Runoff and erosion as affected by tillage system and polyacrylamide in two sandy loam soils differing in silt and clay contents in semi-arid regions

IF 0.4 Q4 SOIL SCIENCE Soil & Environment Pub Date : 2018-05-28 DOI:10.25252/SE/18/51390
N. Abu‐Hamdeh, S. M. Ismail, Samir G. Al-Solaimani, R. Hatamleh, Jeddah Saudi Arabia Arid Land Agriculture
{"title":"Runoff and erosion as affected by tillage system and polyacrylamide in two sandy loam soils differing in silt and clay contents in semi-arid regions","authors":"N. Abu‐Hamdeh, S. M. Ismail, Samir G. Al-Solaimani, R. Hatamleh, Jeddah Saudi Arabia Arid Land Agriculture","doi":"10.25252/SE/18/51390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to investigate the effect of three tillage practices and the effect of polyacrylamide application rate on surface runoff and erosion of sandy loam soils differing in silt and clay contents. Field experiments in split-split plot with four replications were carried out in two different locations; location A that consists of 25.2% silt plus clay and location B which consists of 38.5% silt plus clay. Three tillage practices were investigated; no-tillage (NT), mouldboard ploughing with rotor tiller (CT1), and chisel ploughing with disk harrow (CT2). Three polyacrylamide (PAM) rates were implemented in each tillage system; 0, 10 and 20 kg ha -1 . The experiment was conducted during December 2015 to April 2017 and wheat was sown for the two seasons. Results showed that the CT1 and CT2 treatments reduced runoff by 15.3% and 50.0%, respectively in location A and by 6.4% and 13.8%, respectively, in location B compared to the NT treatment. Applying 10 and 20 kg ha -1 of PAM decreased runoff by 9.5% and 22%, respectively in location A and by 4.5% and 12%, respectively in location B compared to the 0 kg ha - 1 PAM treatment. Applying 10 and 20 kg ha -1 PAM reduced soil erosion by 19% and 28%, respectively, in location A and by 26% and 33%, respectively in location B compared to the 0 kg ha -1 PAM application rate. Comparing the effect of tillage practices in location (A), the CT1 increased soil erosion by 16.5 % and 46.5% compared with the NT and CT2 treatments, respectively. Comparing the effect of tillage practices in location (B), the CT1 increased soil erosion by 38.6% and 75.6% compared to the NT and CT2, respectively.","PeriodicalId":21762,"journal":{"name":"Soil & Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25252/SE/18/51390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the effect of three tillage practices and the effect of polyacrylamide application rate on surface runoff and erosion of sandy loam soils differing in silt and clay contents. Field experiments in split-split plot with four replications were carried out in two different locations; location A that consists of 25.2% silt plus clay and location B which consists of 38.5% silt plus clay. Three tillage practices were investigated; no-tillage (NT), mouldboard ploughing with rotor tiller (CT1), and chisel ploughing with disk harrow (CT2). Three polyacrylamide (PAM) rates were implemented in each tillage system; 0, 10 and 20 kg ha -1 . The experiment was conducted during December 2015 to April 2017 and wheat was sown for the two seasons. Results showed that the CT1 and CT2 treatments reduced runoff by 15.3% and 50.0%, respectively in location A and by 6.4% and 13.8%, respectively, in location B compared to the NT treatment. Applying 10 and 20 kg ha -1 of PAM decreased runoff by 9.5% and 22%, respectively in location A and by 4.5% and 12%, respectively in location B compared to the 0 kg ha - 1 PAM treatment. Applying 10 and 20 kg ha -1 PAM reduced soil erosion by 19% and 28%, respectively, in location A and by 26% and 33%, respectively in location B compared to the 0 kg ha -1 PAM application rate. Comparing the effect of tillage practices in location (A), the CT1 increased soil erosion by 16.5 % and 46.5% compared with the NT and CT2 treatments, respectively. Comparing the effect of tillage practices in location (B), the CT1 increased soil erosion by 38.6% and 75.6% compared to the NT and CT2, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
半干旱区不同粉砂和粘粒含量的两种沙壤土,耕作制度和聚丙烯酰胺对径流侵蚀的影响
本研究旨在探讨3种耕作方式及聚丙烯酰胺施用量对不同粉砂和粘粒含量砂壤土地表径流和侵蚀的影响。在两个不同地点进行了4个重复的田间试验;地点A由25.2%的粉砂加粘土组成,地点B由38.5%的粉砂加粘土组成。调查了三种耕作方式;免耕(NT)、旋耕机板耕(CT1)、盘耙凿耕(CT2)。每个耕作制度中施用三种聚丙烯酰胺(PAM);0、10和20公斤/公顷。试验于2015年12月至2017年4月进行,分两季播种小麦。结果表明,与NT相比,CT1和CT2处理在A地分别减少了15.3%和50.0%的径流,在B地分别减少了6.4%和13.8%的径流。与0 kg ha -1 PAM处理相比,施用10和20 kg ha -1 PAM在A区分别减少了9.5%和22%的径流量,在B区分别减少了4.5%和12%。与施用0公斤公顷-1 PAM相比,施用10和20公斤公顷-1 PAM在A区分别减少19%和28%的土壤侵蚀,在B区分别减少26%和33%的土壤侵蚀。对比A地不同耕作方式对土壤侵蚀的影响,CT1处理比NT和CT2处理分别增加了16.5%和46.5%。对比B区不同耕作方式对土壤侵蚀的影响,CT1比NT和CT2分别增加了38.6%和75.6%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Soil & Environment
Soil & Environment SOIL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparing the symbiotic efficiency of auxin and ACC-deaminase producing rhizobia and rhizobacteria to improve soybean growth under axenic conditions Application of fish scale derivatives in ameliorating the phytotoxicity effects of multi-metal contaminated soil on paddy rice Pyrolyzed agricultural wastes for improving degraded soil, nutrient use efficiency and growth performance of maize Erodibility of Vertisols in relation to agricultural practices along a toposequence in the Logone floodplain Survival efficacy and potential of Mesorhizobium Ciceri for enhancing the growth and yield of imidacloprid-treated chickpea (Cicer arietinum)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1