Assessment of the influence of soil structure on soil strength/soil wetness relationships on Red Ferrosols in north-west Tasmania
W. E. Cotching A and K. C. Belbin BA Corresponding author. Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, PO Box 3523, Burnie, Tas. 7320, Australia. Email: Bill.Cotching@utas.edu.au
B University of Tasmania, Private Bag 54, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 45(2) 147-152 https://doi.org/10.1071/SR06113
Submitted: 25 August 2006 Accepted: 19 February 2007 Published: 28 March 2007
Abstract
The relationship of soil wetness to soil strength in Red Ferrosols was compared between fields of well structured to degraded soil structure. Soil structure was assessed using a visual rating. Soil resistance measurements were taken over a range of soil wetness, using a recording penetrometer. Readings were taken as the soil dried by evapotranspiration after both irrigation and rainfall events.
The influence of soil wetness on penetration resistance was greater on fields with degraded structure than on well-structured fields. In fields with degraded structure, the wetter the soil, the smaller were the penetration resistance values. Field soil structure score was negatively correlated with the slope of the line relating soil wetness and penetration resistance at 150–300 mm depth. The structurally degraded fields had a highly significant relationship between penetration resistance and soil wetness at 150–300 mm depth. In well-structured fields, variations in soil wetness had less effect on penetration resistance.
These results indicate that visual assessment can be used with confidence to assess Ferrosol structure. The implications for soil management are that fields with degraded soil structure have greater resistance to root growth at drier moisture contents than well-structured fields. Consequently, farmers need to keep degraded soils wetter with more frequent irrigation than well-structured soils, to ensure optimum plant growth.
Additional keywords: penetration resistance, visual scorecard, root growth, irrigation.
Acknowledgment
The assistance of Ross Corkrey with statistical analysis is appreciated.
Aggarwal P,
Choudhary KK,
Singh AK, Chakraborty D
(2006) Variation in soil strength and rooting characteristics of wheat in relation to soil management. Geoderma 136, 353–363.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Altunas E,
Ozgoz E, Taser OF
(2005) Silage maize emergence is reduced by wheel traffic due to increased soil bulk density and penetration resistance. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B – Soil and Plant 55, 30–55.
Cotching WE
(1995) A review of the challenges for long term management of krasnozems in Australia. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 8, 18–27.
Cotching WE,
Hawkins K,
Sparrow LA,
McCorkell BE, Rowley W
(2002) Crop yields and soil properties on eroded slopes of Red Ferrosols in north-west Tasmania. Australian Journal of Soil Research 40, 625–642.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cotching WE,
Sparrow LA,
Hawkins K,
McCorkell BE, Rowley W
(2004) Linking Tasmanian potato and poppy yields to selected soil physical and chemical properties. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 1241–1249.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hamza MA, Anderson WK
(2002) Improving soil physical fertility and crop yield on a clay soil in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 53, 615–620.
Harrison MJ, McCabe BPM
(1979) A test for heteroscedasticity based on ordinary least squares residuals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 494–499.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Letey J
(1985) Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Advances in Soil Science 1, 277–294.
McKenzie DC
(2001a) Rapid assessment of soil compaction damage. II. Relationships between SOILpak score, strength and aeration measurements, clod shrinkage parameters and image analysis data on a Vertisol. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39, 127–141.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McKenzie DC
(2001b) Rapid assessment of soil compaction damage. I. The SOILpak score, a semi-quantitative measure of soil structural form. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39, 117–125.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mulqueen J,
Stafford JV, Tanner DW
(1977) Evaluation of penetrometers for measuring soil strength. Journal of Terramechanics 14, 137–151.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sparrow LA,
Cotching WE,
Cooper J, Rowley W
(1999) Attributes of Tasmanian Ferrosols under different agricultural management. Australian Journal of Soil Research 37, 603–622.
Taylor HM, Ratliff LF
(1969) Root elongation rates of cotton and peanuts as a function of soil strength and soil water content. Soil Science 108, 113–119.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vaz CMP,
Bassoi LH, Hopmans JW
(2001) Contribution of water content and bulk density to field soil penetration resistance as measured by a combined cone penetrometer-TDR probe. Soil and Tillage Research 60, 35–42.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
