HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pikul, J. L. Articles by Aase, J. K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pikul, J. L., Jr. Articles by Aase, J. K. Agricola Articles by Pikul, J. L. Articles by Aase, J. K. Related Collections Structure and Properties Soil Hydrology Soil Conservation Other Soil Management

Water Infiltration and Storage affected by Subsoiling and Subsequent Tillage

^a USDA-ARS, Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory, 2923 Medary Ave., Brookings, SD 57006
^b USDA-ARS, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory, 3793 N. 3600 E., Kimberly, ID 83341, USA

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Soil bulk density and volumetric water content 7 d after the last water application in Exp. 1 (Dooley fine sandy loam). Samples were taken centered on the path of the subsoiler. Tillage treatments were: (i) subsoiling with a paratill and secondary tillage with a disk (SSplus), (ii) subsoiling with a paratill (SS), and (iii) not subsoiled (NoSS). Least significant differences are shown where P 0.05.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Soil bulk density and volumetric water content 7 d after the last water application in Exp. 2 (Williams loam). Samples were taken off-center from the path of the subsoiler. Tillage treatments were: (i) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks and secondary tillage with sweeps (SSplus), (ii) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks (SS), and (iii) not subsoiled (NoSS). Least significant differences are shown where P 0.05.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Concentration of sand and clay for Dooley fine sandy loam (Exp. 1) and Williams loam (Exp. 2). Error bars indicate ± 1 SD and are shown for the Williams soil.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Example of a smoothed surface map (Exp. 1, Dooley fine sandy loam) of penetration resistance (PR) on plots that were not subsoiled (NoSS). The bulge in PR at a depth of 0.15 m corresponds to the depth of a tillage pan.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Example of a smoothed surface map (Exp. 1, Dooley fine sandy loam) of penetration resistance (PR) on plots that were subsoiled (SS). The chisel portion of the paratill shank was centered at about transect position 0.22 m (shown as a bold grid-line extending from the surface to the 0.44-m depth).

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Water infiltration rate during 3-h simulated rainstorms on three consecutive days on the Dooley fine sandy loam (Exp. 1). Tillage treatments were: (i) subsoiling with a paratill and secondary tillage with a disk (SSplus), (ii) subsoiling with a paratill (SS), and (iii) not subsoiled (NoSS). Least significant differences are shown for Days 1 and 2 at 0.5-h intervals where P 0.05. Infiltration rates were significantly different between SS and SSplus for all times 0.5 h (ANOVA, P 0.05) during Day 3.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Water infiltration rate during 3-h simulated rainstorms on three consecutive days on the Williams loam (Exp. 2). Tillage treatments were: (i) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks and secondary tillage with sweeps (SSplus), (ii) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks (SS), and (iii) not subsoiled (NoSS). Least significant differences are shown at 0.5-h intervals where P 0.05.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Soil water content of the top 1.83 m during and after simulated rainstorms on the Williams loam (Exp. 2). Soil water measurements taken immediately after a 3-h simulated rainstorm are labeled Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3. Tillage treatments were: (i) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks and secondary tillage with sweeps (SSplus), (ii) subsoiling with parabolic subsoiling shanks (SS), and (iii) not subsoiled (NoSS). Least significant differences are shown where P 0.05.