IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i12p2149-d1002807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia

Author

Listed:
  • Merit Sutri

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi Str. 5, Tartu 51006, Estonia)

  • Merrit Shanskiy

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi Str. 5, Tartu 51006, Estonia)

  • Mari Ivask

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi Str. 5, Tartu 51006, Estonia
    Tartu College, Tallinn University of Technology, Puiestee Str. 78, Tartu 51006, Estonia)

  • Endla Reintam

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi Str. 5, Tartu 51006, Estonia)

Abstract

Soil quality indicates the soil’s ability to provide ecosystem services. Reducing the tillage intensity has been suggested as an alternative to conventional tillage for sustaining soil quality. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of soil tillage systems on individual soil quality indicators in comparison to those on grassland with Stagnic Luvisol soil in Estonia. Four soil management systems were compared: no-tillage (NT), minimum tillage (MT), conventional tillage (CT) and grassland (G) as a reference. Soil quality indicators included physical (bulk density, water-stable aggregates, porosity, air-filled pores, moisture content, water-holding capacity, penetration resistance and water permeability), chemical (total N, total soil organic C, permanganate oxidisable C, pH, P, K, Ca and Mg) and biological (earthworm abundance) parameters. CT soils had a significantly lower aggregate stability compared to MT and G soils. The higher penetration resistance of CT under an arable layer suggested the presence of a plough pan. NT improved the soil’s physical quality at 5–10 cm, which was indicated by higher moisture content, water-holding capacity and porosity and a lower bulk density, whereas penetration resistance exceeded 2 MPa in the lower part of the topsoil. NT also had significantly lower total soil organic C and total N compared to MT and G. The absence of tillage in the NT and G systems may have improved the soil’s resistance to moisture loss under dry conditions, which, in turn, improved the soil habitability for earthworms a despite higher density. In general, NT or MT stabilised or increased the soil quality compared to CT.

Suggested Citation

  • Merit Sutri & Merrit Shanskiy & Mari Ivask & Endla Reintam, 2022. "The Assessment of Soil Quality in Contrasting Land-Use and Tillage Systems on Farm Fields with Stagnic Luvisol Soil in Estonia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:12:p:2149-:d:1002807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/12/2149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/12/2149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:12:p:2149-:d:1002807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.