| تعداد نشریات | 284 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 82 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,043 |
| تعداد مقالات | 34,036 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 46,410,585 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 77,477,928 |
تاثیر روش‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی بر برخی از ویژگی‌های فیزیکی خاک | ||
| پژوهش های کاربردی زراعی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 33، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 126، فروردین 1399، صفحه 61-81 اصل مقاله (804.54 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/aj.2019.122917.1328 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| علی داد کرمی* | ||
| استادیار بخش تحقیقات خاک و آب، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان فارس، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، شیراز، | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تاثیر سامانه‌های خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی و مرسوم بر خصوصیات فیزیکی خاک در اراضی ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی داراب ارزیابی شد. تحقیق در مزرعه‌ای که سامانه‌های بی‌خاک‌ورزی، کم‌خاک‌ورزی و مرسوم، سالیان متمادی در جوار هم اعمال شده بود انجام شد. اثرات سامانه‌ها با آمار توصیفی و زمین‌آمار بررسی شد. نمونه‌برداری بصورت تصادفی و با توزیع یکنواخت انجام و ویژگی‌های بافت، EC، pH اندازه‌گیری شد. نفوذ آب به خاک با مدل‌های کوستیاکوف و فیلیپ بررسی شد. عملکرد گندم در 2 متر مربع در سایت‌های آزمایشی اندازه‌گیری شد. با استفاده از نرم‌افزارهای SPSS، Excel و GS+ تجزیه و تحلیل انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد: عملکرد گندم از 1850 تا 8150 کیلوگرم در هکتار متغیّر بود. میانگین عملکرد گندم در کم‌خاک‌ورزی، بی‌خاک‌ورزی و مرسوم به ترتیب 6137، 4425 و 3589 کیلوگرم در هکتار و در سطح یک درصد اختلاف معنی‌دار داشت. بین ویژگی‌های خاک و ضرایب مدل‌های نفوذ همبستگی معنی‌داری وجود داشت. بهترین مدل نیم‌تغییرنما برای pH، EC، درصد شن، سیلت و رس و ضریب A مدل فیلیپ مدل کروی و برای ضریب a و b مدل کوستیاکوف و نفوذ تجمعی در 150 دقیقه مدل نمایی و برای ضریب S مدل فیلیپ، مدل گوسی بود. بهترین میان‌یاب برای pH، EC، درصد شن، درصد رس، ضریب a و S روش کریجینگ و برای درصد سیلت، ضریب b و A و نفوذ تجمعی در 150 دقیقه روش IDW بود. ضریب a و S نشان داد که خاک‌ورزی مرسوم با تهدید شرایط فیزیکی خاک حرکت آب در خاک را کاهش داده است. بهترین تیمار روش کم‌خاک‌ورزی بود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تغییرپذیری مکانی؛ زمین‌آمار؛ کیفیت خاک؛ نفوذ آب به خاک | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Effect of different tillage methods on some soil physical properties | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| alidad Karami | ||
| Assistant professor of Soil and Water Research Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract Introduction: Conservation agriculture (CA) is considered as a suitable technique for protecting the environment, which will lead to major benefits and sustainable production. Minimum and zero tillage are recommended as they tend to reduce the cost of crop production, retain higher quantities of soil water, and provide physical protection for soil organic carbon (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012). CA improves soil physical parameters such as water-stable aggregates, water infiltration and retention as compared to conventional agriculture (Vinod et al., 2016). Conservation agriculture can improve soil physical properties and the associated processes, particularly, soil aeration, soil structure and soil porosity. It can also reduce soil erosion, soil compaction and crusting, and optimize the soil temperature for successful crop production (Indoria et al., 2017). Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the effects of conservation and conventional tillage on the soil properties and wheat yield. Materials and Methods: This research was performed using geostatistical method through analyzing soil properties and wheat yield data. The soil properties measured included: soil texture, EC, pH, and soil infiltration. Soil infiltration were determined using double ring method. The infiltration models of Kostiakov and Philip were fitted to the measured data. Wheat yield was measured at 2 m2 interval of each sampling site. Data were analyzed using SPSS, Excel, and GS+ software. Average, variance, skewness, kurtosis and coefficient of variation (CV) of data for each property were calculated using descriptive statistics. Spatial distribution maps of properties were drawn using the best semi-variogran model and the best interpolation method. Results and Discussion: The results showed that wheat yield with a medium CV varied from 1850 to 8150 kg/ha. The best semi-variogram model for wheat grain yield was spherical model, and the best interpolation method for it was point kriging. The wheat yield under minimum tillage system was higher than that of conventional tillage. Wheat yield and coefficients of infiltration models had a significantly correlation with soil properties. The best semi-varogram model for soil pH, EC, sand, silt, and clay percentage, and coefficient A of Philip model was spherical, and for the coefficients a and b of Kostiakove model, and I150 was exponential and for the S coefficient was Gaussian model. The spatial structure of soil pH, EC, sand, silt, and clay percentage, A coefficient, I150, and b coefficient was strong, and for the a and S coefficients were moderate. The best interpolator for soil pH, EC, sand, silt, and clay percentage, and a coefficient was kriging method and for silt percentage, b and A coefficient, and I150 was inverse distance weighting method. The magnitude of a and S coefficient was higher in comparison to the area of conventional tillage Conclusions: Results showed that, the mean wheat yield at reduced tillage, no tillage and conventional tillage was respectively 6137, 4425, and 3589 kg/ha. Conservation tillage methods increased soil infiltration (6%) and decreased soil salinity (12%) relative to the conventional tillage. Conservation tillage slightly reduced soil pH as compared to the conventional tillage. Reduced tillage had a positive impact on parameters of soil infiltration models. There was a significant correlation between soil parameters, which is very important for better field management. Geostatistical models derived from the data of this research are very useful for the estimation of soil parameters in the similar areas. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that, although the studied soil parameters had wide spatial variability, geostatistical methods with the limited data can be used to estimate them with high accuracy. The coefficient a and the coefficient S were the highest in the area where conservation tillage was applied. These results indicate that conventional tillage has reduced the movement of water in soil by disturbing soil physical conditions, including the destruction of the soil structure. Finally, the best tillage system was reduced tillage. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support extended by the Agriculture Organization of Fars province and Soil and Water Research Institute. Keywords: Geostatistic, Infiltration, Soil quality, Spatial variability. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Geostatistic, Infiltration, Soil quality, Spatial variability | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Afzalinia, S., Karami, A., Talati, M.H., and Alavimanesh, S.M. 2011. Effect of conservation tillage on the soil properties and corn yield. CSAE Paper No. 11-204, July 10-13, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Afzalinia, S., Khosravani, A., Javadi, A., Mohammadi, D., and Alavimanesh, S.M. 2010. Effect of conservation tillage and planting methods on the soil properties, grain drill performance, wheat yield, and wheat yield components. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, September, 6-8, Clermont Ferrand, France. Ben-Hur, M. 2008. Seal formation affects on soil infiltration and runoff in arid and semi-arid regions under rainfall and sprinkler irrigation conditions. In: Zereini, F., Hötzl, H. (Eds.), Climatic Changes and Water Resources in the Middle East and North Africa. Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 429–452. Bhattacharyya, R., Tuti, M.D., Kundu, S., Bisht, J.K., and Bhatt, J.C. 2012. Conservation tillage impacts on soil aggregation and carbon pools in a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76: 617–627. Botta, G.F., Becerra, A.T., and Melcon, F.B. 2009. Seedbed compaction produced by traffic on four tillage regimes in the rolling Pampas of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research, 105 (1), 128-134. Camberdella, C.A., Moorman, T.B., Novak, J.M., Parkin, T.B., Karlen, D.L., Turco R.F., and Konopka, A.E. 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science of Society American Journal, 58: 1501-1511. Chan, C., Sipes, B., Ayman, A., Zhang, X., LaPorte, P., Fernandes, F., Pradhan, A., Chan-Dentoni, J., and Roul, P. 2017. Efficiency of conservation agriculture production systems for smallholders in rain-fed uplands of India: A Transformative Approach to Food Security. Land, 58(6): 1-2. doi:10.3390/land6030058 De Vita, P., Di Paolo, E., Fecondo, G., Di Fonzo, N., and Pisante, M. 2007. No-tillage and conventional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research, 92(1-2), 69-78. Dehghanian, S.E., and Afzalinia, S. 2011. Effect of conservation tillage and irrigation methods on the soil infiltration rate. International workshop on Conservation Agriculture Systems and Its Impact on Water Productivity, September 11-16, Karaj, Iran. Duffera, M., White, J.G., and Weisz, R. 2007. Spatial variability of Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain soil physical properties: Implication for site-specific management. Geoderma, 137: 327-339. Durán Zuazo, V.H., and Rodríguez Pleguezuelo, C.R. 2008. Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers. A review. Agronomy Sustainable Development, 28: 65–86. Erenstein, O., and Laxmi, V. 2008. Zero tillage impacts in India’s rice–wheat systems: A review. Soil and Tillage Research, 100, 1–14. Garcıa-Orenes, F., Cerda, A., Mataix-Solera, J., Guerrer, C., Bodı, M.B., Arcenegui, V., Zornoza, R., Sempere, J.G. 2009. Effects of agricultural management on surface soil properties and soil–water losses in eastern Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 106, 117-123. Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K., and Gupta, R. 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363: 543-555. Indoria, A.K., Srinivasa Rao, Ch., Sharma, K.L., and Sammi Reddy, K. 2017. Conservation agriculture – a panacea to improve soil physical health. Current Science, 112(52): 52-61. Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Saharawat, Y.S., Jat, A.S., Kumar, V., Sharma, S.K., Kuma, V., and Gupta, R. 2009. Evaluation of precision land leveling and double zero-till systems in the rice–wheat rotation: Water use, productivity, profitability and soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 105(1): 112-121. Jordán, A., Zavala, L.M., Mataix-Solera, J., Nava, A.L., Alanís, N. 2011. Effect of fire severity on water repellency and aggregate stability on Mexican volcanic soils. Catena, 84: 136–147. Kostiakov, A.N. 1932. On the dynamics of the coefficient of water percolation in soils and on the necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes of amelioration. Trans. 6 Comm. Intern. Soil Science Russian Part A, 17-21. Liu, S., Zhang, H., Dai, Q., Huo Xu, Z.K., and Ruan, H. 2005. Effects of no-tillage plus inter-planting and remaining straw on the field on cropland eco-environment and wheat growth. The journal of applied ecology, 16(2): 393-396. Mašek, J., Procházka, P., Kvíz, Z., and Šindelár R. 2008. Machines in conservation soil tillage technologies. Engineering for Rural Development, 29: 131- 135. McBratney, A.B., and Webster, R. 1983. Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties: V. Coregionalization and multiple sampling strategies. Journal of Soil Science, 34: 137-162. Oyonarte, N.A., and Mateos, L. 2002. Accounting for soil variability in the evaluation of furrow irrigation. Transaction of the ASAE, 45(6): 85-94. Philip, J.R. 1957. The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Journal of Soil Science, 84: 257-264. Reiter, M.S., Reeves, D.W., Burmester, C.H., Torbert H.A. 2008. Cotton nitrogen management in a high-residue conservation system: cover crop fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72(5): 1321-1329. Roberts, K., Howard, D.D., Gwathmey, C.O., and Sleigh, D.E. 1999. Economics of broadcast and injected nitrogen on no-till cotton produced at three locations in Tennessee. Journal of Cotton Science, 3: 109-115. Singer, A. 2007. The Soils of Israel. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York. Singh, V.K., Singh, Y., Dwivedi, B.S., Singh, S.K., Majumdar, K., Jat, M.L., Mishra, R.P., and Rani, M. 2016. Soil physical properties, yield trends and economics after five years of conservation agriculture based rice-maize system in north-western India. Soil & Tillage Research, 155: 133–148. Swartzendruber, D., and Youngs, E.G. 1974. A comparison of physically-based infiltration equations. Transaction of the ASAE, 12: 822-828. Wakernagel, H. 2002. Multivariate geostatistics. Springer Press, 387 pp. Wilding, L.P. 1985. Spatial variability: Its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys. In Soil Spatial Variability, ed. D.R. Nielsen and J. Bouma, pp 166-194. Pudoc. Wageningen, the Netherlands. Wosten, J.H.M., Pachepsky, Y.A., and Rawals, W.J. 2001. Pedotransfer functions: Bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. Journal of Hydrology, 251: 123-150. Yasrebi, J., Saffari, M., Fathi, H., Karimian, N., Emadi, M., and Baghernejad, M. 2008. Spatial variability of soil fertility properties for precision agriculture in southern Iran. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8: 1642-1650. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 499 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 504 |
||