Next Article in Journal
Characterizing the Effects of Compaction on Agricultural Tilled Soil Macropore Characteristics Using X-Ray Computed Tomography
Previous Article in Journal
A Framework Based on Isoparameters for Clustering and Mapping Geophysical Data in Pedogeomorphological Studies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transient Effects of Biochar and Drainage Systems on Soil Granulometry, Bulk Density, and Porosity in Clay Loam Anthrosols Under Monsoon Climate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Soil Systems
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/soilsystems9040125
soilsystems-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

Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Properties and Crop Yield in a Mollisol After 9, 22, and 25 Years of Implementation in Chapingo, Mexico

by
Francisco González-Breijo
1,
Antonio Fidel Santos-Hernández
1,
Alejandra Sahagún-García
1,*,
Luis Antonio Hernández-Pedraza
2,
Juan Fernando Gallardo-Lancho
3,*,† and
Joel Pérez-Nieto
1
1
Institute for Research, Development and Education in Multifunctional Agriculture, Department of Plant Science, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Mexico-Texcoco Highway Km. 38.5, Chapingo PC 56230, Mexico
2
Beneficiary of COMECYT Researchers Program (2024–2025), Consejo Mexiquense de Ciencia y Tecnología (COMECYT), Paseo Cristóbal Colón No. 112-A Ciprés Neighborhood, Toluca de Lerdo PC 50120, Mexico
3
C.S.I.C., IRNASa, 37080 Salamanca, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Retired.
Soil Syst. 2025, 9(4), 125; https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9040125
Submission received: 21 September 2025 / Revised: 3 November 2025 / Accepted: 5 November 2025 / Published: 12 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Soil Management and Conservation: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Sustainable soil management is crucial for balancing agricultural productivity and soil health in Mollisols under long-term tillage systems. This study evaluated the effects of no-tillage (NT), minimum conservation tillage (MCT), and conventional tillage (CT) on soil properties and maize yield in an irrigated Mollisol in Chapingo, Mexico, over 9, 22, and 25 yr, using a Latin square design with three replications. MCT significantly enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), and exchangeable potassium (EK) compared to NT and CT, achieving the highest maize grain yield (7.21 t ha−1). NT exhibited the greatest SOC and EK in the surface layer. Physical properties, such as bulk density and porosity, remained stable across systems, reflecting Mollisol resilience. Although MCT optimized fertility and productivity, nutrient declines from 2021 to 2024 highlight the need for adaptive management strategies to sustain long-term productivity, supporting global soil conservation and sustainable agriculture goals.

1. Introduction

Agricultural tillage systems designed under resource-conservation principles have proven to be an effective strategy for enhancing productivity while preserving soil quality. However, their successful implementation relies on addressing challenges such as erosion and fertility loss through practical implementation of conservation principles.
Numerous authors [1,2,3,4] have emphasized the importance of sustainable agricultural practices, including conservation agriculture, characterized by soil cover with crop residues, minimal mechanical disturbance, and continuous crop rotation [5]. These strategies improve soil physical [6], physicochemical, biochemical [7], and biological [8,9] properties, thereby enhancing agroecosystem resilience by improving nutrient cycling (including carbon), water management, mitigating carbon dioxide emissions, and preserving ecosystem services [10].
While conservation tillage practices have demonstrated widespread benefits [2,4,9,11], some studies indicate that conventional tillage (CT) may offer short-term advantages. These include increased crop productivity [12,13], improved soil physical properties—such as reduced bulk density and enhanced water infiltration [14,15,16]—and greater nutrient availability (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) in grain and straw [12]. However, these benefits are context-dependent and less sustainable over time. Furthermore, the impact of conservation tillage itself varies with factors like soil type and depth, tillage system, and cropping conditions [9,17,18,19], underscoring the need for long-term evaluations.
In Mollisols, conservation tillage systems, including reduced tillage and no-tillage with residue management, have shown significant improvements, such as increased aggregate stability [20,21,22], surface organic carbon [20,22,23], and enzymatic activity [24,25], alongside reduced erosion [26,27] and stable or slightly higher maize yields [28,29]. These findings suggest that similar benefits could extend to other major agricultural soils worldwide, such as Chernozems in Europe or Vertisols in tropical regions [30,31].
In this context, the present study hypothesizes that conservation tillage systems significantly enhance soil properties and increase crop yields compared to conventional systems, while acknowledging potential trade-offs, such as greater SOC accumulation in no-tillage (NT) versus better yield performance in minimum conservation tillage (MCT). To test this hypothesis, the objective of this study is to analyze the effects of three tillage systems on a Mollisol after 9, 22, and 25 yr of implementation in experimental fields at the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (UACh), Mexico.
The study aims to evaluate the effects of different tillage systems on an irrigated Mollisol in Chapingo, Mexico, by assessing variations in soil physical, physicochemical, and biochemical properties through robust statistical analyses, including validation of parametric assumptions, analysis of variance, and Tukey’s multiple mean comparisons. It also seeks to examine differences in maize crop yields under these tillage systems and to identify which system most effectively enhances soil properties and agricultural productivity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The experiment was conducted at the experimental agricultural field of the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (UACh), located in the municipality of Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico. This area has a temperate subhumid climate, with an average annual precipitation of 600 mm year−1, concentrated between May and October, and a mean annual temperature of 15.9 °C [32,33]. Climatic characteristics, such as long summers and occasional hail events (2 to 5 hailstorms per year) and frosts (averaging 90 days annually), make this region an ideal setting for studying tillage systems under variable conditions [34,35]
A representative soil of the region, a Mollisol, was selected for the study. This soil was chosen due to its developmental characteristics and soil organic matter (SOM) content, which enable the evaluation of tillage system effects under these conditions [36]. Mollisols, known for their nutrient richness, are classified as Vertic Agriustoll and belong to the Xaltepa series, characterized by deep soils with a medium texture that becomes coarser with depth [37]. The experimental plot has a clay-loam texture.
The tillage systems were implemented in M-18 plot located at the UACh Experimental Field. This location was selected for its edaphic properties and water management practices. Established in 1999 to assess the long-term effects of different tillage systems on soil properties, the site employs an agroforestry alley-cropping system with rotational crops (maize, oats, and beans) and irrigation.
The selection of these soil and tillage systems is based on their agricultural relevance and potential to generate representative data applicable to similar contexts. Furthermore, continuous monitoring ensures replicability and consistency of assessments of soil property dynamics and crop yield over the long term.

2.2. System Design and Management

The experiment involved the establishment of three characteristic tillage systems: NT, characterized by no soil disturbance and maintaining at least 30% of the surface covered with crop residues; MCT, involving minimal soil disturbance through chiseling and retaining at least 30% of the surface covered with crop residues; and CT, a traditional tillage method that disturbs the soil and removes all crop residues, serving as the reference system. Management activities included specific practices for each tillage system (Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials), differentiated by the intensity of soil disturbance.
These three tillage systems were selected due to their relevance in sustainable soil management and their ability to represent a gradient of mechanical soil disturbance, enabling the evaluation of both short- and long-term impacts on soil properties and crop yield.
Fertilization and irrigation were applied uniformly across all systems to support crop growth, with details provided in the Supplementary Materials (Section S1).

2.3. Experimental Design

A 3 × 3 Latin square design with three replications was implemented. The Latin square design was used to manage the natural variability of the soil in study across the entire experimental area. The treatments were distributed randomly, ensuring that no two identical treatments were adjacent (only one treatment per column and per row). Figure 1 shows the dimensions of each experimental unit, its orientation, and distribution across the field.

2.4. Sample Selection and Processing

To evaluate physicochemical and biochemical soil properties, five sampling points per plot were selected using simple random sampling to ensure representativeness and minimize edge effects. Soil samples were collected annually throughout the 25-year experiment between September and October, immediately after the spring–summer crop harvest and prior to autumn–winter seeding. Samples were collected at three standardized depths: 0–3 cm (surface layer), 15–18 cm (arable layer), and 30–33 cm (subsurface layer), enabling a comprehensive analysis of the soil profile’s characteristics. Subsequently, the five subsamples from each depth were homogenized to form a composite 1.00 kg sample, enhancing the representativeness of the data. Collected samples were air-dried and sieved.
Physical properties were assessed using established methods [38,39], with detailed procedures listed in Supplementary Materials (Section S2). For the sampling of physical properties (determined only in 2021), a 9 cm height cylinder was used, which determined physical properties sampling depths to 0–9, 15–24, and 30–39 cm, maintaining the objective of avoiding soil transition zones and focusing on distinct layers with potential significant variation.
Physicochemical, biochemical, and physical properties were analyzed following standard protocols [40], with specific methods detailed in Supplementary Materials (Section S2).
In total, 27 samples were analyzed annually, enabling robust monitoring of soil properties over time. This procedure has been consistently applied over the 25 yr of the experiment, ensuring data comparability and continuity.
To evaluate yield, five maize samples per experimental unit were randomly selected. For each sample, all plants in five linear meters of a double row were counted and cut, and the population density (PD, in thousands of plants ha−1) was estimated. The fresh biomass per sample was weighed. Additionally, the number of cobs was counted and weighed immediately after harvest. Both plants and cobs were air-dried for two weeks to achieve a moisture content of 12%. The dried cobs were shelled, and the total dry grain weight per sample was recorded. From these data, grain yield (GY, in t DM ha−1) and biological yield (BY, in t DM ha−1, accounting for the dry weight of entire plants) were calculated. Finally, the harvest index (HI) was determined as the ratio of GY to BY (HI = GY/BY).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data were processed collectively by year, with specific years analyzed independently: 1999, 2008, 2021, and 2024. These years were selected because they are sufficiently spaced to identify significant long-term differences in soil properties and crop performance under the tillage systems. Each year was treated as a factorial design with three replications per treatment, where factor A was the tillage system with three levels (NT, MCT, and CT), and factor B was soil depth (layers 0–3 cm, 15–18 cm, and 30–33 cm). The presence of interactions between factors and differences within each factor was assessed. When differences between factors were identified, the factor of interest was fixed, and a multiple comparison of means was conducted using Tukey’s method to detect statistically significant differences between tillage systems and across depths.
Following the independent analysis of each year, statistical differences between years were evaluated, and the results of Tukey’s tests were plotted. This approach was applied only to the first soil layer (depth 0–3 cm), the most affected layer by soil management.
In all cases, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple comparison of means (significance level of 0.05) were performed. Each mean is presented with its standard error. Statistical analyses were conducted using appropriate software [41], with additional details on tools and packages provided in Supplementary Materials (Section S3).
The study tries recognizing potential limitations (including possible effects from machinery operation, edge effects in sampling, and variability in crop management practices across the 25-year period), which may influence the results and are considered in their interpretation.

3. Results

3.1. Physicochemical and Biochemical Properties

A key finding of this study is the remarkable resilience of Mollisols under long-term tillage: despite 25 yr of contrasting management, no significant differences were observed in pH, EC, or CEC among tillage systems (NT, MCT, CT) at any depth or evaluation year (Table 1). This stability tests expectations from many studies on less resilient soils and highlights a defining trait of Mollisols (their capacity to maintain core physicochemical properties regardless of mechanical disturbance).
Conservation tillage systems (NT and MCT) consistently outperformed conventional tillage (CT) in enhancing soil biochemical properties, particularly at the surface layer (0–3 cm), while differences diminished with depth. Key trends are summarized below, with detailed values in Table 1.
Initial Conditions (1999): No significant differences existed among tillage systems for pH, SOC, or EK at any depth, except for AP at 30–33 cm, where MCT > CT and NT. Within each system, SOC was significantly higher at 0–3 cm than at deeper layers across all treatments. AP showed stratification in NT, being higher in the top two layers. EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year).
2008: NT and MCT significantly improved SOC, TN, AP, and EK at 0–3 cm compared to CT, with no differences at deeper layers (except SOC at 30–33 cm: MCT > NT = CT). pH, EC, and CEC remained statically similar across systems and depths. The C/N ratio was significantly the highest in MCT. Within NT and MCT, SOC, TN, AP, and EK decreased sharply with depth, contrasting CT.
2021: NT achieved the highest values in SOC, TN, AP, EK, and C/N ratio at 0–3 cm, followed by MCT, with CT showing the lowest. No differences were observed at 15–18 cm or 30–33 cm. pH, EC, and CEC values were similar across treatments. Stratification was stronger in NT and MCT.
2024: NT maintained the highest SOC, TN, AP, and EK at 0–3 cm, followed by MCT > CT. No differences occurred below −3 cm. Surface enrichment persisted in conservation systems.
Overall, over 25 yr, SOC and AP increased significantly in NT and MCT at the surface layer, while CT remained stable at low values. TN peaked in 2021 under NT and MCT but declined by 2024. Stratification of nutrients was a consistent feature of conservation tillage.

Long-Term Dynamics

Under CT (Figure 2), soil properties showed limited improvement over 25 yr. pH decreased significantly from neutral to slightly acidic, with a temporary rebound in 2008 and 2021. SOC and AP remained stable at low levels, while TN declined after 2021, increasing the C/N ratio. EK peaked in 2021 but returned to initial low values by 2024. EC and CEC showed no consistent trends.
MCT (Figure 3) markedly enhanced soil fertility. SOC, TN, and AP increased steadily, peaking in 2021 before a slight decline by 2024. EK followed a similar pattern, with highest values in 2021. The C/N ratio increased over time, and pH decreased consistently. EC and CEC remained stable.
NT (Figure 4) produced the strongest and most sustained improvements. SOC, TN, AP, and EK increased significantly from 1999 to 2021, with NT achieving the highest values among treatments. Despite minor declines by 2024, surface-layer values remained elevated. The C/N ratio rose gradually, and pH decreased uniformly. EC and CEC showed minimal variation.
In summary, conservation tillage (NT and MCT) drove substantial long-term gains in SOC, TN, AP, and EK—especially at the surface—while CT exhibited stagnation or decline. NT consistently outperformed MCT, though these surpassed CT in soil health enhancement.

3.2. Physical Properties

After 23 yr of tillage implementation (2022), no significant differences were observed among NT, MCT, and CT for any physical property (GM, BD, Por, VR, VM, AF) at any depth (Table 2).
Within each system, moisture content (GM and VM) increased with depth, while air fraction (AF) was highest in the surface layer (0–3 cm). Bulk density (BD), porosity (Por), and void ratio (VR) remained consistent across depths and treatments.

3.3. Productive Yield

After 23 yr of implementation (2022), maize yield performance varied significantly among tillage systems (Table 3), closely reflecting the observed soil biochemical improvements.
NT achieved the highest population density (PD), likely supported by enhanced surface SOC and nutrient availability.
MCT produced the greatest biological (BY) and grain (GY) yields, consistent with its peak levels of SOC, TN, and AP at 0–3 cm (Figure 3), suggesting improved nutrient supply and soil health directly contributed to higher productivity.
CT showed the lowest values in both BY and GY, aligning with its stagnant SOC and nutrient profiles.
The harvest index (HI) was similar across all systems, indicating comparable partitioning efficiency despite differences in soil fertility.

4. Discussion

4.1. Physical Properties

After 23 yr, no significant differences were observed in any physical property (GM: Gravimetric Moisture; BD: Bulk Density; Por: Soil Porosity, VR: Void Ratio; VM: Volumetric Moisture; or AF: Air Fraction) among tillage systems at any depth—a result highlighting the remarkable resilience of Mollisols. This stability contrasts with many long-term studies reporting tillage-induced changes in bulk density and porosity [3,6,17,42,43,44], particularly compaction issues under NT that can hinder root growth and water infiltration in less resilient soils [45,46]. This lack of differences represents a novel and significant finding, emphasizing the inherent structural robustness of Mollisols—characterized by high SOM content and favorable aggregation—that effectively buffers against mechanical disturbance over extended periods, even in irrigated systems with machinery traffic [8,47]. Such resilience challenges the generalization of NT-related compaction risks and highlights Mollisols’ potential as a model for sustainable tillage in similar high-fertility soils worldwide.
Depth gradients in moisture (higher GM and VM below −3 cm) and aeration (higher AF at the surface in NT and MCT) suggest texture-driven water dynamics and residue-driven surface aeration, respectively.
Future research could explore unmeasured indicators such as aggregate stability, water-holding capacity, and hydraulic conductivity to detect subtle effects not captured by standard parameters [48,49].
The stability of these physical properties of Mollisols across tillage systems complements the biochemical enhancements observed in conservation practices, as a robust soil structure facilitates better water and nutrient dynamics [50], ultimately supporting the yield advantages seen in MCT by enabling efficient root exploration and resource utilization.

4.2. Physicochemical Properties

4.2.1. pH

The observed long-term pH declining in the Mollisol, uniform across NT, MCT, and CT (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4), underscores the vulnerability of even resilient soils to acidification—impacting nutrient availability and microbial activity, which are critical for sustainable agriculture. This trend aligns with literature linking acidification to nitrogen fertilization, atmospheric deposition, cation leaching, and precipitation [51,52,53] but extends these findings to irrigated Mollisols of Mexico Valley, where pollution exacerbates the process [54]. The lack of tillage-specific differences implies external drivers dominate, rather than management practices.
Recurrent ammoniacal N inputs (46–92 kg NH4-N ha−1 yr−1) likely accelerate acidification, unmitigated by Ca amendments from superphosphate [20 kg Ca ha−1 year−1], while conservation tillage may offset residue decomposition effects [55,56].
This uniform acidification highlights risks to P and micronutrient bioavailability, urging future research on amendments to buffer pH in polluted regions. This pH decline interacts with other physicochemical properties, such as the stability of CEC and declines in EC under CT, potentially exacerbating nutrient imbalances by reducing cation retention and increasing leaching risks [57,58], which could undermine the biochemical gains in SOC and TN under conservation tillage and affect overall yield sustainability.

4.2.2. Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The decline in EC over 25 yr under CT (Figure 2) underscores the risk of salt loss in conventional systems, potentially compromising nutrient balance and soil health in irrigated environments, while in MCT and NT, EC remained stable (Figure 3 and Figure 4). This trend in CT aligns with studies attributing the reduction in soluble salts to increased leaching induced by the combination of intensive tillage and irrigation [59,60], emphasizing how conservation practices preserve salinity levels essential for microbial activity and crop uptake. Conversely, the stability in NT and MCT suggests that soil conservation minimizes salt loss, possibly due to less disturbance of the soil profile and better moisture retention. However, NT and MCT exhibited regularly stable EC values across the years (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4) compared to the CT system; this contrasts with the expectation of salt accumulation in untilled soils [61]. It is likely that the loss of exchangeable K (EK) in CT management is related to the decrease in EC over the years. In a broader context, the EC trends under CT link directly to reductions in EK and pH acidification, amplifying salt and cation losses that contrast with the nutrient retention benefits from elevated SOC in conservation systems, thereby highlighting how integrated management could mitigate these interconnected vulnerabilities to maintain soil fertility.

4.2.3. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

The stability of CEC across 25 yr in all tillage systems (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4) reveals a surprising decoupling from SOC increases in conservation practices, challenging the conventional view that organic matter always boosts nutrient retention and emphasizing the role of inherent soil mineralogy in Mollisols.
CEC can be modified through agricultural management practices, particularly those altering SOM content, clay distribution, soil texture, and pH. The absence of significant differences among systems suggests that tillage, as managed in this experiment, does not appreciably alter the cation exchange complex, despite the observed variations in SOC. This contrasts with studies demonstrating increases in CEC through the application of organic fertilizers and amendments, crop rotation, residue management, and exchangeable cation balance [62,63].
Surprisingly, the significant accumulation of SOC in NT and MCT did not translate into a significant increase in CEC, a result that contrasts with studies associating SOM with CEC increases [64]. This lack of correlation could be attributed to the accumulation of organic residues in the surface layer (0–3 cm), limiting their interaction with clays in a loam-clay soil, despite their potential to form clay-humus complexes contributing to CEC. The increase in SOC aligns with reports linking conservation tillage to a higher active SOC fraction, improving structure and infiltration, but with a lesser impact on CEC due to limited formation of stable carboxyl groups [65]. The stability of CEC in all tillage systems suggests a complex dynamic between active and passive SOC fractions, beyond their total amount.
The stability of CEC has positive implications for nutrient retention, as it ensures a consistent capacity to exchange divalent cations, even under conditions of gradual acidification. However, the lack of response to conservation systems limits its potential as a sustainability indicator in this context. Future research could evaluate the effect of specific organic amendments or the interaction between SOM and minerals on CEC.
The stable CEC, despite SOC gains, underscores synergies with other properties like pH and EC, where consistent cation exchange capacity helps buffer acidification effects and salt dynamics, ultimately supporting enhanced nutrient availability [23] that drive yield improvements in conservation tillage.

4.2.4. Exchangeable Potassium (EK)

The long-term increase in EK under conservation tillage (NT and MCT) highlights its role in boosting nutrient retention and crop availability, a critical factor for sustainable fertility in Mollisols (though recent declines warn of potential management vulnerabilities). This trend aligns with studies associating conservation systems with greater K retention, attributable to the clay content and composition, accumulation of SOM and enzymatic activity, factors that enhance nutrient availability and retention, not only for K [66,67].
The concentration of EK in the surface layer (0–3 cm), reflects a dynamic influenced by accumulated organic residues. This effect is more pronounced in NT, where the absence of tillage preserves K levels. However, recent reductions may be attributed to leaching of this cation into deeper soil layers or beyond the root zone, particularly in the presence of high calcium content from repeated applications of triple superphosphate, a practice applied uniformly across treatments [68,69].
The significant increase in EK in NT and MCT enhances soil fertility and the availability of this essential nutrient for crops. Nevertheless, the recent decline suggests the need to monitor nutrient extractions and consider potassium amendments, especially in CT, where EK levels are lower and may be related to the observed acidification. Future research could evaluate the balance between accumulation, leaching, and extraction of K, considering interactions with pH, SOM, and climatic conditions.
Then, EK trends synergize with other physicochemical properties, such as stable CEC and declining EC under CT, where improved K retention in conservation systems helps counteract pH-induced acidification and supports biochemical enhancements like SOC [70] and TN accumulation, collectively contributing to better nutrient cycling and the observed yield advantages in MCT.

4.3. Biochemical Properties

4.3.1. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)

The substantial SOC accrual under conservation tillage (NT and MCT) over 25 yr underscores its pivotal role in mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration and enhancing soil resilience (a benefit clearly absentminded in CT, highlighting the transformative potential of reduced disturbance for global agriculture). This trend aligns with studies highlighting greater C retention in conservation systems due to reduced soil disturbance and the accumulation of organic residues [71,72]. However, the stability of SOC in CT suggests that other factors might be compensating for losses due to mineralization [73].
The widespread distribution across the three systems supports the notion that conservation tillage promotes SOC accumulation in the upper layer (increasing stratification), an effect more pronounced in NT [23]. Interestingly, the lack of a continuous increase between 2021 and 2024 in NT and MCT could indicate a soil saturation limit [74], crop extraction exceeding inputs, climate variability, or the influence of erosion, an aspect that contrasts with the expectation of sustained growth in conservation systems and underscores the vulnerability of even conservation-managed soils to external stressors.
The increase in SOC content in NT and MCT has positive implications for soil quality, enhancing structure, permeability, and water retention, thereby favoring agricultural sustainability. However, the stability in CT suggests that management strategies, such as the addition of organic residues, may be necessary to match the benefits observed in conservation systems. Future research could explore the balance between accumulation and decomposition of SOM, as well as the impact of climatic conditions on the long-term dynamics of SOC.
The SOC increase under conservation tillage synergizes with TN and AP enhancements, fostering a nutrient-rich surface layer that improves microbial activity [75] and overall soil fertility, while linking to stable CEC for better cation retention and contributing to the yield advantages in MCT through enhanced resource utilization, with a focus on adaptive practices like diversified rotations or cover cropping to counteract potential saturation or climate-induced declines.

4.3.2. Total Nitrogen (TN)

The substantial accrual of TN under conservation tillage (NT and MCT) over 25 yr highlights its critical role in enhancing nutrient cycling and reducing dependency on synthetic fertilizers—a key advantage for sustainable farming absent in CT, emphasizing the value of residue management in nitrogen-rich soils like Mollisols. This trend aligns with research associating conservation systems with greater N retention due to reduced losses from leaching or emissions, increased accumulation of organic residues, and improved structure and SOC content [59,76,77].
TN stratification is more pronounced in NT, where the absence of tillage maximizes surface accumulation. However, the reduction in TN between 2021 and 2024 across all systems raises the possibility of extraction by crops, accelerated mineralization, or climatic variations, a finding that contrasts with the expected stability in conservation systems [78] and highlights the need for vigilant monitoring in long-term experiments.
The increase in TN in NT and MCT enhances soil fertility and agricultural sustainability by improving N availability for crops. Nevertheless, the recent decline in TN suggests the need to adjust management practices, such as crop rotation or the addition of N-rich organic residues, especially in CT, alongside strategies like precision fertilization or legume integration to address crop extraction and climate-related risks. Future research could evaluate the balance between accumulation, mineralization, and extraction of N, considering climatic conditions and the type of vegetation cover.
TN gains complement SOC accrual by optimizing C/N ratios and supporting microbial processes that also mobilize AP [79], creating a cohesive biochemical framework that buffers against pH declines and underpins the superior productivity and resilience observed in conservation tillage systems.

4.3.3. Available Phosphorus (AP)

The marked enhancement of AP under conservation tillage (NT and MCT) demonstrates its effectiveness in mobilizing phosphorus for crop uptake over 25 yr, mitigating fixation issues common in conventional systems and supporting phosphorus-efficient agriculture in nutrient-rich Mollisols. This trend aligns with studies associating conservation systems with greater P availability, attributable to the decomposition of organic residues and reduced P fixation in the soil [80]. The stability of AP in CT suggests that replenishment through fertilizers (recurrently around 20 kg P ha−1 year−1) is compensating for losses.
AP stratification is consistently more pronounced in NT, where the absence of tillage preserves P levels. However, the reduction in AP between 2021 and 2024 in NT and the stability in CT raise the possibility that higher P contents lead to increased adsorption or precipitation [81], compounded by crop extraction or climate variability (e.g., heavy rains promoting runoff).
The increase in AP in NT and MCT enhances soil fertility and the availability of a key nutrient for crops. Nevertheless, the recent decline in NT and, particularly, the stability in CT suggests the need to monitor the levels at which losses of available forms of nutrient occur and consider phosphate amendments where levels remain lower, with implications for management such as targeted P applications or erosion control measures. Future research could evaluate the balance between accumulation, extraction, fixation, and losses of P, considering interactions with SOM and management practices.
AP improvements interconnect with SOC and TN dynamics, as organic residues mineralization facilitates P release and nutrient cycling [82,83,84], collectively mitigating risks from acidification and salt loss while explaining the yield enhancements in MCT through comprehensive soil health optimization.

4.4. Yield

The larger maize yield under conservation tillage, particularly MCT, illustrates how minimal disturbance can optimize productivity in resilient soils like Mollisols, providing a model for balancing soil health and crop output in irrigated systems. This is attributed to reduced soil compaction and improved nutrient recycling with MCT, resulting from chisel plowing [59,85], in line with studies highlighting the superiority of minimum tillage over no-tillage [86]. Although NT favors SOM and CEC values in the long term [1], these benefits did not translate into higher yield, possibly due to Mollisol’s characteristics and the weight of machinery traffic—which increases bulk density, penetration resistance, and reduces porosity and water retention even in conservation systems [87,88]—a factor not corrected in NT management.
The consistent HI across systems indicates that the proportion of biomass converted into grain did not vary significantly among tillage systems. This suggests that the observed differences in GY are primarily due to the amount of biomass produced by the plants, rather than changes in the efficiency of its conversion to grain [89,90]. In conclusion, MCT excelled in productive yield, demonstrating that the effectiveness of no-tillage or chisel plowing depends on the intrinsic characteristics of the soil.
The yield advantages in MCT derive from interconnected improvements across soil properties, i.e., more elevated SOC, TN and AP values in conservation systems that enhance nutrient cycling, combined with stable physical properties and EK retention, which collectively buffer against pH and EC challenges to support resilient, high-productivity agriculture in irrigated Mollisols.

4.5. Relationship Between Yield and Soil Properties

The noted improvements in soil properties under conservation tillage favored maize nutrition and development. The increase in SOM linked to conservation tillage generally enhances soil structure, aggregate stability, and porosity [7,16,91,92], leading to better microbial loads and mineral bioavailability [93], optimizing water retention, infiltration, and nutrient availability—key factors for crop growth. Although less evident for some soil parameters in our case study, these practices also optimize water use and reduce water stress in irrigated Mollisols [7], indirectly contributing to higher yields. In well-drained soils like the Mollisol, chisel plowing combined with residue retention sustains or increases yields over the long term [7,16,94], while simultaneously improving soil chemical properties.
However, no significant differences were observed in the physical properties of the soil among tillage systems. Although some studies suggest that conservation tillage can increase BD compared to CT [2,95,96], such changes were not detected in this Mollisol, aligning with research reporting stability in these parameters [97]. This indicates that the soil’s structural robustness minimizes the impact of tillage practices on its physical properties, while aggregate stability and compaction resistance under conservation [11,98] did not translate into notable porosity variations. Thus, the yield improvement must be attributed not to changes in physical properties, but to enhancements in biochemical properties (e.g., increased SOM and nutrients) and derived processes. The prolonged implementation (over two decades) amplifies these benefits, as initial deficiencies in chemical properties and yield evolved into significant improvements, underscoring conservation tillage’s role in long-term soil fertility and sustainable agriculture.
Nevertheless, future research should evaluate additional physical properties (e.g., infiltration, aggregate stability) to clarify their contribution to maize yield in these systems.

5. Conclusions

This long-term study in irrigated Mollisols underscores the superiority of MCT in simultaneously enhancing maize productivity and soil biochemical health, while revealing the inherent structural resilience of these soils that buffers physical degradation even under no-tillage management. A key finding showing that yield improvement is driven not by changes in physical properties, but by biochemical enhancements (e.g., increased SOM and nutrient availability) and associated soil processes. These findings extend beyond the Chapingo Experimental Field, offering a transferable model for conservation tillage in Mollisol-dominated regions worldwide (e.g., the U.S. Corn Belt, Argentine Pampas, or Ukrainian Chernozems), where balancing yield with carbon sequestration is critical for climate-resilient agriculture.
Despite robust gains in SOC, TN, AP, and EK under conservation systems, recent nutrient declines highlight the need for adaptive management.
We have found limitations in the sensitivity of measured physical parameters—those limitations include, e.g., the uniformity of irrigation that potentially masks water-stress effects; future work should incorporate other variables like aggregate stability and infiltration rates.
Ultimately, MCT represents a scalable pathway to sustainable intensification in high-fertility soils, contributing to global food security, soil carbon storage, and agroecosystem resilience in an era of climate uncertainty.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/soilsystems9040125/s1, Section S0: Site History and Pre-Experimental Management; Section S1: Management Activities Schedule; Table S1: Management and Soil Preparation Activities under Different Tillage Systems on a Mollisol; Section S2: Analytical Methods and Equipment; Section S3: Statistical Tools.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G.-B., A.F.S.-H., A.S.-G. and J.P.-N.; methodology, F.G.-B., A.F.S.-H., A.S.-G. and J.P.-N.; software, A.F.S.-H., A.S.-G. and L.A.H.-P.; validation, F.G.-B., A.F.S.-H. and L.A.H.-P.; formal analysis, A.F.S.-H., A.S.-G. and L.A.H.-P.; investigation, F.G.-B., A.F.S.-H. and A.S.-G.; resources, F.G.-B. and J.P.-N.; data curation, A.F.S.-H. and L.A.H.-P.; writing—original draft, F.G.-B., A.F.S.-H. and A.S.-G.; preparation, A.S.-G.; writing—review and editing, A.S.-G. and J.F.G.-L.; visualization, A.S.-G.; supervision, A.S.-G. and J.F.G.-L.; project administration, F.G.-B. and J.P.-N.; funding acquisition, F.G.-B. and J.P.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funding from UACh on several occasions for soil laboratory analysis and field management practices.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The authors declare that raw data are available with A. Sahagún-García (asahagung@chapingo.mx), upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge the support from Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (UACh).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AFAir Fraction
ANOVAAnalysis of Variance
APAvailable Phosphorus
BDBulk Density
BYBiological Yield
CECCation Exchange Capacity
CTConventional Tillage
DMDry Matter
ECElectrical Conductivity
EKExchangeable Potassium
GMGravimetric Moisture
GYGrain Yield
HIHarvest Index
MCTMinimum Conservation Tillage
NTNo-Tillage
PDPopulation Density
PorPorosity
SOCSoil Organic Carbon
SOMSoil Organic Matter
TNTotal Nitrogen
UAChUniversidad Autónoma Chapingo
VMVolumetric Moisture
VRVoid Ratio

References

  1. Denardin, L.G.d.O.; Carmona, F.d.C.; Veloso, M.G.; Martins, A.P.; de Freitas, T.F.S.; Carlos, F.S.; Marcolin, É.; Camargo, F.A.d.O.; Anghinoni, I. No-Tillage Increases Irrigated Rice Yield through Soil Quality Improvement along Time. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q. Residue Retention and Minimum Tillage Improve Physical Environment of the Soil in Croplands: A Global Meta-Analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Panday, D.; Nkongolo, N.V. No Tillage Improved Soil Pore Space Indices under Cover Crop and Crop Rotation. Soil Syst. 2021, 5, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adil, M.; Lu, S.; Yao, Z.; Zhang, C.; Lu, H.; Bashir, S.; Maitah, M.; Gul, I.; Razzaq, S.; Qiu, L. No-Tillage Enhances Soil Water Storage, Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Dryland Wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Maize (Zea mays) Cropping Systems: A Global Meta-Analysis. Funct. Plant Biol. 2024, 51, FP23267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Shaxson, F.; Barber, R. Optimizacion de La Humedad Del Suelo Para La Producción Vegetal; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Romaneckas, K.; Kimbirauskienė, R.; Sinkevičienė, A. Impact of Tillage Intensity on Planosol Bulk Density, Pore Size Distribution, and Water Capacity in Faba Bean Cultivation. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Z.; Li, J.; Tian, C.; Hua, D.; Shi, C.-D.; Wang, H.-Y.; Han, J.; Xu, Y. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield in an Arid Loess Plateau, China. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Behrends Kraemer, F.; Morrás, H.; Fernández, P.L.; Duval, M.; Galantini, J.; Garibaldi, L. Influence of Edaphic and Management Factors on Soils Aggregates Stability under No-Tillage in Mollisols and Vertisols of the Pampa Region, Argentina. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 209, 104901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fonteyne, S.; Burgueño, J.; Albarrán Contreras, B.A.; Andrio Enríquez, E.; Castillo Villaseñor, L.; Enyanche Velázquez, F.; Escobedo Cruz, H.; Espidio Balbuena, J.; Espinosa Solorio, A.; Garcia Meza, P.; et al. Effects of Conservation Agriculture on Physicochemical Soil Health in 20 Maize-based Trials in Different Agro-ecological Regions across Mexico. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 2242–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rashmi, M.R.; Gopalakrishnan, M.; Rajeswari, R.; Senthil, K.M.; Kavitha, M.; Maragatham, S. Resilient Soils for a Changing Climate: Navigating the Future of Sustainable Agriculture. Plant Sci. Today 2024, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fontana, M.; Berner, A.; Mäder, P.; Lamy, F.; Boivin, P. Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Bio-Physicochemical Properties as Co-Influenced by Tillage Treatment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2015, 79, 1435–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saini, A.; Manuja, S.; Singh, G.; Bindra, A.; Sahoo, C.; Singh, A.; Yadi, R.; Johnson, R.; Joel, J.; Fayezizadeh, M.R. Effect of Cultivation Practices on Productivity and Nutrient Dynamics of Wheat Varieties under Northern Hill Zone of India. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cakpo, S.S.; Aostăcioaei, T.G.; Mihu, G.; Molocea, C.-C.; Ghelbere, C.; Ursu, A.; Țopa, D. Long-Term Effect of Tillage Practices on Soil Physical Properties and Winter Wheat Yield in North-East Romania. Agriculture 2025, 15, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pöhlitz, J.; Schlüter, S.; Rücknagel, J. Short-term Effects of Double-layer Ploughing Reduced Tillage on Soil Structure and Crop Yield. Soil Use Manag. 2024, 40, e13043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, K.; Mishra, A.; Singh, B.; Singh, R.; Patra, D. Tillage Effects on Crop Yield and Physicochemical Properties of Sodic Soils. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, Z.; Cao, S.; Sun, Z.; Wang, H.; Qu, S.; Lei, N.; He, J.; Dong, Q. Tillage Effects on Soil Properties and Crop Yield after Land Reclamation. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 4611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yildirim, Y.; Kuş, E. Determination of Some Soil Characteristics Depending on Conventional and Reduced Tillage Circumstances. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, L.; Wang, R.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Lyu, W.; Wang, X.; Cheng, K.; Mao, H.; Zhang, X. Reasonable Fertilization Improves the Conservation Tillage Benefit for Soil Water Use and Yield of Rain-Fed Winter Wheat: A Case Study from the Loess Plateau, China. Field Crops Res. 2019, 242, 107589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Badagliacca, G.; Lo Presti, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Fornasier, F.; Laudicina, V.A.; Monti, M.; Preiti, G. Early Effects of No-Till Use on Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.): Productivity and Soil Functioning Vary between Two Contrasting Mediterranean Soils. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, M.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, L.; Ding, G.; Cruse, R.; Liu, X. Fifteen Years of Conservation Tillage Increases Soil Aggregate Stability by Altering the Contents and Chemical Composition of Organic Carbon Fractions in Mollisols. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 2932–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mondal, S.; Chakraborty, D. Global Meta-Analysis Suggests That No-Tillage Favourably Changes Soil Structure and Porosity. Geoderma 2022, 405, 115443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, Z.; Wu, X.; Liang, A.; Li, S.; Gao, H.; Song, X.; Liu, X.; Jia, A.; Degré, A. Conservation Tillage Enhances the Sequestration and Iron-Mediated Stabilization of Aggregate-Associated Organic Carbon in Mollisols. Catena 2024, 243, 108197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liao, K.; Gao, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Zhu, J.; Lv, L. Impact of Conservation Tillage on the Distribution of Soil Nutrients with Depth. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 225, 105527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wen, L.; Peng, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Cai, G.; Lin, Y.; Li, B. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Soil Enzyme Activities of Global Cultivated Land: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nunes, M.; Karlen, D.; Veum, K.; Moorman, T.; Cambardella, C. Biological Soil Health Indicators Respond to Tillage Intensity: A US Meta-Analysis. Geoderma 2020, 369, 114335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Q.; Qin, W.; Cao, W.; Jiao, J.; Yin, Z.; Xu, H. Response of Erosion Reduction Effect of Typical Soil and Water Conservation Measures in Cropland to Rainfall and Slope Gradient Changes and Their Applicable Range in the Chinese Mollisols Region, Northeast China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2023, 11, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.; Qiao, J.; Ji, W.; Sun, J.; Huo, D.-Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H. Effects of Crop Residue Managements and Tillage Practices on Variations of Soil Penetration Resistance in Sloping Farmland of Mollisols. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 15, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Y.; Yang, S.; Sun, J.; Liu, Z.; He, X.; Qiao, J. Effects of Tillage and Sowing Methods on Soil Physical Properties and Corn Plant Characters. Agriculture 2023, 13, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, C.; Si, B.; Zhao, Y.; Wu, Z.; Lu, X.; Chen, X.; Han, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zou, W. Drivers of Soil Quality and Maize Yield under Long-Term Tillage and Straw Incorporation in Mollisols. Soil Tillage Res. 2025, 246, 106360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Duran, A.; Morrás, H.; Studdert, G.; Liu, X. Distribution, Properties, Land Use and Management of Mollisols in South America. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 21, 511–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, X.; Burras, C.L.; Kravchenko, Y.S.; Duran, A.; Huffman, T.; Morras, H.; Studdert, G.; Zhang, X.; Cruse, R.M.; Yuan, X. Overview of Mollisols in the World: Distribution, Land Use and Management. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 383–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Casas-Andreu, G. Climas Del Estado de México, Escala 1:500000. Available online: http://geoportal.conabio.gob.mx/descargas/mapas/imagen/96/clima500kgw (accessed on 4 November 2025).
  33. Leyva-Mir, S.G.; González-Solano, C.M.; Rodríguez-Pérez, J.E.; Montalvo-Hernández, D. Comportamiento de Líneas Avanzadas de Tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.) a Fitopatógenos En Chapingo, México. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 2013, 19, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. SEMARNAT. Zonas de Granizadas. Available online: https://www.gits.igg.unam.mx/idea/inicio (accessed on 21 July 2024).
  35. SEMARNAT. Zonas de Heladas. Available online: https://www.gits.igg.unam.mx/idea/inicio (accessed on 20 July 2024).
  36. USDA. The Twelve Orders of Soil Taxonomy. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/education-and-teaching-materials/the-twelve-orders-of-soil-taxonomy (accessed on 31 July 2023).
  37. Cachón-Ayora, L.E.; Nery-Genes, H.; Cuanalo-de la Cerda, H.E. Los Suelos Del Área de Influencia de Chapingo (Rama de Suelos, Sección de Pedología); Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura: Chapingo, Mexico, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dane, J.H.; Topp, G.C. (Eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4: Physical Methods; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  39. Porta-Casanellas, J.; López-Acevedo-Reguerín, M.; Poch-Claret, R.M. Introducción a la Edafología: Uso y Protección del Suelo; Ediciones Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). NOM-021-RECNAT-2000, Que Establece las Especificaciones de Fertilidad, Salinidad y Clasifi-cación de Suelos. Estudios, Muestreo y Análisis; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, 2002; pp. 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  41. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023; Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 6 November 2024).
  42. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Zhang, Q. Trade-off between Soil PH, Bulk Density and Other Soil Physical Properties under Global No-Tillage Agriculture. Geoderma 2020, 361, 114099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, Y.; Tessier, S.; Rouffignat, J. Soil Bulk Density Estimation for Tillage Systems and Soil Textures. Trans. ASABE 1998, 41, 1601–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stošić, M.; Zebec, V.; Kluz, M.; Ravnjak, B.; Vinković, T.; Brozović, B. Soil Resistance and Bulk Density under Different Tillage System. Poljoprivreda 2020, 26, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ruis, S.; Blanco-Canqui, H. How Does No-till Affect Soil-Profile Distribution of Roots? Can. J. Soil Sci. 2024, 104, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Moraes, M.; Debiasi, H.; Franchini, J.; Mastroberti, A.; Levien, R.; Leitner, D.; Schnepf, A. Soil Compaction Impacts Soybean Root Growth in an Oxisol from Subtropical Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 200, 104611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Javaheri, F.; Esfandiarpour-Boroujeni, I.; Kourki, H.; Farpoor, M.; Stewart, R. Rheological Evaluation of Soil Aggregate Microstructure and Stability across a Forested Catena. Geoderma 2021, 403, 115196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reynolds, W.; Drury, C.; Yang, X.; Tan, C. Optimal Soil Physical Quality Inferred through Structural Regression and Parameter Interactions. Geoderma 2008, 146, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Corstanje, R.; Mercer, T.; Rickson, J.; Deeks, L.; Newell-Price, P.; Holman, I.; Kechavarsi, C.; Waine, T. Physical Soil Quality Indicators for Monitoring British Soils. Solid Earth 2016, 8, 1003–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gregory, A.S.; Watts, C.W.; Whalley, W.R.; Kuan, H.L.; Griffiths, B.S.; Hallett, P.D.; Whitmore, A.P. Physical Resilience of Soil to Field Compaction and the Interactions with Plant Growth and Microbial Community Structure. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2007, 58, 1221–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhan, N.; Wang, Z.; Li, S. Factors Contributing to Soil Acidification in the Past Two Decades in China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2023, 82, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wu, Z.; Sun, X.; Sun, Y.; Yan, J.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, J. Soil Acidification and Factors Controlling Topsoil PH Shift of Cropland in Central China from 2008 to 2018. Geoderma 2022, 408, 115586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tian, D.; Niu, S. A Global Analysis of Soil Acidification Caused by Nitrogen Addition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 024019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bautista, F.; Bautista-Hernández, D.; Pacheco, A.; Goguitchaichvili, A.; Morales, J. An Automated Monitoring System of Urban Pollution Using Geochemical and Magnetic Parameters. Bol. De La Soc. Geol. Mex. 2023, 75, A100523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qi, J.-Y.; Jing, Z.-H.; He, C.; Liu, Q.-Y.; Wang, X.; Kan, Z.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.-P.; Zhang, H. Effects of Tillage Management on Soil Carbon Decomposition and Its Relationship with Soil Chemistry Properties in Rice Paddy Fields. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 279, 111595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rahmati, M.; Eskandari, I.; Kouselou, M.; Feiziasl, V.; Mahdavinia, G.; Aliasgharzad, N.; McKenzie, B. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon Fractions and Residence Time Five Years after Implementing Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 200, 104632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Haynes, R.J.; Swift, R.S. Effects of Soil Acidification and Subsequent Leaching on Levels of Extractable Nutrients in a Soil. Plant Soil 1986, 95, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Meng, C.; Tian, D.; Zeng, H.; Li, Z.; Yi, C.; Niu, S. Global Soil Acidification Impacts on Belowground Processes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 074003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, W.; Yuan, J.; Gao, S.; Li, T.; Li, Y.; Vinay, N.; Mo, F.; Liao, Y.; Wen, X.-X. Conservation Tillage Enhances Crop Productivity and Decreases Soil Nitrogen Losses in a Rainfed Agroecosystem of the Loess Plateau, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Çelik, İ.; Günal, H.; Acar, M.; Gök, M.; Barut, Z.; Pamiralan, H. Long-Term Tillage and Residue Management Effect on Soil Compaction and Nitrate Leaching in a Typic Haploxerert Soil. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2017, 11, 131–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wilson, C.; Keisling, T.; Miller, D.; Dillon, C.; Pearce, A.; Frizzell, D.; Counce, P. Tillage Influence on Soluble Salt Movement in Silt Loam Soils Cropped to Paddy Rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1771–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, H.; Lv, H.; Chen, S.; Su, J.; Zhao, G.; Zhou, D.; Yang, M.; Hang, H.; Jia, H. Effects of Balancing Exchangeable Cations Ca, Mg, and K on the Growth of Tomato Seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Based on Increased Soil Cation Exchange Capacity. Agronomy 2024, 14, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ellerbrock, R.; Kaiser, M.; Gerke, H. Cation Exchange Capacity and Composition of Soluble Soil Organic Matter Fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ramos, F.; Dores, E.; Weber, O.; Beber, D.; Campelo, J.; Maia, J. Soil Organic Matter Doubles the Cation Exchange Capacity of Tropical Soil under No-till Farming in Brazil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 3595–3602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hayashi, R.; Maie, N.; Wagai, R.; Hirano, Y.; Matsuda, Y.; Makita, N.; Mizoguchi, T.; Wada, R.; Tanikawa, T. An Increase of Fine-Root Biomass in Nutrient-Poor Soils Increases Soil Organic Matter but Not Soil Cation Exchange Capacity. Plant Soil 2023, 482, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sadiq, M.; Li, G.; Rahim, N.; Tahir, M. Sustainable Conservation Tillage Technique for Improving Soil Health by Enhancing Soil Physicochemical Quality Indicators under Wheat Mono-Cropping System Conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wen, L.; Peng, Y.; Lin, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Cai, G.; Li, B.; Chen, B. Conservation Tillage Increases Nutrient Accumulation by Promoting Soil Enzyme Activity: A Meta-Analysis. Plant Soil 2024, 508, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kypritidou, Z.; Doulgeris, C.; Tziritis, E.; Kinigopoulou, V.; Jellali, S.; Jeguirim, M. Geochemical Modelling of Inorganic Nutrients Leaching from an Agricultural Soil Amended with Olive-Mill Waste Biochar. Agronomy 2022, 12, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yakovleva, L.; Danilov, D.; Nikolaeva, E. Effect of Mineral and Organic Fertilizers on Potassium Leaching in Sandy Loam Soils. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 828, 012032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kaewu, N. Effects of Agricultural Potassium Fertilizer Application on Soil Carbon Cycle. Acad. J. Sci. Technol. 2024, 11, 122–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Colunga, S.; Wahab, L.; Cabo, A.F.; Pereira, E. Carbon Sequestration through Conservation Tillage in Sandy Soils of Arid and Semi-Arid Climates: A Meta-Analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 245, 106310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Chang, S.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, Y. Residue Retention Promotes Soil Carbon Accumulation in Minimum Tillage Systems: Implications for Conservation Agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gallardo, J.F. La Materia Orgánica Del Suelo; Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo: Texcoco, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  74. Chung, H.; Ngo, K.; Plante, A.; Six, J. Evidence for Carbon Saturation in a Highly Structured and Organic-Matter-Rich Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhou, J.; Sun, T.; Shi, L.; Kurganova, I.; De Gerenyu, V.L.; Kalinina, O.; Giani, L.; Kuzyakov, Y. Organic Carbon Accumulation and Microbial Activities in Arable Soils after Abandonment: A Chronosequence Study. Geoderma 2023, 435, 116496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kader, M.; Jahangir, M.; Islam, M.; Begum, R.; Nasreen, S.; Islam, M.; Mahmud, A.; Haque, M.; Bell, R.; Jahiruddin, M. Long-Term Conservation Agriculture Increases Nitrogen Use Efficiency by Crops, Land Equivalent Ratio and Soil Carbon Stock in a Subtropical Rice-Based Cropping System. Field Crops Res. 2022, 287, 108636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yuan, J.-L.; Liang, Y.; Zhuo, M.; Sadiq, M.; Liu, L.; Wu, J.; Xu, G.; Liu, S.; Li, G.; Yan, L. Soil Nitrogen and Carbon Storages and Carbon Pool Management Index under Sustainable Conservation Tillage Strategy. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 1082624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mukherjee, S.; Sarkar, D.; Mandal, B.; Kanthal, S.; Ghosh, S.; Sahu, B.; Singh, P.; Dey, A.; Jaison, M.; Dutta, J.; et al. Conservation Agriculture Influences Soil Nitrogen Availability in the Lower Indo-Gangetic Plains. Plant Soil 2024, 508, 731–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Han, B.; He, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, Y.; Shi, L.; Lin, Z.; Yu, L.; Wei, X.; Zhang, W.; Geng, Y.; et al. Different Microbial Functional Traits Drive Bulk and Rhizosphere Soil Phosphorus Mobilization in an Alpine Meadow after Nitrogen Input. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 931, 172904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, J.; Xin, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhong, X.; Yang, W.; Ren, G.; Zhu, A. Effects of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties on Phosphorus Adsorption-Desorption in Fluvo-Aquic Soil under Conservation Tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 234, 105840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hua, H.; Shi, Y.-X.-X.; Wang, R.; Hong, Z.; Jiang, J. Phosphorus Adsorption, Availability, and Potential Loss Characteristics in an Ultisol-derived Paddy Soil Chronosequence, Using a Stirred-flow Chamber Study. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2023, 87, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Salas, A.; Elliott, E.; Westfall, D.; Cole, C.; Six, J. The Role of Particulate Organic Matter in Phosphorus Cycling. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, H.; Song, C.; Cao, X.; Zhou, Y.-Y. The Phosphorus Release Pathways and Their Mechanisms Driven by Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Sediments of Eutrophic Shallow Lakes. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 572, 280–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Schaap, K.; Fuchslueger, L.; Hoosbeek, M.; Hofhansl, F.; Martins, N.; Valverde-Barrantes, O.; Hartley, I.; Lugli, L.; Quesada, C. Litter Inputs and Phosphatase Activity Affect the Temporal Variability of Organic Phosphorus in a Tropical Forest Soil in the Central Amazon. Plant Soil 2021, 469, 423–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Larney, F.; Kladivko, E. Soil Strength Properties Under Four Tillage Systems at Three Long-Term Study Sites in Indiana. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1989, 53, 1539–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Salem, H.; Valero, C.; Muñoz, M.; Rodríguez, M.G.; Silva, L.L. Short-Term Effects of Four Tillage Practices on Soil Physical Properties, Soil Water Potential, and Maize Yield. Geoderma 2015, 237, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Becker, R.K.; Barbosa, E.; Giarola, N.; Kochinski, E.; Povh, F.; Paula, A.; Cherubin, M. Mechanical Intervention in Compacted No-Till Soil in Southern Brazil: Soil Physical Quality and Maize Yield. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Acquah, K.; Chen, Y. Soil Compaction from Wheel Traffic under Three Tillage Systems. Agriculture 2022, 12, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sharma, S.; Singh, R. Combining Ability for Harvest Index and Its Components in Wheat. Indian. J. Genet. Plant Breed. 1983, 43, 229–231. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hühn, M. Character Associations Among Grain Yield, Biological Yield and Harvest Index. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 1991, 166, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bhattacharyya, R.; Kundu, S.; Pandey, S.; Singh, K.; Gupta, H. Tillage and Irrigation Effects on Crop Yields and Soil Properties under the Rice–Wheat System in the Indian Himalayas. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 993–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Farahani, E.; Emami, H.; Forouhar, M. Effects of Tillage Systems on Soil Organic Carbon and Some Soil Physical Properties. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 1307–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Souri, M.K.; Hatamian, M. Aminochelates in Plant Nutrition: A Review. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kladivko, E.J.; Griffith, D.R.; Mannering, J.V. Conservation Tillage Effects on Soil Properties and Yield of Corn and Soya Beans in Indiana. Soil Tillage Res. 1986, 8, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Miller, J.; Larney, F.; Lindwall, C. Physical Properties of a Chernozemic Clay Loam Soil under Long-Term Conventional Tillage and No-Till. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1999, 79, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Castellini, M.; Fornaro, F.; Garofalo, P.; Giglio, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Ventrella, D.; Vitti, C.; Vonella, A. Effects of No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage on Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Fine Textured Soils under Winter Wheat. Water 2019, 11, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ordoñez-Morales, K.D.; Cadena-Zapata, M.; Zermeño-González, A.; Campos-Magaña, S. Effect of Tillage Systems on Physical Properties of a Clay Loam Soil under Oats. Agriculture 2019, 9, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rücknagel, J.; Rademacher, A.; Götze, P.; Hofmann, B.; Christen, O. Uniaxial Compression Behaviour and Soil Physical Quality of Topsoils under Conventional and Conservation Tillage. Geoderma 2017, 286, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soilsystems 09 00125 g001
Figure 1. Dimensions and field layout of the treatment distribution on the Mollisol under irrigated conditions in the M-18 plot, Experimental Agricultural Field of the Department of Plant Science, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (Texcoco, Mexico).
Figure 1. Dimensions and field layout of the treatment distribution on the Mollisol under irrigated conditions in the M-18 plot, Experimental Agricultural Field of the Department of Plant Science, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (Texcoco, Mexico).
Soilsystems 09 00125 g001
Soilsystems 09 00125 g002
Figure 2. Long-term trends in soil properties under Conventional Tillage (CT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, and AP remain stable at low levels; pH decreases over time. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Figure 2. Long-term trends in soil properties under Conventional Tillage (CT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, and AP remain stable at low levels; pH decreases over time. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Soilsystems 09 00125 g002
Soilsystems 09 00125 g003
Figure 3. Long-term trends in soil properties under Minimum Conservation Tillage (MCT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, and AP increase significantly, peaking in 2021 before slight decline; strong surface enrichment. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab, c) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Figure 3. Long-term trends in soil properties under Minimum Conservation Tillage (MCT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, and AP increase significantly, peaking in 2021 before slight decline; strong surface enrichment. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab, c) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Soilsystems 09 00125 g003
Soilsystems 09 00125 g004
Figure 4. Long-term trends in soil properties under No-Tillage (NT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, AP, and EK show the strongest and most sustained increases; NT consistently outperforms other systems. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab, c) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Figure 4. Long-term trends in soil properties under No-Tillage (NT) at the surface layer (0–3 cm) (1999, 2008, 2021, 2024). Key observation: SOC, TN, AP, and EK show the strongest and most sustained increases; NT consistently outperforms other systems. Note: EC, TN, and CEC were not determined in 1999 (starting year). Units: Soil C/N ratio (dimensionless), EC (dS m−1), CEC (cmol(+) kg−1), SOC (%), EK (mg K kg−1), TN (%), AP (mg P kg−1), pH (dimensionless). Points represent individual observations; error bars indicate ± standard error; letters (a, b, ab, c) denote significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Soilsystems 09 00125 g004
Table 1. Soil properties of Mollisol and Tukey’s test under different tillage systems in the initial year (1999) and after 9 (2008), 22 (2021), and 25 (2024) years of implementation.
Table 1. Soil properties of Mollisol and Tukey’s test under different tillage systems in the initial year (1999) and after 9 (2008), 22 (2021), and 25 (2024) years of implementation.
Surface Depth (0–3 cm)Arable Depth (15–18 cm)Subsurface Depth (30–33 cm)
YearVariableCTMCTNTCTMCTNTCTMCTNT
1999pH6.9 ± 0.2 aA7.0 ± 0.2 aA7.1 ± 0.2 aA7.1 ± 0.5 aA7.4 ± 0.5 aA7.6 ± 0.5 aA7.5 ± 0.4 aA7.4 ± 0.4 aA7.7 ± 0.4 aA
EC (dS m−1)N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.
SOC (%)1.5 ± 0.07 aA1.5 ± 0.07 aA1.4 ± 0.07 aA0.81 ± 0.07 bA0.77 ± 0.07 bA0.77 ± 0.07 bA0.71 ± 0.06 bA0.73 ± 0.06 bA0.89 ± 0.06 bA
TN (%)N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.
Soil C/NN.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.
AP (mg P kg−1)21 ± 4 aA20 ± 4 aA23 ± 4 aA21 ± 5 aA25 ± 4 aA19 ± 5 abA10.6 ± 0.9 aB19.5 ± 0.9 aA14.4 ± 0.9 bB
EK (mg K kg−1)81 ± 67 aA134 ± 83 aA136 ± 67 aA532 ± 47 aA474 ± 47 aA499 ± 47 aA495 ± 44 aA449 ± 44 aA467 ± 44 aA
CEC (cmol(+) kg−1)N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.
2008pH7.4 ± 0.2 bA7.2 ± 0.2 aA7.3 ± 0.2 aA7.6 ± 0.09 abA7.4 ± 0.09 aA7.3 ± 0.09 aA7.7 ± 0.09 aA7.5 ± 0.09 aA7.4 ± 0.09 aA
EC (dS m−1)0.31 ± 0.04 aA0.29 ± 0.04 aA0.32 ± 0.04 aA0.28 ± 0.04 aA0.22 ± 0.04 aA0.22 ± 0.04 aA0.3 ± 0.05 aA0.2 ± 0.05 aA0.19 ± 0.05 aA
SOC (%)1.2 ± 0.1 aB2.2 ± 0.1 aA2.8 ± 0.1 aA1.2 ± 0.1 aA1.4 ± 0.1 bA1.1 ± 0.1 bA0.76 ± 0.08 bB1.3 ± 0.1 bA0.82 ± 0.08 bB
TN (%)0.129 ± 0.005 aC0.186 ± 0.005 aB0.258 ± 0.006 aA0.118 ± 0.005 aA0.114 ± 0.005 bA0.117 ± 0.005 bA0.094 ± 0.003 bA0.097 ± 0.003 cA0.093 ± 0.003 bA
Soil C/N9.5 ± 0.6 aA11.7 ± 0.6 aA10.9 ± 0.6 aA9.9 ± 0.9 aA12 ± 0.9 aA9.2 ± 0.9 abA8.1 ± 0.8 aB13.6 ± 0.9 aA8.8 ± 0.8 bB
AP (mg P kg−1)31 ± 3 aB48 ± 3 aA58 ± 3 aA28 ± 3 abA32 ± 3 bA30 ± 3 bA16 ± 3 bA16 ± 3 cA21 ± 3 bA
EK (mg K kg−1)607 ± 62 aB1032 ± 62 aA951 ± 76 aA479 ± 75 aA520 ± 75 bA558 ± 75 abA378 ± 65 aA358 ± 65 cA452 ± 65 bA
CEC (cmol(+) kg−1)32 ± 1 aA32 ± 1 aA33 ± 1 aA29 ± 2 aA33 ± 2 aA29 ± 2 aA32 ± 2 aA29 ± 2 aA31 ± 2 aA
2021pH7.4 ± 0.1 aA7.5 ± 0.1 aA7.5 ± 0.1 aA7.79 ± 0.08 aA7.7 ± 0.08 bA7.7 ± 0.1 abA7.79 ± 0.08 aA7.99 ± 0.08 bA7.85 ± 0.08 bA
EC (dS m−1)0.06 ± 0.01 aA0.1 ± 0.01 aA0.1 ± 0.01 aA0.056 ± 0.004 aA0.53 ± 0.004 bA0.06 ± 0.004 aA0.053 ± 0.003 aA0.5 ± 0.003 bA0.053 ± 0.003 aA
SOC (%)1.2 ± 0.1 aC2.6 ± 0.1 aB3.5 ± 0.1 aA1.1 ± 0.09 aA0.9 ± 0.09 bA1.3 ± 0.1 bA0.6 ± 0.1 bA0.7 ± 0.1 bA0.6 ± 0.1 cA
TN (%)0.17 ± 0.01 aB0.27 ± 0.02 aA0.32 ± 0.01 aA0.18 ± 0.01 aA0.19 ± 0.01 bA0.19 ± 0.01 bA0.143 ± 0.009 aA0.166 ± 0.009 bA0.15 ± 0.009 cA
Soil C/N7 ± 0.6 aB8.8 ± 0.7 aAB11 ± 0.6 aA6.1 ± 0.8 aA4.2 ± 0.8 bA5.9 ± 0.8 bA4 ± 1 aA4 ± 1 bA4 ± 1 bA
AP (mg P kg−1)30 ± 7 aB69 ± 7 aA90 ± 9 aA30 ± 7 aA38 ± 7 bA33 ± 7 bA6 ± 3 aA15 ± 3 bA14 ± 3 bA
EK (mg K kg−1)920 ± 98 aB1433 ± 80 aA1660 ± 80 aA625 ± 84 aA823 ± 84 bA965 ± 84 bA514 ± 64 aA522 ± 64 bA553 ± 64 cA
CEC (cmol(+) kg−1)21 ± 4 aA32 ± 4 aA26 ± 4 aA27 ± 3 aA25 ± 3 aA26 ± 3 aA24 ± 1 aA25 ± 1 aA28 ± 1 aA
2024pH6.5 ± 0.1 aA6.5 ± 0.1 aA6.5 ± 0.1 aA6.6 ± 0.2 aA6.8 ± 0.2 aA6.7 ± 0.2 aA6.8 ± 0.1 aA7 ± 0.1 aA6.7 ± 0.1 aA
EC (dS m−1)0.16 ± 0.03 aA0.21 ± 0.03 aA0.22 ± 0.03 aA0.2 ± 0.03 aA0.16 ± 0.03 aA0.2 ± 0.03 aA0.24 ± 0.06 aA0.19 ± 0.06 aA0.25 ± 0.06 aA
SOC (%)1.2 ± 0.2 aC2.4 ± 0.2 aB3.2 ± 0.2 aA1.2 ± 0.1 aA1.3 ± 0.1 bA1.5 ± 0.1 bA1.1 ± 0.4 aA0.9 ± 0.4 bA1.8 ± 0.4 bA
TN (%)0.09 ± 0.004 aC0.157 ± 0.004 aB0.203 ± 0.004 aA0.08 ± 0.01 aA0.1 ± 0.01 bA0.1 ± 0.01 bA0.07 ± 0.03 aA0.06 ± 0.03 bA0.13 ± 0.03 bA
Soil C/N13 ± 1 aA15 ± 1 aA16 ± 1 aA15 ± 1 aA13 ± 1 aA14 ± 1 aA15 ± 1 aA14 ± 1 aA14 ± 1 aA
AP (mg P kg−1)27 ± 5 aB58 ± 5 aA63 ± 5 aA29 ± 8 aA31 ± 8 aA42 ± 8 aA21 ± 8 aA35 ± 8 aA40 ± 8 aA
EK (mg K kg−1)434 ± 35 aB797 ± 35 aA826 ± 35 aA305 ± 51 aA434 ± 51 bA485 ± 51 bA402 ± 88 aA396 ± 88 bA773 ± 108 aA
CEC (cmol(+) kg−1)28.3 ± 0.9 aA29.1 ± 0.9 aA28 ± 0.9 aA29 ± 1 aA28 ± 1 aA29 ± 1 aA30.8 ± 0.8 aA29.2 ± 0.6 aA29.9 ± 0.6 aA
Variables defined: pH; EC (dS m−1): electrical conductivity; SOC (%): soil organic carbon; TN (%): total nitrogen; Soil C/N: carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; AP (mg P kg−1): available phosphorus; EK (mg K kg−1): exchangeable potassium; CEC (cmol(+) kg−1): cation exchange capacity. NT: No-Tillage, MCT: Minimum Conservation Tillage, CT: Conventional Tillage. Uppercase letters (A, B, C): Significant differences (p < 0.05) between tillage systems at each depth (Tukey’s test). Lowercase letters (a, b, c): Significant differences (p < 0.05) between depths within the same tillage system (Tukey’s test). N.D.: Not determined. Data expressed as mean ± standard error.
Table 2. Tukey’s test for physical properties of the Mollisol under different tillage systems in the 23rd year of implementation (2022).
Table 2. Tukey’s test for physical properties of the Mollisol under different tillage systems in the 23rd year of implementation (2022).
Surface Depth (0–3 cm)Arable Depth (15–18 cm)Subsurface Depth (30–33 cm)
VariableCTMCTNTCTMCTNTCTMCTNT
GM (%)18 ± 1 bA15 ± 1 bA17 ± 1 bA31 ± 2 aA32 ± 2 aA27 ± 2 aA35 ± 2 aA28 ± 2 aA29 ± 2 aA
BD (g cm−3)1.1 ± 0.1 aA0.9 ± 0.1 aA0.9 ± 0.1 aA1.01 ± 0.04 aA0.98 ± 0.04 aA0.99 ± 0.04 aA1.15 ± 0.06 aA0.99 ± 0.06 aA0.92 ± 0.06 aA
Por (%)60 ± 2 aA66 ± 2 aA67 ± 2 aA61 ± 2 aA63 ± 2 aA63 ± 2 aA57 ± 2 aA62 ± 2 aA65 ± 2 aA
VR1.5 ± 0.2 aA1.9 ± 0.2 aA2.0 ± 0.2 aA1.6 ± 0.1 aA1.7 ± 0.1 aA1.7 ± 0.1 aA1.3 ± 0.2 aA1.7 ± 0.2 aA1.9 ± 0.2 aA
VM (%)19 ± 2 bA13 ± 2 bA15 ± 2 bA32 ± 2 aA31 ± 2 aA25 ± 2 abA36 ± 3 aA28 ± 3 aA26 ± 3 aA
AF (%)41 ± 4 aA52 ± 4 aA52 ± 4 aA29 ± 2 abA32 ± 2 bA37 ± 2 aA20 ± 5 bA35 ± 5 bA39 ± 5 aA
GM: Gravimetric Moisture; BD: Bulk Density; Por: Soil Porosity; VR: Void Ratio; VM: Volumetric Moisture; AF: Air Fraction. NT: No-Tillage, MCT: Minimum Conservation Tillage, CT: Conventional Tillage. Uppercase letters: Significant differences (p < 0.05) between tillage systems at each depth (Tukey’s test); since no significant differences (p < 0.05) were found, only the letter A is displayed in this table. Lowercase letters (a, b, ab): Significant differences (p < 0.05) between depths within the same tillage system (Tukey’s test). Data expressed as mean ± standard error.
Table 3. Tukey’s test for maize yield in a Mollisol under different tillage systems in the 23rd year of implementation (2022).
Table 3. Tukey’s test for maize yield in a Mollisol under different tillage systems in the 23rd year of implementation (2022).
Variable/TreatmentCTMCTNT
PD (thousand plants ha−1)69 ± 2 b71 ± 2 b83 ± 2 a
BY (t DM ha−1)10.7 ± 0.6 b13.1 ± 0.6 a9.7 ± 0.6 b
GY (t DM ha−1)5.8 ± 0.3 b7.2 ± 0.6 a5.4 ± 0.6 b
HI (GY/BY)0.55 ± 0.02 a0.56 ± 0.02 a0.55 ± 0.02 a
PD: Population Density (thousand plants ha−1); BY: Biological Yield (t DM ha−1); GY: Grain Yield (t DM ha−1); HI (GY/BY): Harvest Index (Grain Yield divided by Biological Yield). NT: No-Tillage, MCT: Minimum Conservation Tillage, CT: Conventional Tillage. Letters (a, b) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between tillage systems (Tukey’s test). Data expressed as mean ± standard error.
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

González-Breijo, F.; Santos-Hernández, A.F.; Sahagún-García, A.; Hernández-Pedraza, L.A.; Gallardo-Lancho, J.F.; Pérez-Nieto, J. Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Properties and Crop Yield in a Mollisol After 9, 22, and 25 Years of Implementation in Chapingo, Mexico. Soil Syst. 2025, 9, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9040125

AMA Style

González-Breijo F, Santos-Hernández AF, Sahagún-García A, Hernández-Pedraza LA, Gallardo-Lancho JF, Pérez-Nieto J. Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Properties and Crop Yield in a Mollisol After 9, 22, and 25 Years of Implementation in Chapingo, Mexico. Soil Systems. 2025; 9(4):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9040125

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Breijo, Francisco, Antonio Fidel Santos-Hernández, Alejandra Sahagún-García, Luis Antonio Hernández-Pedraza, Juan Fernando Gallardo-Lancho, and Joel Pérez-Nieto. 2025. "Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Properties and Crop Yield in a Mollisol After 9, 22, and 25 Years of Implementation in Chapingo, Mexico" Soil Systems 9, no. 4: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9040125

APA Style

González-Breijo, F., Santos-Hernández, A. F., Sahagún-García, A., Hernández-Pedraza, L. A., Gallardo-Lancho, J. F., & Pérez-Nieto, J. (2025). Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Properties and Crop Yield in a Mollisol After 9, 22, and 25 Years of Implementation in Chapingo, Mexico. Soil Systems, 9(4), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9040125

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop