Soil water retention as affected by tillage and

residue management in semiarid Spain

P. Bescansa
a,
*
, M.J. Imaz
a
, I. Virto
a
, A. Enrique
a
, W.B. Hoogmoed
b
a
Departamento Ciencias del Medio Natural, ETSI, Agronomos, Universidad Publica de Navarra,
Campus Arrosad a, 31006 Pamplona, Spain
b
Soil Technology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Received 26 September 2003; received in revised form 24 February 2005; accepted 24 February 2005
Abstract
Conservation tillage preserves soil water and this has been the main reason for its rapid dissemination in rainfed agriculture in
semiarid climates. We determined the effects of conservation versus conventional tillage on available soil water capacity (AWC)
and related properties at the end of 5 years of management on a clay loam calcic soil (Calcic Haploxerept) in semiarid northern
Spain. No-tillage with (NTSB) and without stubble burning (NT), reduced chisel-plough tillage (RT) and conventional tillage
with mouldboard plough (MT) were compared in rainfed barley monoculture. Bulk density (r
b
), organic matter content (OM),
soil water retention (SWR) at matric potentials of 0 to 1500 kPa, and soil water content (SWC) were determined in the driest
year of the 5-year study period.
Soil OM in the upper 0.15 m was signicantly higher (13%) under NTSB, NT and RT than under MT. Soil r
b
in the upper
0.15 m under NTand NTSB was greater than under RTand MT, but at a depth of 0.150.30 m was greater under RT than under
the other treatments. Reorganisation of pore sizes due to tillage treatments affected AWC. Under RT and MT the largest
percentage of the total soil porosity was occupied by pores >9 mm (equivalent pore diameter), in accordance with lower r
b
.
Available water capacity was greater with NT than with RTand MT. Higher SWCunder conservation tillage systems (NT, NTSB
and RT) than under MTwas attributed mainly to greater AWCand to the mulching effect of crop residues. Crop yield in the driest
year of the 5-year period was lowest under MT whereas no differences among treatments were found over the 5-year period.
Stubble burning did not affect AWC nor barley yield. Tillage had a greater impact on soil properties and on crop yield than crop
residue management.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soil water retention; No tillage; Chisel ploughing; Conservation tillage; Semi-arid barley; Stubble management
1. Introduction
Agriculture in semi-arid areas suffers from strong
annual variations both in crop yield and protability;
two factors that directly depend on rainfall volume and
www.elsevier.com/locate/still
Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 948 169 165;
fax: +34 948 168 930.
E-mail address: bescansa@unavarra.es (P. Bescansa).
0167-1987/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028
distribution during the growing season. Conservation
of water and improved crop water use efciency can
be achieved with conservation tillage (Lal, 1991;
Carter, 1994; Tebrugge, 2001).
Implementation of conservation tillage in different
areas of Spain began in the early 1980s with the aim of
improving retention of water in soil and reducing
erosion (Giraldez et al., 1985). Subsequent adoption
has occurred mainly in drylands under extensive
barley and wheat production. This situation could also
be observed in other southern European countries
(Masse et al., 1994). Lower energy input, which
reduces cropping costs and increases the protability
of agriculture, has facilitated rapid dissemination of
conservation tillage in these areas, where economic
efciency of crops is close to marginal. Other factors,
such as sustainable utilisation of soil and the
environment, have also been inuential (Tebrugge
and Bohrnsen, 2001).
It is widely documented that conservation tillage
has signicant and, in general, positive effects on
several chemical soil properties, including organic
matter (OM) (Dalal and Bridge, 1996; Ismail et al.,
1994) quality of OM(Arshad et al., 1990), and nutrient
status and response to fertilizers (Blevins et al., 1984;
Gonzalez, 1996; Lopez-Bellido et al., 2000). Even soil
electrical conductivity in saline soils seems to be
reduced with conservation tillage (Dalal, 1989).
Conservation tillage also leads to positive changes
in soil physical properties, such as aggregation (Dalal,
1989; Dalal and Bridge, 1996), aggregate stability
(McQuaid and Olson, 1998) and soil water content
(SWC) (Pelegrin et al., 1990; Mahboubi et al., 1993;
Norwood, 1994; Lampurlanes et al., 2001)
One of the major advantages associated with
conservation tillage is greater availability of soil
water, especially in years with low rainfall (Norwood,
1994). Greater availability of soil water has been
attributed to a mulching effect of stubble and crop
residue on the soil surface that reduces water loss by
evaporation (Blevins et al., 1984; Phillips, 1984;
Munawar et al., 1990), and improves water inltration
by reducing run-off (Shipitalo et al., 2000). However,
changes in available soil water capacity (AWC) in
soils under conservation tillage have been less
documented, especially with arid soils, for which
the technique has been promoted (Radford et al.,
1995).
Hill et al. (1985) found in Mollisols from Iowa that
chisel-ploughing retained more plant-available soil
water than conventional tillage, attributable to the
interaction of tillage with calcium and OM. In
Canadian soils, Diiwu et al. (1998), found higher
AWC under direct seeding than under reduced and
conventional tillage. However, in a long-term experi-
ment (12 years) on a Hapludult (Hill, 1990), pore
space available for storage of plant-available water
was greater under conventional tillage and utilisation
of total water resources appeared to be better than
under NT, simply because of higher soil water
inltration and lower soil water evaporation.
Unlike other European regions, the USA, Canada
and Australia, the long-term effects of conservation
tillage and NTunder rainfed Mediterranean conditions
have scarcely been studied. There has been no clear
evidence indicating the most suitable tillage system
for this area, because although NT increases SWC and
reduces erosion, it has not always been linked to
higher crop yield (Lopez-Bellido et al., 2000). Lopez
et al. (1996), in a study of different cultural practices in
the Ebro Valley in Spain, found highly variable results,
more related to experimental site conditions than to
tillage practices. They concluded that NT was an
ineffective practice for improving SWC.
The disparate and contradictory results of tillage
studies have been aggravated by the fact that soil
responses to conservation tillage likely only occur in
the long term. It is therefore necessary to conduct
experiments under different climate, soil and crop
conditions. This will enable the development of the
most appropriate tillage systems in each area, allowing
a site-specic modication of soil structure (Hill,
1990).
Stubble crop residue burning is a practice currently
debated. The advantages of not burning, especially the
long-term increase in soil OM and its impact on
aggregation, have been reported in detail (Crovetto,
1996). Burning has agronomic advantages linked to
crop protection, such as the reduction of pests and
weeds that can be important when implementing NT
systems. Moreover, soil management becomes easier
when crop residues are burned after harvesting. Under
mouldboard tillage (MT), crop residues can be
incorporated into soil, whereas under NT, plant
residues accumulate at the soil surface, becoming a
potential reservoir for weed seeds and pests, and
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 20
making planting and other soil preparation routines
more difcult. In some European countries stubble
burning is forbidden, but in Spain it is a traditional
practice and it is legal, with some restrictions related
to dates and re control.
The objectives of this study were: (i) to quantify
changes in AWC of a soil under rainfed barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.) as affected by conventional and
conservation tillage with crop residue being retained
or burned, as traditionally done by local farmers, (ii) to
compare the effects of such treatments on SWC during
the cropping season and (iii) to evaluate the impact of
these practices on crop yield.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Soils and experimental site
The experimental site was located in Olite
(42827
0
19
00
N; 1841
0
10
00
W; altitude: 402 m a.s.l.)
(Fig. 1). A ne-clayey Calcic Haploxerept (Soil
Survey Staff, 1998) had been conventionally culti-
vated for decades with characteristics representative
of the area (Table 1).
Climate in the area is Dry subhumid (C
1
B
0
2
db
0
4
),
according to the classication of Thornthwaite (1948).
Average annual climatic data in this area, and for the
growing season considered in this study (October
1998 to May 1999) are given in Table 2. This was the
driest growing season in the 5-year period from 1995
to 1999.
2.2. Experimental design
The experiment was designed as a randomized
complete block with four replicates. Plots were
9 m 24 m. The main treatment was tillage with four
levels: NT without stubble burning, no-tillage with
stubble burning (NTSB), reduced tillage (RT) and MT.
For NT and NTSB, a direct seeder was used, which
opened the seedrow35 cmdeep. RTconsisted of 0.15-
m-deep chisel tillage, then the seedbed was prepared
using a cultivator, and nally, seeding was performed
using a coulter-seeder. MT consisted of 0.25-m-deep
primary tillage with a three-furrowmouldboard plough,
then a smoothing pass with a oat, and sowing using the
coulter-seeder. For RT and MT, crop residues were
incorporated into the arable layer during tillage.
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 21
Fig. 1. Location of experimental site in Olite. Lines are isohyets for mean annual rainfall.
Table 1
General soil characteristics and particle size distribution in the
experimental plots
Parameter Soil depth (m)
00.30 0.300.75 0.751.05
Particle size distribution (g kg
1
)
Sand (502000 mm) 291 315 277
Silt (250 mm) 362 322 328
Clay (<2 mm) 347 363 395
Bulk density (Mg m
3
) 1.48 1.76 1.79
AWC
a
(m
3
m
3
) 0.169 0.191 0.193
Organic matter (g kg
1
) 10.1 6.0 5.0
CaCO
3
(g kg
1
) 359 360 335
pH 8.25 8.5 8.2
a
AWC = available water capacity: moisture content between 33
and 1500 kPa.
The trial commenced in 1994, and soil samples
were collected at the end of 5 years of continuous
cropping. Barley (var. Tipper) was planted each year
in October, at a sowing rate of 158 kg ha
1
.
2.3. Field and laboratory methods
Prior to the experiment, the soil prole was
characterized (Table 1). Particle size distribution
was similar among treatments (Table 3). Standard
laboratory methods were used as described in Page
et al. (1982) and Klute (1986).
Six months after soil preparation and sowing, soil
core samples were collected from depths of 00.15 m
and 0.150.30 m, using bevel edged steel rings, to
determine soil bulk density (r
b
). Undisturbed soil
samples from a depth of 00.15 m were used to
measure soil water retention (SWR) at matric
potentials of 0 and 33 kPa. Sieved (<2 mm) soil
samples were used to measure SWR at 50 and
1500 kPa. SWR was determined in triplicate for
each sample in 5 and 15 bar pressure plate extractors
(Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA),
as described by Dirksen (1999). Volumetric values for
the SWR were calculated from the gravimetric
measures using r
b
. Soil AWC was calculated from
the difference in soil moisture content at eld capacity
(33 kPa) and wilting point (1500 kPa).
Disturbed soil samples to 0.60 m depth were
collected in 0.15 m intervals using an Edelman-type
auger at three major developmental stages of barley:
beginning of tillering (March), beginning of head
emergence (April) and physiological maturity (May).
SWC was determined by gravimetry for these
samples.
Several equations and models have been used to
describe relationships between equivalent pore diameter
and the soil water potential (Rose, 1966; Van Genuchten,
1980; Carter and Ball, 1993). According to such models
equivalent pore diameter was 9 mm for 33 kPa, 6 mm
for 50 kPa, and 0.2 mm for 1500 kPa.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS
9.0.1 software (SPSS Inc., 1999, Chicago, IL). Data
were analysed as repeated measures over space using
ANOVA (univariate linear model). Post-hoc analysis
was performed by Duncans test (P < 0.05).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Organic matter
Tillage effects on soil OM were signicant at 0
0.15 m depth (Table 3). Conservation tillage systems
(NT, NTSB and RT) had 13% greater OM than MT.
The positive effect of conservation tillage on OM has
been observed in soils of very different natures and
under diverse climatic conditions. Important examples
include the long-term experiments (20 years) of
Mahboubi et al. (1993) for ne-textured soils in Ohio
and Ismail et al. (1994) for a silt loamsoil in Kentucky.
Altering OM may take longer in ne-textured than
in the coarse-textured soils (Dalal, 1989). Our results
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 22
Table 2
Climatic data
Climatic parameters Annual
average
Growing
season
(average)
Growing
season
(98/99)
Rainfall (mm) 525 360.5 274.2
ETP (mm) 740 182.4
Temperature (8C) 13.5
Table 3
Effect of tillage on soil bulk density and organic matter
Soil properties Tillage system
a
NT NTSB RT MT
Organic matter (g kg
1
)
00.15 m 18.8 b 18.3 b 18.2 b 16.3 a
0.150.30 m 15.5 16.6 16.5 16.1
Bulk density (Mg m
3
)
00.15 m 1.62 b 1.65 b 1.50 a 1.52 a
0.150.30 m 1.69 b 1.66 b 1.63 b 1.51 a
Particle size distribution: 00.15 m (g kg
1
)
Sand (502000 mm) 185 179 187 176
Silt (250 mm) 390 378 418 402
Clay (<2 mm) 364 385 385 393
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different
(P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter
within each row belong to the same homogeneous group according
to Duncans test. Values without letters are not different among
treatments.
a
NT, no tillage; NTSB, no tillage with stubble burning; RT,
reduced tillage; MT, mouldboard tillage.
were similar to the observations of Hernanz et al.
(2002) for a comparable trial under semi-arid
conditions. Differences in soil OM are of special
importance in environments with rapid decomposition
that keeps OM low. It is important to bear this in mind
when studying soil water retention (Hill et al., 1985).
There was no effect of crop residue management
(burned versus not burned) on total soil OM. In a long-
term experiment (13 years) on ne-textured soil and
similar climatic conditions, soil organic C under
NTSB was only slightly lower than under NT (Dalal,
1989).
3.2. Bulk density (r
b
)
At the end of 5 consecutive years of barley, r
b
under
NT and NTSB was greater than under RT and MT at a
depth of 00.15 m (Table 3). Under RT, an 8% increase
of r
b
occurred in the 0.150.30 m layer, which was
immediately below the tilled layer. In other tillage
systems, r
b
did not change appreciably with depth.
Gradual compaction has been observed during the
rst few years of NT, due to reduction in soil pore
volume. Tebrugge (2001) reported r
b
of 1.2
1.35 Mg m
3
under inversion tillage and 1.4
1.5 Mg m
3
under NT. In contrast, no difference in
r
b
among tillage treatments was reported in long-term
experiments (Dalal, 1989; Ismail et al., 1994),
indicating that an increase in r
b
appears to be only
temporary, with the initial compaction compensated
later by the development of soil pores originating from
soil biological activity, including earthworms.
Crop residue management had no effect on r
b
(Table 3). Mele and Carter (1999) found higher
earthworm densities in dry Australian soils, in which
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) stubble remained at the
surface rather than burned.
3.3. Soil water retention characteristics
Soil water retention characteristics in the upper
0.15 m were different between treatments without
tillage (NT and NTSB) and with tillage (RT and MT)
(Table 4). At 0 kPa, retention of water was 13%
greater in tilled than in untilled soil. At 33 kPa,
retention of water was 11% lower in tilled than in
untilled soil. At 50 and 1500 kPa tillage effects
were similar to those at 33 kPa. These results are in
agreement with Hill et al. (1985).
Soil water retention characteristics can be used to
estimate pore-size distribution (Ahuja et al., 1998),
assuming pores are cylindrical capillaries described by
the Laplace-Young equation (Leij et al., 2002).
Unlike soils in more humid climates, SWC in semi-
arid soils remains under eld capacity for most of the
growing season. For this reason we focused the
discussion of our results on water retention between
33 and 1500 kPa.
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 23
Table 4
Soil water retention characteristics in the upper soil layer (00.15 m)
Matric potential of water (kPa) Tillage system
a
NT NTSB RT MT
Soil water (m
3
m
3
)
0 0.383 a 0.385 a 0.435 b 0.431 b
33 0.366 b 0.363 b 0.322 a 0.326 a
50 0.319 b 0.333 b 0.291 a 0.287 a
1500 0.230 ab 0.246 b 0.219 a 0.217 a
Soil water (mm) in 00.15 m
Gravity water
(0 to 33) 2.62 a 3.18 a 16.92 b 15.76 b
Capillary water (AWC)
(33 to 1500) 20.38 b 17.56 ab 15.40 a 16.29 a
(33 to 50) 7.09 b 4.54 a 4.71 a 5.77 a
(50 to 1500) 13.29 13.02 10.69 10.51
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter within each row
belong to the same homogeneous group according to Duncans test. Values without letters are not different among treatments.
a
NT, no tillage; NTSB, no tillage with stubble burning; RT, reduced tillage; MT, mouldboard tillage.
Pore-size distribution in the upper 0.15 m of soil
was greatly altered by tillage system (Table 5). Large
(>9 mm) pores occupied the majority (about 50%) of
pore volume under RT and MT, whereas small pores
(0.26 mm) occupied the majority (about 60%) of pore
volume under NT and NTSB. These results are in
accordance with the behaviour of soil bulk density
(Table 3) and tillage-induced pores.
Crop residue management affected pore volume
between 6 and 9 mm. Pores of this size were more
abundant under NT than under NTSB (Table 5).
Available water capacity under NTwas greater than
under RT and MT (Table 4). Most of this difference
was due to retention between 33 and 50 kPa in
pores 69 mm in diameter. Changes in soil pore-size
distribution with conservation tillage can be attributed,
at least partly, to an increase in OM, although
contradictory results have been described in a review
by Hudson (1994).
The relationship between pore-size distribution and
soil water retention among tillage systems is complex.
In our study NT reduced total porosity and changed
pore-size distribution, such that larger pores dominant
in tilled systems, tended to disappear and ner pores
were predominant. Our ndings are in agreement with
the results of Mahboubi et al. (1993), comparing NT
with MT in a long-term trial (20 year). In a long-term
experiment, Hill (1990) reported that the greatest
percentage of pores >15 mm (those related to gravity
water), was under RT, but that AWC was greater under
MT. Others have stated that changes in the retention
curve due to tillage occurred only in the largest pore-
size range (Ahuja et al., 1998).
3.4. Rainfall and soil water content (SWC)
The barley growing season from October 1998 to
May 1999 was the driest in the 5-year period from
1995 to 1999. Total rainfall was 24% below average
(Table 2). This rainfall deciency was particularly
noticeable between October and February, with
rainfall 43% below monthly averages. Slightly
above-average rain later in the season did not
compensate the effect of such a dry winter.
Early in the season, prole SWC was similar
among tillage treatments (Fig. 2). Rainfall lled the
upper 0.30 mof the soil prole to near eld capacity in
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 24
Table 5
Total soil pore volume >0.2 mm (m
3
m
3
) and relative pore-size
frequency in the upper 0.15 m of soil
Tillage system
a
NT NTSB RT MT
Total pores >0.2 mm 0.153 a 0.138 a 0.215 b 0.214 b
Equivalent pore diameter Relative frequency (%)
>9 mm 11.3 a 14.9 a 51.2 b 48.2 b
69 mm 30.3 b 22.2 a 15.5 a 17.4 a
0.26 mm 58.4 b 62.9 b 33.3 a 34.4 a
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different
(P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter
within each row belong to the same homogeneous group according
to Duncans test. Values without letters are not different among
treatments.
a
NT, no tillage; NTSB, no tillage with stubble burning; RT,
reduced tillage; MT, mouldboard tillage.
Fig. 2. SWC proles at three developmental stages of barley under four tillage systems. Values marked with different letters are signicantly
different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter within each depth belong to the same homogeneous group according
to Duncans test. (^) NT; (&) NTSB; (4) RT; () MT.
all treatments by April (Table 6). At the end of the
growing season, when crop development had dried the
soil, MT had the lowest SWC, compared with all other
treatments.
Plant-available water content (SWC minus water
retained at 1500 kPa) showed a similar pattern
(Table 6). At crop maturity (May), SWC was under the
wilting point in all treatments. However, the total
amount of water stored in the soil at this time was
lower under MT than under conservation tillage
systems. This nding explained the higher percentage
of small pores developed in the soil and it demon-
strated the value of these systems under dry
conditions. No differences were observed between
NTand NTSB, indicating the absence of effects due to
crop residue management.
These results were observed both in the upper
0.15 m and in the total studied depth (0.60 m). This
trend was also observed in the rst years of the trial
during the driest periods of the growing season
(Bescansa et al., 1998).
3.5. Crop yield
Average 5-year barley yield was not different
among tillage or crop residue management (Table 7).
RT had the best economic efciency in this trial
(Enrique et al., 2001) as this system had the lowest
production costs.
In the dry year of 19981999, yield under MT was
lower than under other treatments. Lampurlanes et al.
(2002) concluded that NT systems were potentially
better for yield dry climates. Higher yield with
conservation tillage systems could be related to better
retention of water through the observed changes in
pore-size distribution and not only to the lower
evaporation rates due to mulching effect of crop
residue in NT, as described by Hill (1990), Munawar
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 25
Table 6
Tillage effects on average plant-available water stored in soil (actual SWC minus retention at 1500 kPa) at the three sampling times
Crop development stage Tillage system
a
Rainfall (mm)
NT NTSB RT MT
Plant-available water content in mm (00.15 m) S (October to February) 122
Tillering (March) 14 11 15
b
13 41
Flowering (April) 16 17 16
b
16 66
Maturity (May) 6 b 9 ab 7 b 12 a 44
Plant-available water content in mm (00.60 m)
March 57 58 60 51
April 41 39 42 46
May 11 b 13 b 10 b 25 a
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter within each row
belong to the same homogeneous group according to Duncans test. Values without letters are not different among treatments.
a
NT, no tillage; NTSB, no tillage with stubble burning; RT, reduced tillage; MT, mouldboard tillage.
b
Soil at eld capacity.
Table 7
Effect of tillage system on barley yield
Accumulated rainfall (mm) in the growing season Tillage system
a
NT NTSB RT MT
Yield (Mg ha
1
)
19981999 274.2 4.89 a 4.77 a 4.60 a 4.02 b
Average (19941999) 360.5 4.13 4.07 4.85 4.61
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA. Values showing the same letter within each row
belong to the same homogeneous group according to Duncans test. Values without letters are not different among treatments.
a
NT, no tillage; NTSB, no tillage with stubble burning; RT, reduced tillage; MT, mouldboard tillage.
et al. (1990) and Baumhardt and Jones (2002). Barley
yield was not affected by crop residue management.
4. Conclusions
Higher SWC was observed under conservation
tillage than under conventional tillage, especially
under the driest conditions. This difference cannot be
attributed solely to a mulching effect of stubble, since
SWC and retention were similar under NTand NTSB.
The greater soil OM content and changes in pore-size
distribution of untilled compared with tilled soil were
likely causes for improved AWC and therefore for
increased SWC. This would result in a better water
supply for plants and higher barley yield.
Stubble burning did not affect soil OM content, r
b
and total pore volume. The only difference found
between NT and NTSB was the percentage of pores
with an effective diameter of 69 mm that could be
related to OM quality and biological activity, proper-
ties that merit further study. Tillage, therefore, had a
greater impact on soil water conditions than crop
residue management.
Acknowledgments
The support of the Instituto Nacional de Investiga-
cion y Tecnolog a Agraria y Alimentaria INIA, Spanish
Agency, (Project no. SC98-020-C4-3) is acknowledged
as well as the technical assistance of the Instituto
Tecnico y de Gestion Agr cola-ITGA staff. We are
grateful to Trevor Williams for critical reading of the
manuscript and helpful language suggestions, and also
the contribution of Emily Marriott is acknowledged.
References
Ahuja, L.R., Fiedler, F., Dunn, G.H., Benjamin, J.G., Garrison, A.,
1998. Changes in soil water retention curves due to tillage and
natural reconsolidation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 12281233.
Arshad, M.A., Schnitzer, M., Angers, D.A., Ripmeester, J.A., 1990.
Effects of till vs no-till on the quality of soil organic matter. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 22, 595599.
Baumhardt, R.L., Jones, O.R., 2002. Residue management and tillage
effects on soilwater storage and grain yield of dryland wheat and
sorghum for a clay loam in Texas. Soil Till. Res. 68, 7182.
Bescansa, P., Otazu, N., Enrique, A., Iraneta, J., Del Castillo, J., 1998.
Inuencia de distintos sistemas de laboreo de conservacion en
propiedades del suelo y en la produccion de cereal de secano en
condiciones semiaridas (Olite Navarra). Edafolog a 4, 147154.
Blevins, R.L., Smith, M.S., Thomas, G.W., 1984. Change in soil
properties under no-tillage. In: Phillips, R.E., Phillips, S.H.
(Eds.), No Tillage Agriculture. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, pp. 190330.
Carter, M.C., 1994. Strategies to overcome impediments to adoption
of conservation tillage. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Conservation
Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Lewis Pub., pp. 319.
Carter, M.C., Ball, B.C., 1993. Soil porosity. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.),
Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 581588.
Crovetto, C., 1996. Stubble over the soil: the vital role of plant
residue and soil management to improve soil quality. American
Society of Agronomy, 245 pp.
Dalal, R.C., 1989. Long term effects of no-tillage, crop residues and
nitrogen application on properties of a vertisol. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 53, 15111515.
Dalal, R.C., Bridge, B.J., 1996. Aggregation and organic matter
storage in subhumid and semiarid soils. Adv. Soil Sci. 20, 263
307.
Diiwu, J.Y., Rudra, R.P., Dickinson, W.T., Wall, G.J., 1998. Tillage
and heterogeneity effects on the performance of soil water
characteristic models. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 71, 307313.
Dirksen, C., 1999. Soil physics measurements. In: GeoEcology
Paperback, Catena Verlag, 154 pp.
Enrique, A., Bescansa, P., Virto, I., 2001. Conservation tillage under
semiarid conditions in Navarra: study of soil parameters and
economical efciency. In: Torres, G., et al. (Eds.), Conservation
Agriculture a Worldwide Challenge. Proceedings of the First
World Congress on Conservation Agriculture of FAO-ECAF,
vol. II, Madrid, Spain, 15 October 2001, pp. 721724.
Giraldez, J.V., Fereres, E., Garc a, M., Gil, J., Gonzalez, P., Aguera,
J., 1985. Laboreo m nimo y siembra directa en los suelos
arcillosos de la campina andaluza. II. Jornadas Tecnicas sobre
cereales de invierno, vol. 1. Pamplona, Espana, 1014 diciembre
1985, pp. 7792.
Gonzalez, P., 1996. Efectos sobre el suelo y la fertilizacion del
laboreo de conservacion. Actas Congreso Nacional Agricultura
de Conservacion, Cordoba, Espana, pp. 2531.
Hernanz, J.L., Lopez, R., Navarrete, L., Sanchez-Giron, V., 2002.
Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil
structural stability and organic carbon stratication in semiarid
central Spain. Soil Till. Res. 66, 129141.
Hill, R.L., 1990. Long-term conventional and no-tillage effects on
selected soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 161
166.
Hill, R.L., Horton, R., Cruse, R.M., 1985. Tillage effects on soil
water retention and pore size distribution of two Mollisols. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 12641270.
Hudson, B.D., 1994. Soil organic matter and available water capa-
city. J. Soil Water Conserv. 49 (2), 189194.
Ismail, I., Blevins, R.L., Frye, W.W., 1994. Long-term no-tillage
effects on soil properties and continuous corn yields. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 58, 193198.
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 26
Klute, A. (Ed.), 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and
Mineralogical Methods. American Society of Agronomy, Agr-
onomy Series no. 9.
Lal, R., 1991. Tillage and agricultural sustainability. Soil Till. Res.
20, 133146.
Lampurlanes, J., Angas, P., Cantero-Mart nez, C., 2001. Root
growth, soil water content and yield of barley under different
tillage systems on two soils in semiarid conditions. Field Crops
Res. 69, 2740.
Lampurlanes, J., Angas, P., Cantero-Mart nez, C., 2002. Tillage
effects on water storage during fallow, and on barley root growth
and yield in two contrasting soils of the semi-arid Segarra region
in Spain. Soil Till. Res. 65, 207220.
Leij, F.J., Teamrat, A., Ghezzehei, Dani, Or., 2002. Modelling the
dynamics of the soil pore-size distribution. Soil Till. Res. 64, 61
78.
Lopez, M.V., Arrue, J.L., Sanchez-Giron, V., 1996. A comparison
between seasonal changes in soil water storage and penetration
resistance under conventional and conservation tillage systems
in Aragon. Soil Till. Res. 37, 251271.
Lopez-Bellido, L., Lopez-Bellido, R., Castillo, J., Lopez-Bellido,
F.J., 2000. Effects of tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen ferti-
lization on wheat under rainfed mediterranean conditions.
Agron. J. 92, 10541063.
Masse, J., Boisgontier, D., Bodet, J.M., Gillet, J.P., 1994. Feasib-
ility of minimum tillage practices for annual cropping systems
in France. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Conservation Tillage in
Temperate Agroecosystems. Lewis Publication, pp. 167
179.
Mahboubi, A.A., Lal, R., Faussey, N.R., 1993. Twenty-eight years of
tillage effects on two soils in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 506
512.
McQuaid, B.F., Olson, G.L., 1998. Soil quality indices of piedmont
sites under different management systems. Adv. Soil Sci. 21,
427433.
Mele, P.M., Carter, M.R., 1999. Impact of crop management factors
in conservation tillage farming on earthworm density, age
structure and species abundance in south-eastern Australia. Soil
Till. Res. 50, 110.
Munawar, A., Blevins, R.L., Frye, W.W., Saul, M.R., 1990. Tillage
and cover crop management for soil water conservation. Agron.
J. 82, 773777.
Norwood, D., 1994. Prole water distribution and grain yield as
affected by cropping system and tillage. Agron. J. 86, 558
563.
Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), 1982. Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties.
American Society of Agronomy, Agronomy Series no. 9.
Pelegrin, F., Moreno, F., Mart n-Aranda, J., Camps, M., 1990. The
inuence of tillage methods on soil physical properties and water
balance for a typical crop rotation in SW Spain. Soil Till. Res.
16, 345358.
Phillips, R.E., 1984. Soil moisture. In: Phillips, R.E., Phillips, S.H.
(Eds.), No-tillage Agriculture: Principles and Practices. Van
Nostrand and Reinhold Publication, New York, pp. 6686.
Radford, B.J., Key, A.J., Robertson, I.N., Thomas, G.A., 1995.
Conservation tillage increases soil water storage, soil animal
population, grain yield and response to fertilizer in the semi-arid
subtropics. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 35, 223232.
Rose, C.W., 1966. Agricultural Physics. Pergamon, New York, 166
pp.
Shipitalo, M.J., Dick, W.A., Edwards, W.M., 2000. Conservation
tillage and macropore factors that affect water movement and the
fate of chemicals. Soil Till. Res. 53, 167183.
Soil Survey Staff, 1998. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, eighth ed. USDA-
NRCS.
SPSS. Inc., 1999. Statistical software SPSS 9.0.1. Chicago, USA.
Tebrugge, F., 2001. No-tillage visions protection of soil, water and
climate and inuence on management and farm income. In:
Torres, G., et al. (Eds.), Conservation Agriculture, AWorldWide
Challenge. Proceedings of the First World Congress on Con-
servation Agriculture of FAO-ECAF, vol. I, Madrid, Spain, 15
October 2001, pp. 303316.
Tebrugge, F., Bohrnsen, A., 2001. Farmers and experts opinion on
no-tillage in West-Europe and Nebraska (USA). In: Torres, G.,
et al. (Eds.), Conservation Agriculture, a WorldWide Challenge.
Proceedings of the First World Congress on Conservation
Agriculture of FAO-ECAF, vol. I, Madrid, Spain, 15 October
2001, pp. 6169.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948. An approach towards a rational classi-
cation of climate. Geogr. Rev. 38, 5594.
Van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed form equation for predicting
the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 44, 892898.
P. Bescansa et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 1927 27