Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T21:16:32.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual effects of a slant-legged subsoiler on some soil physical conditions and the root growth of spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

N. A. Hipps  and
D. R. Hodgson
N. A. Hipps
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Sciences Building, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
D. R. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Sciences Building, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Soil disturbance caused by a slant-legged subsoiler (Trade name, ‘Paraplow’) and the duration of its effect was investigated in an experiment comparing long-term direct drilling with shallow tine cultivation and mouldboard ploughing. The ‘Paraplow’ significantly reduced soil strength, measured by cone resistance, to the depth of cultivation (33–35 cm) for up to 20 months, after which soil recompacted. The ‘Paraplow’ increased the volume of soil with cone resistance < 1·5 MPa by 52% within its working depth, compared with an equivalent depth of undisturbed soil. Contour diagrams of cone resistances clearly illustrate the patterns of soil loosening caused by the ‘Paraplow’.

Measurements on soil cores (73 mm diameter × 50 mm) show that the ‘Paraplow’ did not appear to increase significantly the volume of macropores (> 60 μm) in direct-drilled soil, nor did it reduce the bulk density in the top 5 cm as effectively as the mouldboard plough.

The root density of spring barley, measured at the beginning and end of tillering, was significantly increased within the horizon disturbed by the ‘Paraplow’ but below the depth of loosening there were no differences. This improvement of root growth probably resulted from an increase in the number of large pores (which could not be measured adequately in the soil cores), as well as the reduced soil strength. Better drainage of the soil loosened with the ‘Paraplow’ suggested that macroporosity was improved. The need to sample large volumes of soil to detect changes in bulk density and macroporosity is stressed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 481 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, G., Pidgeon, J. D., Spencer, H. B. & Parks, R. (1980). A new hand held recording penetrometer for soil studies. Journal of Soil Science 31, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belford, R. K. & Thomson, R. J. (1981). Effects of waterlogging on the growth and yield of winter barley. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 403–411.Google Scholar
Braim, M. A., Chaney, K. & Hodgson, D. R. (1984). Preliminary investigation on the response of spring barley to soil cultivation with the ‘Paraplow’. Soil and Tillage Research 4, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaney, K., Hodgson, D. R. & Braim, M. A. (1985). The effects of direct drilling, shallow cultivation and ploughing on some soil physical properties in a long-term experiment on spring barley. Journal of Agriculttirat Science, Cambridge 104, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. B., Pidgeon, J. D., Lord, E. & Gowman, M. (1982). Responses to deep loosening by the ‘Paraplow’ in continuous cereal production. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation, Osijek, Yugoslavia, 1982, pp. 591–596.Google Scholar
Dawkins, T. C. K., McGowan, M., Hebblethwaite, P. D. & Brereton, J. C. (1984). The effects of thorough subsoil loosening on the yield of peas (1980) and a subsequent crop of winter wheat 1981. Research and Development in Agriculture 1, 53–57.Google Scholar
Ellis, F. B. (1979). Roots and their function in the soil. The Yield of Cereals. National Agriculture Centre. Royal Agricultural Society of England.Google Scholar
Ellis, F. B. & Barnes, B. T. (1980). Growth and development of root systems of winter cereals grown after different tillage methods including direct drilling. Plant and Soil 55, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, D. J. (1981). Soil management and soil degradation. Journal of Soil Science 32, 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. G. M., Reeve, M.J., Thomasson, A. J. & Wright, V. F. (1977). Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil Survey Technical Monograph no. 9, llarpenden, U.K.Google Scholar
Hipps, N. A. (1985). The effects of a slant-legged subsoiler on soil physical conditions and the growth of cereals. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Hipps, N. A. & Hodgson, D. R. (1987). The effect of a slant-legged subsoiler on soil compaction and the growth of direct-drilled winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, D. R., Proud, J. R. & Browne, S. (1977). Cultivation systems for spring barley with special reference to direct drilling (1971–1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, O., Hofman, C., Ossemerct, C. & Van Ruymbeke, M. (1984). Root growth response of winter barley to subsoiling. Soil and Tillage Research 4, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Large, E. C. (1954). Growth stages in cereals. Plant Pathology 3, 128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwen, J. (1979). Yield of field experiments. Reportofthe Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1978, pp. 111–112.Google Scholar
McEwen, J. (1980). Yield of Field Experiments. Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 1979, pp. 91–92.Google Scholar
McEwen, J. & Johnson, A. E. (1979). The effects of subsoiling and deep incorporation of P and K fertilisers on the yield and nutrient uptake of barley, potatoes, wheat and sugar beet growth in rotation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, M. F., Dickson, J. W. & Campbell, D. J. (1987). Interpretation and presentation of cone resistance data in tillage and traffic studies. Journal of Soil Science 38, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pidgeon, J. D. (1982). ‘Paraplow’-a rational approach to soil management. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation, Osijek, Yugoslavia, 1982, pp. 633–638.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R. J. & Prior, W. A. J. (1983). The GHOST-80 User Manual. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Culham Laboratory, Abingdon, U.K.Google Scholar
Swain, R. W. (1975). Subsoiling. In Soil Physical Conditions and Crop Production. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Technical Bulletin no. 29, pp. 189–204. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Tennant, D. (1975). A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. Journal of Ecology 63, 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Threadgill, E. D. (1981). Residual tillage effects as determined by cone index. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper no. 81–1039, 19 pp. St. Joseph, U.S.A. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J. & Williams, E. D. (1968). Root growth of a barley crop estimated by sampling with portable powered soil-coring equipment. Journal of Applied Ecology 5, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersum, L. L. (1957). The relationship of the size and structural rigidity of pores to their penetration by roots. Plant and Soil 9, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar