Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Fernández, Patricia Lilia
dc.contributor.author
Alvarez, Carina Rosa
dc.contributor.author
Taboada, Miguel Angel
dc.date.available
2018-04-10T20:02:28Z
dc.date.issued
2015-11
dc.identifier.citation
Fernández, Patricia Lilia; Alvarez, Carina Rosa; Taboada, Miguel Angel; Topsoil compaction and recovery in integrated no-tilled crop–livestock systems of Argentina; Elsevier Science; Soil & Tillage Research; 153; 11-2015; 86-94
dc.identifier.issn
0167-1987
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/41587
dc.description.abstract
Cattle trampling during grazing of crop residue may cause physical soil damage that may be repaired when animals are excluded. Understanding the interplay between soil deterioration and natural recovery of the soil physical condition allows for a better understanding of grazing management systems. Various soil physical properties (i.e., bulk density (BD), penetration resistance (PR), infiltration rate, structural instability) were determined up to 20 cm depth in a silty loam Typic Argiudoll and a sandy loam Typic Hapludoll of the Argentine Pampas from 2005 to 2008. Sampling was carried out before and after grazing, and at different moments of the crop cycle including harvest event. Grazing winter residues and weeds did not lead to the expected compaction processes (e.g., in average BD difference between after grazing and before grazing was from 0.072 to +0.137 Mg m3 for both soils under grazing). In general, physical soil conditions improved during winter, independently of grazing. This might be related to the intrinsic soil characteristics (organic matter content, moisture, clay content) or grazing system (stocking rate, duration of grazing period), which prevented soil physical damage, suggesting that recovery forces were greater than grazing stress. Cropping to maize and soybean showed similar value or improved soil physical properties respect to the after grazing (e.g., in average PR difference between before harvest and after grazing was from +409 to 2561 kPa for both soils), acting as biotic a recovery factor. However, massive damage was harvest operation led to the highest soil deterioration (e.g., in average PR difference between before harvest and after harvest was 985 kPa).
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Elsevier Science
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
Temporal Assessment
dc.subject
Soil Physical Properties
dc.subject
Grazing Crop Residues
dc.subject
Harvest
dc.subject.classification
Agricultura
dc.subject.classification
Agricultura, Silvicultura y Pesca
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS AGRÍCOLAS
dc.title
Topsoil compaction and recovery in integrated no-tilled crop–livestock systems of Argentina
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2018-04-10T17:49:42Z
dc.journal.volume
153
dc.journal.pagination
86-94
dc.journal.pais
Países Bajos
dc.journal.ciudad
Amsterdam
dc.description.fil
Fil: Fernández, Patricia Lilia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Cátedra de Manejo y Conservación de Suelos; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Alvarez, Carina Rosa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Cátedra de Manejo y Conservación de Suelos; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Taboada, Miguel Angel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación de Recursos Naturales. Instituto de Suelos; Argentina
dc.journal.title
Soil & Tillage Research
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198715001117
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.05.008
Archivos asociados