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


     

Published online 28 September 2007
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1770-1778 (2007)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2007.0048
© 2007 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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H.
Right arrow Articles by Lal, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H.
Right arrow Articles by Lal, R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H.
Right arrow Articles by Lal, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Structure and Properties
Right arrow Soil Compaction
Right arrow Tillage

Regional Assessment of Soil Compaction and Structural Properties under No-tillage Farming

Humberto Blanco-Canqui* and R. Lal

Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, FAES/OARDC School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State Univ., 412C Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1085


Figure 1
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Map of the three states (Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) showing the soil sampling points within each of the 13 Major Land Resource Areas.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Mean volumetric water content and bulk density by management for each Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) across Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Bars with the same letters within each MLRA are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Mean cone index and shear strength by management for each Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) across Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Bars with the same letters within each MLRA are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Geometric mean tensile strength and mean weight diameter of soil aggregates under three management systems across 13 Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Bars with the same letters within each MLRA are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level.

 




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 © 2007 by the Soil Science Society of America.