SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 27 February 2006
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:620-630 (2006)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0355
© 2006 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tomer, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Moorman, T. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tomer, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Moorman, T. B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Tomer, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Moorman, T. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Watershed and Landscape Processes
Right arrow Best Management Practices
Right arrow Soil Conservation

Surface-Soil Properties and Water Contents across Two Watersheds with Contrasting Tillage Histories

M. D. Tomer*, C. A. Cambardella, D. E. James and T. B. Moorman

USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Lab., 2150 Pammel Dr. Ames, IA50011


Figure 1
View larger version (50K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Map of watersheds 1 and 3 (CW1 and RW3), showing sampling locations. Excluded areas include roadways, buffers, waterways, and areas in different ownership or management.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Plots of terrain characteristics at sampling locations in CW1 and RW3 show the two watersheds are similar in terms of topographic exposure (A) and soil wetness (B).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Plots of slope and organic carbon (OC) in watersheds CW1 and RW3, with regression equations fit to the data. The greater amount of OC in RW3 caused a significant difference in intercept values.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Plot of average surface-soil {theta} measured on four dates in CW1 and RW3 versus the F ratio, which indicates the significance of the difference between watersheds after landscape-position effects were removed. RW3 had significantly larger {theta} on dates when {theta} exceeded 33%.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Plots of organic C (OC) and soil water contents on two dates in watersheds CW1 and RW3. Correlation coefficients were consistently significant in RW3 (P < 0.01), and consistently nonsignificant in CW1 (P > 0.05).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Soil water retention curves for the conventionally tilled (CW1) and ridge-tilled (RW3) watersheds, as estimated by pedotransfer functions. Watershed means for {theta}s and b (Eq. [1], Table 8) were used to plot these curves. Plotted points place the mean {theta} values for four dates of monitoring in both watersheds, indicating soil water potentials were similar between watersheds. Inset: predicted differences in {theta} between watersheds are greatest when soils are wet, and similar to those detected (Table 5).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2006 by the Soil Science Society of America.