1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 7, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 7 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

This paper focuses on the development of a geophysical methodology as a tool for agricultural soil research particularly concerning the impact of different tillage. Geophysical interest laid on the suitability (practically and technically) resolution limits of the applied methods; on the reliability of the data on small horizontal and vertical scales (cm–dm) in volumetric water content () determination as well as consequences for the interpretation in terms of water retention capacity.

In parts of the investigated area a large field was divided into sub‐fields, each of them subjected to different tillage since about 15 years: normal tillage (field I, with a 0.3 m deep impact plough), conservative tillage (field II, zero tillage, just seeding) and mulch tillage (field III, just the uppermost 0.1 m ploughed). Measurements were performed on two parallel profiles with geoelectrics, radar, induced polarization and nuclear magnetic resonance.

The contrast of and electrical resistivity was always larger between fields I and II on profile 1 as well as on profile 2 but for one exception: for the ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) data of August 2004 on profile 2 the largest contrast was between fields I and III, nevertheless the contrast between fields I and II was nearly as large as between fields I and III. How could the type of tillage of fields I and II be distinguished by the contrast of their physical parameters? Whereas on profile 1 field I was dryer and field II the wetter, on profile 2 field I was the wetter and field II the dryer one. On the other hand the laboratory samples from profile 2 showed a similar behaviour as the field data from profile 1. This (apparent) contradiction may have come from the respective precipitation history. Whereas some of the measurements have been performed during and shortly after a rain event, other measurements were performed after a longer dry period. During and directly after precipitation the soil on the unploughed field II could take up more, whereas the soil on the ploughed field could not hold as much water.

The first layer of field I was more inhomogeneous than the first layer of field II and the second layer of field I was more homogeneous than the second layer of field II. The differences in homogeneity were caused by destructive process of the plough, which loosens the soil and exposes the soil to the weathering.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2009 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
2008-11-01
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbragamA.1983. Principles of Nuclear Magnetism. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AllredB.J., DanielsJ.J. and EhsaniM.R.2008. Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics. CRC, Oxford
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ArchieG.1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers146, 54–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BörnerF.D. and SchönJ.J.1991. A relation between the quadrature component of electrical conductivity and the specific surface area of sedimentary rocks. The Log Analyst5, 612–613.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BörnerF.D., SchopperJ.R. and WellerA.1996. Evaluation of transport and storage properties in the soil and groundwater zone from induced polarization measurements. Geophysical Prospecting44, 583–601. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1996.tb00167.x
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DoolittleJ.A., MinzenmayerF.E., WaltmanS.W. and BenhamE.C.2003. Ground penetrating radar soil suitability map. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics8, 49–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DuS.1996. Determination of water content in the subsurface with the ground wave of ground penetrating radar. PhD thesis, Ludwig‐ Maximilians‐University, Munich.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HillelD.2004. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. HuismanJ.A., SnepvangersJ.J.J.C., BoutenW. and HeuvelinkG.B.M.2002. Monitoring temporal development of spatial soil water content variation comparison of ground penetrating radar and time domain reflectometry. Vadose Zone Journal2, 519–529.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. JarvisN., LarsboM., RoulierS., LindahlA. and PerssonL.2007. The role of soil properties in regulating non‐equililbrium macropore flow and solute transport in agricultural topsoils. European Journal of Soil Science58, 282‐292.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KenyonW.E.1992. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a petrophysical measurement tool. Nuclear Geophysics6, 153–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. KenyonW.E.1997. Petrophysical principles of applications of NMR logging. The Log Analyst38, 21–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. KhlosiM., CornelisW.M., GabrielsD. and SinG.2006. Simple modification to describe the soil water retention curve between saturtion and oven dryness. Water Resources Research42, W11501. doi:10.1029/2005WR004699.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KurzG., MüllerM. and YaramanciU.2004. Assessment of water retention of agricultural soils – Flood prevention with geophysics. Near Surface 2004, Utrecht, The Netherlands, P050.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LokeM.H.1998. Res2Dinv, Rapid 2D Resistivity and IP Inversion Using the Least Squares Method for 2D and 3D Geoelectrical Imaging. Advanced Geosciences Inc., Austin, Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LückE., GebbersR., RuehlmannJ. and SpangenbergU.2009. Application of geophysics in precision farming. Near Surface Geophysics7, 15‐25.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. MüllerM., KoomanS. and YaramanciU.2005. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) properties of unconsolidated sediments in field and laboratory. Near Surface Geophysics3, 275–286
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MüllerM., MohnkeO., SchmalholzJ. and YaramanciU.2003. Moisture assessment with small‐scale geophysics – The Interurban Project. Near Surface Geophysics1, 173–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. NdayeB., MolenatJ., HallaireV., GascuelC. and HamonY.2007. Effects of agricultural practices on hydraulic properties and water movements in soils in Britanny (France). Soil and Tillage Research93, 252–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. SchmalholzJ., MüllerM., YaramanciU., KemnaA. and StoffregenH.2004. Small scale determination of volumetric water content distribution in the uppermost soil. Tenth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 489–492.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. SenP., StraleyC., KenyonW. and WhittinghamM.1990. Surface‐to‐volume ratio, charge density nuclear magnetic relaxation, and permeability in clay‐bearing sandstones. Geophysics55, 61–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. SperlC.1999. Erfassungderraum‐zeitlichenVariation desBoden‐wassergehaltesin einem Agrar¨okosystem mit dem Ground‐Penetrating Radar. Forschungsverbund Agrar¨okosystem München (FAM) Bericht 37. Shaker Verlag, Aachen.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ToppG.C., DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission line. Water Resource Research16, 574–582.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ToumaJ., VoltzM. and AlbergelJ.2007. Determining soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity from singel ring infiltration tests. European Journal of Soil Science58, 229–238.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. VincentA., BenoitP., PotV., MadrigalI., Delgado‐MorenoL. and LabatC.2007. Impact of different land uses on the migration of two herbicides in a silt loam soil: unsaturated soil column displacements studies. European Journal of Soil Science58, 320–328.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. WhalleyW.R., ClarkL.J., TakeW.A., BirdN.R.A., LeechP.K., CopeR.E and C.W.Watts2007. A porous‐matrix sensor to measure the matric potential of soil water in the field. European Journal of Soil Science58, 18–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. ZhangS., LövdahlL., GripH., JanssonP.‐E. and TongY.2007. Modelling the effects of mulching and fallow cropping on water balance in the Chinese Loes Plateau. Soil and Tillage Research93, 283–298.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
Loading
Influence of tillage methods on soil water content and geophysical properties
Near Surface Geophysics 7, 27 (2009); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2008039
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error