Study

Soil structure rehabilitation of arable soil degraded by compaction

  • Published source details Langmaack M., Schrader S., Rapp-Bernhardt U. & Kotzke K. (2002) Soil structure rehabilitation of arable soil degraded by compaction. Geoderma, 105, 141-152

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Control traffic and traffic timing

Action Link
Soil Fertility

Change tillage practices

Action Link
Soil Fertility
  1. Control traffic and traffic timing

    A controlled before-and-after trial in 1995-1997 on a loamy silt soil in Lower Saxony, Germany (Langmaack et al. 2002) found 70-85% more soil pores in unwheeled compared to soil compacted by heavy machinery. Earthworms Lumbricus terrestris were not affected by compaction. Burrows made by earthworms Aporrectodea caliginosa were still lower in length (9 mm/g/day), volume (68 mm3/g/day), and windiness (17%) compared to uncompacted soil two years after the compaction event. One part of the field was compacted six times in spring 1995 by repeated wheeling by heavy four-wheel-drive machinery with a 5 Mg wheel load, the other, uncompacted. Undisturbed soil monoliths (a vertical sample showing several soil horizons) were taken from fields in 1997 under conventional tillage or conservation tillage. X-ray computed 2D images were used to analyse soil structure.

     

  2. Change tillage practices

    A site comparison study in 1995-1997 of compaction on a loamy silt soil in Lower Saxony, Germany (Langmaack et al. 2002), found that neither of the two earthworm species studied were affected by changes in tillage. Lumbricus terrestris was not affected by compaction. Compared to uncompacted soil, burrows made by earthworm species Aporrectodea caliginosa were still lower in length (9 mm/g/day), volume (68 mm3/g/day), and windiness (17%) two years later due to the compaction event.  One part of the field was compacted six times in spring 1995 by repeated wheeling by heavy four-wheel-drive machinery with a 5 Mg wheel load, the other part was uncompacted. Undisturbed soil monoliths were taken from fields in 1997 under conventional tillage or conservation tillage. X-ray computed 2D images were used to analyse soil structure.

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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