Study

Response of soil physical properties to tillage and residue management on two soils in a cool temperate environment

  • Published source details Singh B. & Malhi S.S. (2006) Response of soil physical properties to tillage and residue management on two soils in a cool temperate environment. Soil and Tillage Research, 85, 143-153.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Retain crop residues

Action Link
Soil Fertility

Change tillage practices

Action Link
Soil Fertility
  1. Retain crop residues

    A replicated site comparison in 1984-1989 on loam soils in Alberta, Canada (Singh & Malhi 2006), found lower soil resistance (942 kPa) when residues were retained compared to removing residue (1,195 kPa) in no-tillage plots. Residue management had mixed effects on the proportion of larger soil aggregates within the soil and did not affect soil density or water infiltration. Treatments were replicated four times and included no-tillage (direct drilling) tillage with rototilling (to 10 cm depth), and two residue levels: straw removed and straw retained. Plots were 6 x 2.7 m. The crop rotation was barley Hordeum vulgare/rape Brassica napus. Soil density, penetration resistance, particle aggregation and water infiltration were measured.

     

  2. Change tillage practices

    A replicated site comparison in 1984-1989 on loam soils in Alberta, Canada (Singh & Malhi, 2006) found that regardless of residue management, soil density between 0-15 cm depth was higher under no-tillage (1.35 Mg/m3 av.) compared to rototilled (1.19 Mg/m3 av.) plots. Soil resistance was higher under no-tillage (1195 kPa av.) than rototilled plots (703 kPa av.); however residue retention decreased resistance in no-tillage plots (942 kPa av.). The wind-erodible fraction of soil aggregates (<1 mm) was lowest under no-tillage (18%) and largest under rototilling (39%). Water infiltration was 33% lower under no-tillage than rototilled plots. In four replicates were two tillage systems: no-tillage (direct drilling), tillage with rototilling (10 cm depth); and two residue levels: straw removed and straw retained. Plots were 6 x 2.7 m. The crop rotation was barley Hordeum vulgare/rape Brassica napus. Soil samples were taken from each plot. Soil density, penetration resistance, particle aggregation and water infiltration were measured.

     

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust