table 3 and Table 9). Overall, significantly higher yields were observed when maize was grown after multi-species grassland (69.66 t·ha−1) compared to maize grown in monoculture (61.10 t·ha−1). Significantly, the highest yields were obtained on the control plots (66.50 t·ha−1), while the simplified tillage methods (systems #2, #3 and #4) significantly reduced maize yields.

4. Discussion

4.1. Preceding Crop

In this study, the cultivation of maize after multi-species grasslands comprising high-productivity grasses and legumes (the proportion of which was almost 50%) had a positive effect on soil compaction (Table 4). Grassland plants were characterised by well-developed roots that penetrated the soil. This contributed to soil loosening and an increase in the number of macropores, and thus to a decrease in its compaction [34,35,36]. The soil of the maize cultivated in monoculture exhibited a higher compaction. Jaskulski et al. [37], while cultivating maize in plots after winter wheat, spring barley, and directly after maize, found the effect of the preceding crop on soil compaction only before sowing. At a later developmental stage, this effect was no longer significant. The preservation of organic matter and its systematic growth are becoming very important not only for soil conservation but also as a significant reservoir of organic carbon. The stocks of organic matter in ecosystems are not constant and fluctuate. Boydaş and Turgut [17], Husnjak et al. [38] and Rahman et al. [39] claim that preceding crop plant residues can improve soil structure and stability and increase its soil organic carbon content. In this study, an increase in the SOC content was observed throughout the 5-year study period (Table 7). The SOC content after the grassland preceding crop was slightly higher (however, not significantly) than after the maize preceding crop (Table 8). Highly productive, multi-species grassland (with a silage fresh mass yield ranging from 10 to 12 t·ha−1) with well-developed roots is theoretically supposed to increase the SOC content. It leaves a lot of organic matter and has a positive effect on the soil structure and air–water relations, and has a rich biological life [35]. Loges et al. [40] demonstrated that in the soil of maize cultivated after two years of grassland, a slight increase in SOC content was noted, which is consistent with this study. In our study, cultivating maize after grassland resulted in significantly higher yields compared to continuous maize cultivation (Table 9). Nevertheless, the lack of a statistically significant increase in soil SOC content within our 5-year experimental timeframe presents a key finding, likely attributable to the inherent limitations of a short-term study in capturing subtle SOC dynamics. This observation is consistent with Lal [41], who posited that while initial impacts of agronomic interventions on SOC may emerge within four to five years, a more stable state often materializes closer to the tenth year. Powlson et al. [42] highlighted the necessity of at least 5-year studies on arable soils to confidently detect SOC changes in the order of 0.1–0.3 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. Collectively, this body of evidence underscores that although certain agricultural practices can rapidly influence crop productivity, the accurate assessment of meaningful and enduring changes in SOC levels demands a substantially extended monitoring duration.

4.2. Soil Packing

Our study showed that on the plots with packing, significantly higher soil compaction was noted as compared to the plots without soil packing (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). Many authors have proven that soil packing with heavy machinery leads to an increase in soil compaction [43,44,45]. In the presented study, it was shown that soil with higher compaction had a higher SOC content than soil with lower compaction (Table 8), which is consistent with the results of Woldeyohannis et al.’s [46] study. With the increase in soil compaction, the porosity, and number of large pores decreases (air-filled), while the number of small pores increases (water-filled) [47]. This reduces the mineralisation of organic matter, thereby increasing soil carbon sequestration. The density of macroaggregates in the soil also increases [2]. There is also no shortage of information in the literature about the reduction in SOC under soil compaction [48]. In our study, soil compaction did not significantly reduce maize yield. The result obtained is not confirmed in the publications of other authors [49,50,51]. In our experiment, this was the result of slight changes in soil compaction due to soil packing, which did not influence maize yield.

4.3. Tillage Systems

Modifications in soil tillage can influence changes in soil compaction [17,52]. This depends on soil type, climatic conditions, crop species, crop rotation and time after soil tillage [22,53,54,55]. In the present study, the impact of reduced tillage methods on soil compaction was assessed, considering the preceding crop (multi-species grassland or maize) and the developmental stage of the subsequent maize crop (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). For maize cultivated after multi-species grassland in the plot without soil packing, all reduced tillage methods reduced soil compaction in the soil layers under study (0–10, 10–20, 20–30 cm) and the study periods (BBCH 19, BBCH 67, and BBCH 79) compared to the conventional plough tillage method. The result obtained is confirmed by the data presented by Augustin et al. [9], Jones et al., [56] and Voltr et al. [11], who reported that the conventional tillage method contributed to an increase in soil compaction. Compacted soil restricts the access of air and water to plant roots and prevents root respiration and nutrient uptake. This leads to poorer plant growth, susceptibility of roots to disease and reduced plant yields [57]. However, on the plot with packing, an opposite effect was obtained after this preceding crop—reduced tillage methods increased soil compaction as compared to the plough tillage method. On plots with soil packing, reduced tillage methods increased soil compaction compared to plough tillage or did not change it significantly. A similar effect was noted on the fields of maize cultivated in monoculture. In both plots without soil packing and those with packing, an increase in soil compaction was observed, compared to the plough tillage method, under the influence of reduced tillage methods. The results obtained partially correspond to the results obtained by other authors. In a study by Orzech et al. [58], conducted under similar soil conditions (loamy–sandy soil) after harvesting the crop on plots without packing, a significant increase in soil compaction was noted after the use of a subsoiler and the application of single preparatory ploughing. Similarly, Soane et al. [22] documented that on sandy soils, the reduced tillage method increased soil compaction in the soil layer of 5–30 cm as compared to plough tillage. However, the study by Małecka et al. [59] (sandy loam soil) noted lower soil compaction in the 0–10 cm soil layer after using the conventional tillage method than after surface tillage using grubber, while in the 20–30 cm layer, they noted an opposite situation. Similarly, Majchrzak and Skrzypczak [60], on loamy soil, demonstrated significantly higher soil compaction during the maize emergence period in plots without post-harvest tillage. During the growing season, the relationship reversed. During the maize harvest period, the soil plucked in the spring was more compact. However, in a study by Majchrowski et al. [61], shallowing medium ploughing after skimming (sandy loam soil) increased soil compaction by 14%. Soil harrowing had a similar effect, since it increased the value of the characteristic under study by 13% compared to ploughing carried out at variable depths. The authors cited noted the highest compaction in plots on which skimming and medium ploughing was carried out to 15 cm, and the lowest was on plots without skimming but with medium ploughing carried out to the depth of 20 cm. According to Yang et al. [62], reduced tillage may increase soil compaction in the topsoil but may not have a negative effect on soil compaction in the deeper soil layers. However, this cannot be confirmed in the authors’ original study, in which the increase in soil compaction was observed following the application of reduced tillage methods at all the soil depth levels and stages under study. Gozubuyuk et al. [63] demonstrated that the value of this parameter also changed under the influence of a varying number of passes of heavy agricultural machinery and tools across the field, which is compared to the authors’ own study.
In this study, there was a significant effect of tillage methods on SOC content and maize yield. After 5 years of research, the application of a subsoiler to 40 cm, medium ploughing (20 cm) and a passive tillage unit (harrow + string roller) reduced the SOC content as compared to the other reduced tillage (however, this reduction was small). Meanwhile, Sleiderink et al. [64], on sandy soil, reported no change in SOC content between different tillage treatments after 8 years of study. Ploughing and subsoiler destroy soil aggregates, which provide physical protection to carbon in the soil [24,65]. In addition, turning and deep loosening of the soil result in its aeration and therefore faster mineralisation [29,66]. Our research indicates that simplifications in tillage practices have an impact on maize silage biomass yield similar to that on soil organic carbon (SOC). These findings align with previous studies by Rusinamhodzi et al. [67], Ogle et al. [68], and Pittelkow et al. [69,70]. Additionally, Pittelkow et al. [70] synthesised numerous studies and concluded that maize yield can be enhanced in no-till systems, especially when integrated with crop rotation and residue incorporation. However, our research has not yet corroborated this specific finding.

5. Conclusions

Maize cultivation following a multi-species grassland resulted in a slight increase in soil organic carbon content compared to continuous maize monoculture. In monoculture maize, all investigated reduced tillage methods led to increased soil compaction. However, this adverse effect was mitigated by prior grassland cultivation. Furthermore, maize grown after multi-species grassland exhibited higher silage mass yields. Considering the reduction in soil compaction and the enhanced yield potential, this preceding crop is recommended for maize cultivation. Although soil packing did not significantly impact maize yields, reduced tillage methods, such as subsoiling at 40 cm, medium ploughing at 20 cm, and passive tillage, led to a significant reduction in silage mass compared to other treatments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, K.O., M.W. and D.Z.; methodology, K.O., M.W. and D.Z.; software, D.Z.; validation, K.O., M.W. and D.Z.; formal analysis, D.Z.; investigation, K.O.; resources, K.O.; data curation, D.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, K.O., M.W. and D.Z; writing—review and editing, K.O., M.W. and D.Z; visualisation, D.Z.; supervision, K.O. and M.W.; project administration, K.O.; funding acquisition, K.O., M.W. and D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Minister of Science under “the Regional Initiative of Excellence Program”, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture, Grant No. 30.610.015-110, and the Department of Genetics, Plant Breeding and Bioresource Engineering, grant No. 30.610.007-110.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data may be obtained through the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, H.; Liu, W.; Zheng, J.; Luo, Y.; Li, R.; Wang, H.; Qi, H. Effect of long-term tillage on soil aggregates and aggregate-associated carbon in black soil of Northeast China. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aikins, S.; Afuakwa, J. Effect of four different tillage practices on soil physical properties under cowpea. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2012, 3, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ernst, G.; Emmerling, C. Impact of five different tillage systems on soil organic carbon content and the density, biomass, and community composition of earthworms after a ten year period. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdollahi, L.; Munkholm, L.J. Tillage System and Cover Crop Effects on Soil Quality: I. Chemical, Mechanical, and Biological Properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2014, 78, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pires, L.F.; Borges, J.A.R.; Rosa, J.A.; Cooper, M.; Heck, R.J.; Passoni, S.; Roque, W.L. Soil structure changes induced by tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Coulibaly, S.F.M.; Aubert, M.; Brunet, N.; Bureau, F.; Legras, M.; Chauvat, M. Short-term dynamic responses of soil properties and soil fauna under contrasting tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 215, 105191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Arvidsson, J.; Håkansson, I. Do effects of soil compaction persist after ploughing? Results from 21 long-term field experiments in Sweden. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 39, 175–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Augustin, K.; Kuhwald, M.; Brunotte, J.; Duttmann, R. Wheel load and wheel pass frequency as indicators for soil compaction risk: A four-year analysis of traffic intensity at field scale. Geosciences 2020, 10, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schlüter, S.; Großmann, C.; Diel, J.; Wu, G.M.; Tischer, S.; Deubel, A.; Rücknagel, J. Long-term effects of conventional and reduced tillage on soil structure, soil ecological and soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma 2018, 332, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Voltr, V.; Wollnerová, J.; Fuksa, P.; Hruška, M. Influence of Tillage on the Production Inputs, Outputs, Soil Compaction and GHG Emissions. Agriculture 2021, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Romaneckas, K.; Šarauskis, E.; Pilipavičius, V.; Sakalauskas, A. Impact of short-term ploughless tillage on soil physical properties, winter oilseed rape seedbed formation and productivity parameters. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2011, 9, 295–299. [Google Scholar]
  13. Six, J.; Feller, C.; Denef, K.; Ogle, S.M.; de Moraes, J.C.; Albrecht, A. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—Effects of no-tillage. Agronomie 2002, 22, 755–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Somasundaram, J.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Awanish Kumar, D.; Biswas, A.K.; Sinha, N.K.; Mohanty, M.; Hati, K.M.; Jha, P.; Sankar, M.; Patra, A.K.; et al. Effect of contrasting tillage and cropping systems on soil aggregation, carbon pools and aggregate-associated carbon in rainfed Vertisols. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shah, A.N.; Tanveer, M.; Shahzad, B.; Yang, G.; Fahad, S.; Ali, S.; Bukhari, M.A.; Tung, S.A.; Hafeez, A.; Souliyanonh, B. Soil compaction effects on soil health and cropproductivity: An overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 10056–10067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Botta, G.F.; Tolón-Becerra, A.; Bienvenido, F.; Rivero, D.; Laureda, D.A.; Ezquerra-Canalejo, A.; Contessotto, E.E. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) harvest: Tractor and grain chaser traffic effects on soil compaction and crop yields. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 4252–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boydaş, M.G.; Turgut, N. Effect of tillage implements and operating speeds on soil physical properties and wheat emergence. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2007, 31, 399–412. [Google Scholar]
  18. Camara, K.M.; Payne, W.A.; Rasmussen, P.E. Long-term effects of tillage, nitrogen, and rainfall on winter wheat yields in the Pacific Northwest. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lahmar, R. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. Rieger, S.; Richner, W.; Streit, B.; Frossard, E.; Liedgens, M. Growth, yield, and yield components of winter wheat and the effects of tillage intensity, preceding crops, and N fertilisation. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Soane, B.D.; Ball, B.C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; Roger-Estrade, J. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 118, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maltas, A.; Kebli, H.; Oberholzer, H.R.; Weisskopf, P.; Sinaj, S. The effects of organic and mineral fertilizers on carbon sequestration, soil properties, and crop yields from a long-term field experiment under a Swiss conventional farming system. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 926–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Song, K.; Yang, J.; Xue, Y.; Lv, W.; Zheng, X.; Pan, J. Influence of tillage practices and straw incorporation on soil aggregates, organic carbon, and crop yields in a rice-wheat rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Li, T.; Zhao, D.; Liao, Y. Tillage practices with different soil disturbance shape the rhizosphere bacterial community throughout crop growth. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 197, 104501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Woźniak, A. Effect of various systems of tillage on winter barley yield, weed infestation and soil properties. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 3483–3496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Li, H. Current Status of Adoption of No-till Farming in the World and Some of its Main Benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hobbs, P.R. Paper Presented at International Workshop on Increasing Wheat Yield Potential, CIMMYT, Obregon, Mexico, 20–24 March 2006. Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 145, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mbuthia, L.W.; Acosta-Martínez, V.; DeBryun, J.; Schaeffer, S.; Tyler, D.; Odoi, E.; Mpheshea, M.; Walker, F.; Eash, N. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 89, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tiemann, L.K.; Grandy, A.S.; Atkinson, E.E.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; McDaniel, M.D. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van Eerd, L.L.; Congreves, K.A.; Hayes, A.; Verhallen, A.; Hooker, D.C. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on soil quality, organic carbon, and total nitrogen. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 94, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lipiec, J.; Stępniewski, W. Effects of soil compaction and tillage systems on uptake and losses of nutrients. Soil Tillage Res. 1995, 35, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Drzymała, S.; Mocek, A. Methods in soil physics and soil chemistry recomended by ISO (and Polish Comity Standarization). Acta Agrophysica 2001, 48, 253–264. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  34. Colombi, T.; Braun, S.; Keller, T.; Walter, A. Artificial macropores attract crop roots and enhance plant productivity on compacted soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 1283–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lemaire, G.; Gastal, F.; Franzluebbers, A.; Chabbi, A. Grassland–Cropping Rotations: An Avenue for Agricultural Diversification to Reconcile High Production with Environmental Quality. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 1065–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M.; Labarta, R.; Mutch, D.; Black, J.R.; Leep, R.; Nyiraneza, J.; O’Neil, K. Evaluating Cover Crops for Benefits, Costs and Performance within Cropping System Niches. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. 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. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  38. Husnjak, S.; Filipović, D.; Košutić, S. Influence of different tillage systems on soil physical properties and crop yield. Plant Soil Environ. 2002, 48, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rahman, M.H.; Okubo, A.; Sugiyama, S.; Mayland, H.F. Physical, chemical and microbiological properties of an Andisol as related to land use and tillage practice. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Loges, R.; Bunne, I.; Reinsch, T.; Malisch, C.; Kluß, C.; Herrmann, A.; Taube, F. Forage production in rotational systems generates similar yields compared to maize monocultures but improves soil carbon stocks. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 97, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ji, B.; Zhao, Y.; Mu, X.; Liu, K.; Li, C. Effects of tillage on soil physical properties and root growth of maize in loam and clay in central China. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Radford, B.J.; Yule, D.F.; McGarry, D.; Playford, C. Amelioration of soil compaction can take 5 years on a Vertisol under no till in the semi-arid subtropics. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 97, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shaheb, M.R.; Venkatesh, R.; Shearer, S.A. A Review on the Effect of Soil Compaction and its Management for Sustainable Crop Production. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 46, 417–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Woldeyohannis, Y.S.; S Hiremath, S.; Tola, S.; Wako, A. Influence of soil physical and chemical characteristics on soil compaction in farm field. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhu, X.; Peng, W.; Xie, Q.; Ran, E. Effects of soil compaction stress combined with drought on soil pore structure, root system development, and maize growth in early stage. Plants 2024, 13, 3185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Singh, P.D.; Kumar, A.; Dhyani, B.; Kumar, S.; Shahi, U.; Singh, A.; Singh, A. Relationship between compaction levels (bulk density) and chemical properties of different textured soil. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gregorich, E.G.; Lapen, D.R.; Ma, B.L.; McLaughlin, N.B.; VandenBygaart, A.J. Soil and Crop Response to Varying Levels of Compaction, Nitrogen Fertilization, and Clay Content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 1483–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shaheb, M.R.; Grift, T.E.; Godwin, R.J.; Dickin, E.; White, D.R.; Misiewicz, P.A. Effect of tire inflation pressure on soil properties and yield in a corn—Soybean rotation for three tillage systems in the Midwestern United States. In Proceedings of the 2018 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA, 29 July–1August 2018; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidhu, D.; Duiker, S.W. Soil Compaction in Conservation Tillage: Crop Impacts. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1257–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Czyż, E.A.; Dexter, A.R. Soil physical properties as affected by traditional, reduced and no-tillage for winter wheat. Int. Agrophysics 2009, 23, 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lipiec, J.; Kuś, J.; Słowińska-Jurkiewicz, A.; Nosalewicz, A. Soil porosity and water infiltration as influenced by tillage methods. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 89, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vogeler, I.; Rogasik, J.; Funder, U.; Panten, K.; Schnug, E. Effect of tillage systems and P-fertilization on soil physical and chemical properties, crop yield and nutrient uptake. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Strudley, M.; Green, T.; Ascoughii, J. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time: State of the science. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 99, 4–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jones, R.J.; Spoor, G.; Thomasson, A. Vulnerability of subsoils in Europe to compaction: A preliminary analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 73, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nassir, A.J. Effect of Moldboard Plow Types on Soil Physical Properties Under Different Soil Moisture Content and Tractor Speed. Basrah J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 31, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Orzech, K.; Wanic, M.; Załuski, D.; Stepien, A. Influence of soil compaction and tillage methods on penetration resistance of soil and yields in the crop rotation system. Acta Agrophysica 2016, 23, 661–680. [Google Scholar]
  59. Małecka, I.; Blecharczyk, A.; Sawinska, Z.; Piechota, T.; Waniorek, B. Cereals yield response to tillage methods. Fragm. Agron. 2012, 29, 114–123. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  60. Majchrzak, L.; Skrzypczak, G. Influence of reduce tillage systems for maize and cover on soil physical properties. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 1, 174–181. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  61. Majchrowski, P.; Kordas, L.; Parylak, D. Changes in soil environment under different soil tillage and long-term continuous cropping of winter rye. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 1, 164–173. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang, P.; Dong, W.; Heinen, M.; Qin, W.; Oenema, O. Soil Compaction Prevention, Amelioration and Alleviation Measures Are Effective in Mechanized and Smallholder Agriculture: A Meta-Analysis. Land 2022, 11, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gozubuyuk, Z.; Sahin, U.; Ozturk, I.; Celik, A.; Adiguzel, M.C. Tillage effects on certain physical and hydraulic properties of a loamy soil under a crop rotation in a semi-arid region with a cool climate. CATENA 2014, 118, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sleiderink, J.; Deru, J.G.C.; van der Weide, R.; van Eekeren, N. Effects of reduced tillage and prolonged cover cropping in maize on soil quality and yield. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 244, 106196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maltas, A.; Charles, R.; Jeangros, B.; Sinaj, S. Effect of organic fertilizers and reduced-tillage on soil properties, crop nitrogen response and crop yield: Results of a 12-year experiment in Changins, Switzerland. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ding, F.; Hu, Y.-L.; Li, L.-J.; Li, A.; Shi, S.; Lian, P.-Y.; Zeng, D.-H. Changes in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks after conversion of meadow to cropland in Northeast China. Plant Soil. 2013, 373, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rusinamhodzi, L.; Corbeels, M.; van Wijk, M.T.; Rufino, M.C.; Nyamangara, J.; Giller, K.E. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 657–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ogle, S.M.; Swan, A.; Paustian, K. No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015, 517, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pittelkow, C.M.; Linquist, B.A.; Lundy, M.E.; Liang, X.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2015, 183, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of three-factorial experiment with a strip-split-plot design.
Table 1. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of three-factorial experiment with a strip-split-plot design.
Source
of Variation		Degree of Freedom
(df)		Sum of Squares
(SS)		Mean Square
(MS)		F
Replicationr − 1var Rep.SSRep./dfRep.MSRep./MSE1
Factor Aa − 1var ASSA/dfAMSA/MSE1
Error (E1)(r − 1)(a − 1)var E1SSE1/dfE1
Factor Bb − 1var BSSB/dfBMSB/MSE2
Error (E2)(r − 1)(b − 1)var E2SSE2/dfE2
AB(a − 1)(b − 1)var ABSSAB/dfABMSAB/MSE3
Error (E3)(r − 1)(a − 1)(b − 1)var E3SSE3/dfE3
Factor C(c − 1)var CSSC/dfCMSC/MSE4
AC(a − 1)(c − 1)var ACSSAC/dfACMSAC/MSE4
BC(b − 1)(c − 1)var BCSSBC/dfBCMSBC/MSE4
ABC(a − 1)(b − 1)(c − 1)var ABCSSABC/dfABCMSABC/MSE4
Error (E4)ab(r − 1)(c − 1)var E4SSE4/dfE4
Table 2. Temperature and precipitation values during crop growth in the years 2017–2021.
Table 2. Temperature and precipitation values during crop growth in the years 2017–2021.
YearsMonthsTotal/Mean
IVVVIVIIVIIIIX
Mean Air Temperature °C
20178.012.514.918.816.715.114.3
20187.812.616.121.117.315.815.1
20197.313.517.517.518.412.714.5
20207.012.516.618.317.711.814.0
20217.712.916.918.517.815.614.9
1962–20027.012.615.117.216.812.613.6
Precipitation (mm)
201722.068.235.483.939.617.9267.0
201824.293.283.527.1141.7105.6475.3
201926.879.760.8176.581.065.4490.2
202033.848.427.847.0103.117.0277.1
202129.680.742.160.345.662.1320.4
1962–200235.457.669.581.675.259.1378.4
Table 3. The values of F statistics of ANOVA with strip-split-plot model of soil compaction in the soil layer of 0–30 cm, soil organic carbon content (SOC), and maize silage mass yield under the influence of three experimental factors.
Table 3. The values of F statistics of ANOVA with strip-split-plot model of soil compaction in the soil layer of 0–30 cm, soil organic carbon content (SOC), and maize silage mass yield under the influence of three experimental factors.
Source of VariationdfSoil CompactionSOCYield
Replication32.78 ns0.51 ns1.02 ns
Preceding crop (A)1604 ***1.73 ns640 ***
Error (E1)3
Soil packing (B)1225 ***87.47 **0.07 ns
Error (E2)3
AB1825 ***5.75 ns0.43 ns
Error (E3)3
Tillage system (C)329.2 ****2.34 ns4.20 *
AC325.1 ****2.88 *1.66 ns
BC314.0 ****4.54 **0.56 ns
ABC329.1 ****1.72 ns1.24 ns
Error (E4)36
Significant at the following levels: * α = 0.05; ** α = 0.01; *** α = 0.001; **** α = 0.0001; ns—not significant.
Table 4. Changes in soil compaction (MPa) under the influence of experimental factors in the soil layer of 0–30 cm.
Table 4. Changes in soil compaction (MPa) under the influence of experimental factors in the soil layer of 0–30 cm.
Tillage System (C)Soil Packing (B)
Without PackingWith Packing
Preceding Crop (A)Mean ACMean BC
GrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeWithout PackingWith PackingMean C
#10.450.680.400.620.43 ns0.65 B0.57 b0.51 C0.54 b
#20.280.690.481.340.38 ns1.02 A0.49 c0.91 A0.70 a
#30.250.830.541.190.40 ns1.01 A0.54 bc0.87 A0.70 a
#40.321.000.461.110.39 ns1.06 A0.66 a0.78 B0.72 a
Mean AB0.33 b0.80 B0.47 a1.07 A
Mean B0.56 b0.77 a
Mean A0.40 b—Grassland0.93 a—Maize
All letters denote homogeneous groups in Tukey’s HSD test with p < 0.05; ns—not significant. Tillage systems: #1. skimming to 12 cm + harrowing, pre-winter ploughing to 28 cm, a tillage and sowing unit; #2. grubber, rototiller, before the sowing: 2 × passive tillage unit; #3. disk harrow, medium ploughing to 25 cm, pre-sowing tillage using a passive unit; #4. subsoiler to 40 cm, medium ploughing to 20 cm, a passive tillage unit (harrow + string roller).
Table 5. Soil compaction under reduced tillage systems as compared to conventional tillage and between plots with packing and without packing in the soil layers under study and at selected developmental stages of maize cultivated after grassland, MPa.
Table 5. Soil compaction under reduced tillage systems as compared to conventional tillage and between plots with packing and without packing in the soil layers under study and at selected developmental stages of maize cultivated after grassland, MPa.
Degree in Soil PackingTillage Systems
#1#2#3#4
Leaf development (BBCH 19)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing0.270.19 ns0.21 ns0.25 ns
with packing0.560.33 ns0.42 ns0.41 ns
p-value0.00630.0001<0.00010.0145
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.510.28 ***0.37 ***0.40 ***
with packing0.460.47 ns0.63 ***0.40 ns
p-value0.44090.00020.0510.9329
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing0.690.42 ****0.31 ****0.41 ****
with packing0.350.76 ***0.75 ***0.64 ***
p-value<0.00010.00040.00050.0001
Flowering (BBCH 67)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing0.300.19 **0.20 **0.22 **
with packing0.560.26 **0.38 **0.38 **
p-value0.01150.01170.00030.0005
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.480.23 ****0.25 ****0.32 ****
with packing0.440.41 ns0.58 ns0.39 ns
p-value0.57810.00380.02150.3307
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing0.630.36 ****0.23 ****0.34 ****
with packing0.280.71 ****0.72 ****0.64 ****
p-value<0.00010.00300.0002<0.0001
Development of kernels (BBCH 79)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing0.270.32 ns0.21 ns0.30 ns
with packing0.170.39 ns0.31 ns0.33 ns
p-value0.01880.55060.04030.8197
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.490.41 ns0.28 ns0.37 ns
with packing0.320.68 **0.38 ns0.75 **
p-value0.26020.03460.09690.0413
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing0.620.43 **0.59 ns0.44 **
with packing0.280.88 ****1.28 ****1.12 ****
p-value0.01400.00010.0177<0.0001
Significant difference between the conventional tillage system (#1) and the reduced tillage systems (#2, #3 and #4) were observed at the following levels: * α = 0.05; ** α = 0.01; *** α = 0.001; **** α = 0.0001. These differences pertain to the comparisons separately in the ‘without packing’ group and separately in the ‘with packing group’; ns—not significant differences. p-value indicates the significance of differences between ‘without packing’ and ‘with packing’ objects.
Table 6. Soil compaction under reduced soil tillage systems as compared to conventional tillage and between plots with packing and without packing in the soil layers under study, and at selected developmental stages of maize cultivated in monoculture, MPa.
Table 6. Soil compaction under reduced soil tillage systems as compared to conventional tillage and between plots with packing and without packing in the soil layers under study, and at selected developmental stages of maize cultivated in monoculture, MPa.
Degree in Soil PackingTillage Systems
#1#2#3#4
Leaf development (BBCH 19)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing0.180.38 ****0.23 ns0.55 ****
with packing0.221.32 ***0.85 ***0.69 ***
p-value0.5320<0.0001<0.00010.0697
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.180.49 ***0.94 ***1.39 ns
with packing1.231.67 ns1.16 ns1.52 ns
p-value<0.0001<0.00010.33330.5329
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing1.711.45 ns1.36 ns1.78 ns
with packing1.811.99 ns1.85 ns1.85 ns
p-value0.52940.01330.02480.3901
Flowering (BBCH 67)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing1.701.50 ns1.46 ns1.70 ns
with packing0.190.26 **0.92 ****0.19 ns
p-value<0.00010.00410.0013<0.0001
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.270.28 ns0.65 ****0.42 ****
with packing0.220.62 ***1.13 ****1.29 ***
p-value0.09540.00010.0030<0.0001
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing0.520.53 ns0.79 ****0.73 ****
with packing0.441.99 ****1.36 ***1.11 ***
p-value0.1144<0.00010.00020.0004
Development of kernels (BBCH 79)
Soil layer of 0–10 cm
without packing0.220.20 ns0.36 *0.41 **
with packing0.221.53 ****1.08 ****1.14 ****
p-value0.9999<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Soil layer of 10–20 cm
without packing0.290.23 *0.36 ***0.39 ***
with packing0.172.00 ****1.36 ****1.30 ****
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Soil layer of 20–30 cm
without packing0.340.32 ns0.44 *0.52 **
with packing0.642.54 ***1.44 ****1.92 ****
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Significant difference between the conventional tillage system (#1) and the reduced tillage systems (#2, #3 and #4) were observed at the following levels: * α = 0.05; ** α = 0.01; *** α = 0.001; **** α = 0.0001. These differences pertain to the comparisons separately in the ‘without packing’ group and separately in the ‘with packing group’; ns—not significant differences. p-value indicates the significance of differences between ‘without packing’ and ‘with packing’ objects.
Table 7. The soil organic carbon content (g·kg−1) before the start of the experiment (2017) and upon its completion (2021) on the plot without soil packing and with soil packing on the field with maize cultivated after grassland and maize cultivated in monoculture.
Table 7. The soil organic carbon content (g·kg−1) before the start of the experiment (2017) and upon its completion (2021) on the plot without soil packing and with soil packing on the field with maize cultivated after grassland and maize cultivated in monoculture.
Preceding CropSoil PackingTillage SystemYear 2017Year 2021p-Value
GrasslandWithout packing#110.3311.030.2491
#210.1011.030.0004
#310.0510.580.3101
#49.8410.150.1890
With packing#110.3711.230.1459
#210.9911.430.1773
#310.6711.810.0366
#411.1011.040.7196
MaizeWithout packing#110.2310.630.1472
#29.7610.080.2591
#310.0810.350.0260
#49.7510.050.2908
With packing#19.8011.030.0260
#210.0311.600.0006
#39.9811.570.0008
#49.9911.760.0004
Table 8. Changes in the soil organic carbon content under the influence of experimental factors in the soil layer of 0–30 cm after the completion of the experiment (year 2021).
Table 8. Changes in the soil organic carbon content under the influence of experimental factors in the soil layer of 0–30 cm after the completion of the experiment (year 2021).
Tillage System (C)Soil Packing (B)
Without PackingWith Packing
Preceding Crop (A)Mean ACMean BC
GrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeWithout PackingWith PackingMean C
#111.0310.6311.2311.0311.13 b10.83 ns10.83 a11.13 ns10.98 ns
#211.0310.0811.4311.6011.23 a10.84 ns10.56 b11.51 ns11.03 ns
#310.5810.3511.8111.5711.19 ab10.96 ns10.46 b11.69 ns11.07 ns
#410.1510.0511.0411.7610.59 c10.91 ns10.10 c11.40 ns10.75 ns
Mean AB10.69 ns10.28 ns11.38 ns11.49 ns
Mean B10.49 b11.43 a
Mean A11.04 ns—Grassland10.88 ns—Maize
All superscript letters denote homogeneous groups in Tukey’s HSD test with p < 0.05; ns—not significant. Tillage systems: #1. skimming to 12 cm + harrowing, pre-winter ploughing to 28 cm, a tillage and sowing unit; #2. grubber, rototiller, before the sowing: 2 × passive tillage unit; #3. disk harrow, medium ploughing to 25 cm, pre-sowing tillage using a passive unit; #4. subsoiler to 40 cm, medium ploughing to 20 cm, a passive tillage unit (harrow + string roller).
Table 9. The maize silage mass yield (t·ha−1) depends on the preceding crop, soil packing and tillage system.
Table 9. The maize silage mass yield (t·ha−1) depends on the preceding crop, soil packing and tillage system.
Tillage System (C)Soil Packing (B)
Without PackingWith Packing
Preceding Crop (A)Mean ACMean BC
GrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeGrasslandMaizeWithout PackingWith PackingMean C
#169.7764.1370.3761.7370.07 ns62.93 ns66.95 ns66.05 ns66.50 a
#269.7861.5470.4860.3270.13 ns60.93 ns65.66 ns65.40 ns65.53 b
#370.0360.0569.7861.0369.90 ns60.54 ns65.04 ns65.40 ns65.22 b
#468.3359.7568.7860.2568.55 ns60.00 ns64.04 ns64.51 ns64.28 c
Mean AB69.47 ns61.37 ns69.85 ns60.83 ns
Mean B65.42 ns65.34 ns
Mean A69.66 a—Grassland61.10 b—Maize
All superscript letters denote homogeneous groups in Tukey’s HSD test with p < 0.05; ns—not significant. Tillage systems: #1. skimming to 12 cm + harrowing, pre-winter ploughing to 28 cm, a tillage and sowing unit; #2. grubber, rototiller, before the sowing: 2 × passive tillage unit; #3. disk harrow, medium ploughing to 25 cm, pre-sowing tillage using a passive unit; #4. subsoiler to 40 cm, medium ploughing to 20 cm, a passive tillage unit (harrow + string roller).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Orzech, K.; Wanic, M.; Załuski, D. Effect of Preceding Crops, Soil Packing and Tillage System on Soil Compaction, Organic Carbon Content and Maize Yield. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231

AMA Style

Orzech K, Wanic M, Załuski D. Effect of Preceding Crops, Soil Packing and Tillage System on Soil Compaction, Organic Carbon Content and Maize Yield. Agriculture. 2025; 15(11):1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Orzech, Krzysztof, Maria Wanic, and Dariusz Załuski. 2025. "Effect of Preceding Crops, Soil Packing and Tillage System on Soil Compaction, Organic Carbon Content and Maize Yield" Agriculture 15, no. 11: 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231

APA Style

Orzech, K., Wanic, M., & Załuski, D. (2025). Effect of Preceding Crops, Soil Packing and Tillage System on Soil Compaction, Organic Carbon Content and Maize Yield. Agriculture, 15(11), 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop