اثر مدیریت‌های مختلف زراعی بر برخی شاخص‌های فیزیکی کیفیت خاک

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• ارسلان صادقیان ¹
• غلامعباس صیاد ²
• احمد فرخیان فیروزی ¹
• مجتبی نوروزی مصیر ¹

¹ شهید چمران اهواز

² اهواز

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v33i2.69543

چکیده

خاک از جمله منابع طبیعی دیر تجدید شونده است که تخریب و یا حفاظت آن بستگی به نحوه استفاده و مدیریت اراضی دارد. مدیریت‌های زراعی مختلف تأثیرات متفاوتی بر شاخص­های کیفی خاک می‌گذارند. در این تحقیق اثر مدیریت‌های زراعی­های مختلف بر برخی از شاخص­های فیزیکی کیفیت خاک شامل مقدار مواد آلی، تخلخل، جرم مخصوص ظاهری، پایداری خاکدانه، ظرفیت آب قابل دسترس، مقاومت فروروی، هدایت هیدرولیکی اشباع و شیب منحنی رطوبتی در نقطه عطف) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بدین منظور سه مزرعه با مدیریت‌های زراعی مختلف شامل سیستم تک کشتی-حذف بقایای گیاهی، تناوب زراعی- حذف بقایای گیاهی و تک کشتی-حفظ بقایا گیاهی در سطح انتخاب شدند. آزمایشی در قالب طرح آماری بلوک‌های تصادفی با چهار تکرار صورت گرفت. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل واریانس نشان داد که نوع مدیریت زراعی در سطح احتمال یک درصد بر همه پارامترهای فیزیکی مورد مطالعه اثر معنی‌دار داشت. نتایج مقایسه میانگین نشان داد که در روش مدیریت زراعی تک کشتی- حذف بقایای گیاهی، مقدار جرم مخصوص ظاهری (31/1 گرم بر سانتی‌متر مکعب) و مقاومت فروروی خاک (40/0 مگاپاسکال) بیشتر از تیمارهای دیگر بود، در حالی‌که بیشترین مقدار مواد آلی (038/1 %)، تخلخل (7/55 درصد)، میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه (04/1 میلی‌متر)، شاخص پایداری خاکدانه­ها (28 درصد)، ظرفیت آب قابل دسترس (15/0 درصد)، هدایت هیدرولیکی اشباع (17/46 سانتی‌متر بر ساعت) و شیب منحنی رطوبتی در نقطه عطف (053/0) در تیمار سیستم تک کشتی-با حفظ بقایای گیاهی مشاهده شد. به طور کلی نتایج این پژوهش نتایج نشان داد که سیستم تک کشتی-با حفظ بقایا گیاهی در افزایش کیفیت فیزیکی خاک نقشی بسزایی دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• شاخص های کیفی خاک
• مدیریت بقایا
• مدیریت تناوب زراعی
• ویژگی های فیزیکی

20.1001.1.20084757.1398.33.2.6.9

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Different Agronomic Management on Some Physical Indicators of Soil Quality

نویسندگان [English]

• Arsalan Sadeghian ¹
• gholamabbas sayyad ²
• Ahmad Farrokhian Firouzi ¹
• Mojtaba Norouzi Masir ¹

¹ Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

²

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Soil is one of the renewable natural resources that take a long time to get renewed; its destruction or conservation depends on how land is used and managed. Soil quality refers to soil capacity in maintaining biological fertility, sustainability in plant production and yield. Maintaining soil quality is essential for sustainable food production and decomposition of organic wastes. Different agronomic managements have various effects on soil quality indicators. There are few published researches about the effect of various agronomic managements on soil quality indices in arid and semi-arid regions (such as Iran). Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate and compare the effects of three different agronomic management including crop rotation-crop residue removal, monoculture-crop residue removal and monoculture-crop residue retention systems on some physical indicators of soil quality.
Materials and Methods: In this research, three farms with three crop management systems including crop rotation-crop residue removal, monoculture-crop residue removal and monoculture-crop residue retention (10 ton per hectare) systems were investigated. In the monoculture-crop residue removal treatment, wheat was continuously cultivated for 8 years. In the rotation-crop residue removal system, wheat - mung bean were cultivated in rotation for 2 years. For the monoculture-crop residue retention system, wheat was planted for 10 years, after which the post-harvest residues were mixed with topsoil (0-15 cm). One hundred twenty soil samples (40 samples from each field) were prepared by systematic sampling from 0 to 15 cm depth. In order to investigate the effect of different agronomic management on soil physical quality, some indicators including soil organic matter, total porosity, bulk density, mean weight diameter of aggregates, aggregate stability, available water capacity, penetration resistance, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and slope of retention curve at inflection point (S-index) were measured. The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Also, the mean comparison was performed using Duncan's multiple range test.
Results and Discussion: The results of analysis of variance showed that the type of crop management had a significant effect (p<0.01) on organic matter, total porosity, bulk density, mean weight diameter of aggregates, aggregate stability, available water capacity, penetration resistance, saturated hydraulic conductivity and S-index. The results of mean comparison indicated that the monoculture-crop residue removal system resulted in a significant increase in bulk density (1.31 g cm-3) and soil penetration resistance (0.4 MPa) than other systems, while the highest organic matter content (1.038 %), porosity (55.7%), mean weight diameter (1.04 mm), aggregate stability index (28%), available water capacity (0.15%), saturated hydraulic conductivity (46.17 cm h-1) and S-index (0.053) was observed in the monoculture-crop residue retention system. The most measured values for soil quality indicators were more in monoculture-crop residual retention system compared with the other treatments. The amount of S-index of soils under monoculture-crop residual retention, crop rotation-crop residues removal, and monoculture-crop residual removal systems were 0.053, 0.032 and 0.019, respectively. The high S-index value of soil under monoculture-crop residual retention system can be attributed to its suitable amount of soil organic carbon and better soil structural quality. By contrast, in monoculture-crop residue removal system, elimination of organic matter had undesirable effect on soil porosity, and aggregate stability. Furthermore, the S-index values of the soils under crop rotation-crop residues removal, and monoculture-crop residual removal systems are below the Dexter’s soil quality index threshold (0.035); therefore, the results indicated that the soils are degraded.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that crop management plays an important role in changing soil physical quality indicators. Among the studied crop managements, monoculture-crop residue retention management system showed more positive effects on soil physical parameters than the others. Retention of crop residues on soil surface increases the soil organic matter which in turn has positive effects on soil properties such as aggregate stability, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water content and slope of retention curve at the inflection point. On the other hand, the monoculture-crop reside removal treatment, with less soil organic matter, had more undesirable effects on agronomic soils than other treatments. Based on the results, the effect of different agronomic management systems on improving soil physical quality indexes was in the following order: monoculture-crop residue retention >crop rotation-crop residue removal > monoculture-crop residue removal. According to the results, it can be concluded that soil organic matter is the central index of soil quality, which is intensely influenced by crop management system. Therefore, in arid and semiarid areas such as Iran, monitoring of the long-time effect of agronomic management on status of soil organic matter and soil physical indices is urgent.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Physical characteristics
• Soil Quality indicators
• Residual Management
• Agronomy crop management

مراجع

1- Abbasi H., Khodaverdiloo H., Ghorbani Sh., and Ahmadi Moghadam P. 2013. The effect of some soil tillage methods on soil physical quality index in arid and semi-arid region. Agricultural Mechanization Journal 1(2): 37-45. (In Persian)

2- Aziz I., Mahmood T., Raut Y., Lewis W., Islam R., and Weil R.R. 2009. Active organic matter as a simple measure of field soil quality, ASA Internation Meetings, Pittsburg, PA.

3- Barut Z.B., and Akbolat D. 2005. Evaluation of conventional and conservation tillage systems for maize. Journal of Agronomy 4(2): 122-126.

4- Bear M.H., Hendrix, P.F., and Coleman, D.C. 1994. Water stable aggregates and organic matter fraction in conventional and no-tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58: 777-786.

5- Bhattacharyya R., Chandra S., Singh R.D., Kundu, S., Srivastva A.K., and Gupta H.S. 2007. Long-term farmyard manure application effects on properties of a silty clay loam soil under irrigated wheat-soybean rotation. Soil and Tillage Research 94: 386-396.

6- Brye K.R. 2006. Soil physiochemical changes following 12 years of annual burning in a humid-subtropical tallgrass prairie: a hypothesis. Acta Oecologica 30: 407-413.

7- Cavazza L., Patruno A., and Cirillo E. 2007. Field capacity in soils with a yearly oscillating water table. Biosystems 98: 364-370.

8- Dexter A. 2004. Soil physic quality part III: unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S theory, Geoderma 120: 227-239.

9- Dexter A.R. 2006. Applications of S-theory in tillage research. p. 429–442. Proceedings of the 17th Triennial Conference, August 3- 28. Kiel, Germany.

10- Doran J.W., and Parkin T.B. 1994. Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. Soil Science society of America 35:3-21.

11- Farhoudi R., Chaychi M., Majnounhoseini N., and Savaghebi Gh. 2008. The Effect of Managing Wheat Plant Residues on Soil Properties and Sunflower Performance in Double Dual Cultivation System. Journal of Iranian Crop Science 1: 11-21. (In Persian)

12- Fuentes M., Govaerts B., Leon F.D., Hidalgo C., Dendooven L., Sayre K.D., and Etchevers J. 2009. Fourteen years of applying zero and conventional tillage, crop rotation and residue management systems and its effect on physical and chemical soil quality. Europian Journal of Agronomy 30: 228-237.

13- Gharanjiki A., and Miri A.A. 2007. Management of first crop residue for second planting in wheat-cotton planting system. 10th Soil Science congress of Iran.

14- Groenigen K.J., Hastings A., Forristal D., and Roth J.M. 2011. Soil carbon storage as affected by tillage and straw management: An assessment using field measurements and model predictions, Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 140: 218-225.

15- Grunwald S., Rooney D.J., McSweeney K., and Lowery B. 2001. Development of pedotransfer functions for a profile cone penetrometer. Geoderma 100: 25-47.

16- Guenet B., Neill C., Bardoun G., and Abbadie L. 2010. Is there a liner relationship between priming effect intensity and the amount of organic matter input?, Applied Soil Ecology 49: 436-442.

17- Heidari A. 2004. Effect of plant residue management and plowing depth on wheat yield and soil organic matter in maize-wheat rotational rotation. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 5(19): 81.94. (In Persian)

18- Heidari F., Rasoulzadeh A., Sepasklhah A., Asghari A., and Ghacidel A. 2013. The Effect of Management of Plant Remains on Physical and Biological Properties of Soils and the Efficiency of Maize and Forage Barley, Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. Water and Soil Science 17(65): 233-248. (In Persian)

19- Heidari F., Rasoulzadeh A., Sepaskhah AR. and Asghari A. 2010. Effect of Plant Remnants Recovery and Burning on Soil Physical and Hydraulic Properties. Second National Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management, Kerman. (In Persian)

20- Hillel D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York.

21- Jacob H., and Clarke G. 2002. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, Physical Method. Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

22- Karami A., Homaee M., Afzalinia S., Ruhipour H., and Basirat S. 2012. Organic residue management: Impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physic-chemical properties. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 148: 22-28.

23- Kayode S., Gabriel A., Olategu A.L., Adebayo D.A., and Oke O. 2009. Slash and burn effect on soil quality of Alfisol: Soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research 103: 4-10.

24- Lou X., Xu M., Wang W., Sun X., and Zhao K. 2010. Return rate of straw residue affects soil organic carbon sequestration by chemical fertilization, Soil and Tillage Research 98: 287-291.

25- MacRae R.J., and Mehuys G.R. 1985. The effect of green manuring on the physical properties of temperate area soils. Advance in Soil Science 3: 71-94.

26- McCool D.K., Pannkuk C.D., Kennedy A.C., and Fletcher P.S. 2008. Effects of burn/low-till on erosion and soilquality. Soil and Tillage Research 101: 2-9.

27- Mirzaei M., and Mahmoudabadi M. 2014. The effect of different type and management of plant residues on some physical properties and water infiltration in soil. Soil and Water Science Researches 28(4): 659-671. (In Persian)

28- Moazeni M. 2008. Effect of plant residual on hydraulic and water properties of soil in paddy soil of Gillan provinc. M.Sc. Thesis. Esfahan Technical University, 186p. (In Persian)

29- Moradi F., Ghorbani Z., MIsaghi P., and Khalili Moghadam B. 2015. Influencing factors on immersion resistance in three soil cultivars, cultivars and cane sugar in some soils of Khuzestan. Soil and Water Science Researches 29(2): 163-174. (In Persian)

30- Mulumba L.N., and Lal R. 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties, Soil and Tillage Research 98: 106-111.

31- Neyshabouri M., and Reyhani Tabar A. 2010. Interpretation of soil test results. Tabriz University, 216 pp.

32- Niewczas J., and Witkowska-Walczak B. 2003. Index of aggregates stability as linear function value of transition matrix elements, Soil and Tillage Research 70(2): 121-130.

33- Ohu J.O., Raghavan G.S.V., and McKyes E. 1985. Peatmoss effect on the physical and hydraulic characteristics of compacted soils, American Society Agriculture Engeineering 28: 420-424.

34- Osmani A., Asgarzadeh H., and Asadzadeh F. 2015. Evaluation of physical quality of a number of surface and sub-surface soils of Orumieh plain based on Dexter index. Research Institute of Tehran University, New Energy and Environment Research Center, 7 Pp. (In Persian)

35- Porteaus F., Hill J., Ball A.S., Pinter P.J., Kimball B.A., Wall G.W., Thompson T.L., Matthias A.D., Brooks T.J. and Morris C.F. 2009. Effect of free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) on the chemical composition and nutritive value of wheat grain and straw, Animal Feed Science and Technology 14: 322-332.

36- Reynolds W.D., Drury C.F., Tan C.S., Fox C.A., and Yang X.M. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality, Geoderma 152: 252- 263.

37- Saha S., Chakraborty D., Sharma A.R., Tomar R.K., Bhadraray S., Sen U., Behera U.K., Purakayastha T.J., Garg R.N. and Kalra N. 2010. Effect of tillage and residue management on soil physical properties and crop productivity in maize (Zea mays)-Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(8): 679-685.

38- Shaver T.M. 2010. Crop residue and soil physical properties. In: Proceeding of the 22nd Annual Central Plains Irrigation Conference. Keamey, NE.

39- Singh A., and Kaur J. 2012. Impact of conservation tillage on soil properties in ricewheat cropping system. Agricultural Science Research Journal 2(1): 30-41.

40- Valzano F.P., Greene R.S.B., and Murphy B.W. 1997. Direct effects of stubble burning on soil hydraulic and physical properties in a direct drill tillage system. Soil and Tillage Research 42: 209-219.

41- Van Genuchten M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of saturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44: 892-898.


42- Van Genuchten M.Th., Lesch S.M., and Yates S.R. 1991. The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils. Version 1.0. U.S. Salinity Lab., Riverside, CA.

43- Zhang G.S., Chan K.Y., Oates A., Heenan D.P., and Huang G.B. 2007. Relationship between soil structure and runoff-soil loss after 24 years of conservation tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 92: 122-128.