Chapter 2
Impacts of Soil Organic Carbonon Soil Physical BehaviorHumberto BlancoCanqui arid Joe Benjamin
Abstract
Managementinduced changes in soil organic carbon fSOC concentrationcan affect sol physical behavior. Specficaliy, removal of crop residues as biofuel may thus adversely affect soil attributes by reducing SOC concentrationas crop residues are the maln source of SOC. Implications of crop residuemanagement for soil erosion control, water conservation, nutrient cycling,and global C cycle have been discussed, but the potential mpacts of residueremovalinduced depletion of SOC on soil physical properties have not beenwidely studied. We reviewed published information on the relationships ofOC orcentatior vth ou stuctt r& stabmt consistecv compac4’cnsoil water repellency, and hydraulic properties with emphasis on crop resndue management. Our review indicates that studies specifically assessingrelationships between crop residue managementdnduced changes in SOCconcentration and soil physical properties are few. These studies indicate,however, that crop removal or addition can alter SOC concentration and concomitantly affect soil physical attributes with a magnitude depending on theamount of residue removed or returned, constituents of residuederivedSOC. tillage and cropping system, soil type, and climate. Our review also indicates that, in general, management practices that effect Soc concentrationcan directly influence soil physical properties. Decrease in SOC concentrationreduces subcritical water repellency arid aggregate stability and strength,increases soil’s susceptibility to excessive compaction, and reduces macro-porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and water retention. Soil organic matterimproves soil physical properties by providing organic binding agents, induclog slight water repellency, lowering soil bulk density, and improvmg the&ast t1 ad e I ece o’ h F ce o’ e memus ners c’ OCsoil physical attributes suggest that crop residues should be returned to soilto maintain or increase SOC concentration. Indiscriminate residue removalfor offrfarm uses reduces SOC pools and can adversely affect coil and envronment. Crop residues not, only protect the soil surface from erosive forcesbut also maintain SOC concentration, which is essential to improve s..oil physical behavior and sustain soil orodtjctivity Management cractices includingco nil .0th residue return, continuous cropping systems, cover croos andgra . eta citd000s rru c oe rurNoteta 0 It. the c ase sOC cncertra.tion and thus improve soil physical behavior.
— N —
HF 085830915 hba ocanui27iJuni edul: G. 8en,amn, t.enrra Great dla,ns Research Stators. NonnernPlains Area, 40335 Rd. GO, Akron, co 80720 cjoseph,beniarnrntearsorsda.govl,
0 2013. OSSA, SSSA. 558°. GuSford O1 r- 55r55 usa.Quanttfyirsg and :‘nodedng sod structure dynamics. Sally Logsdon, Mrkus Behi. and miner Horn led.)Adeances in Agricultural Systems Modeling 5cr c-s 3.
ii
an igcnv nt oractreec inc In Imp hlla,,e r rpmg 4enac in
crop reiduc emo’ ii ‘r iciditi n site r the oi eentr ate n torganrc C in the soil. The cha npes in SOP ncentratjon may
con.conutanti impact soil phyvical i. ttributes and soil producti.vity. Soil organicarticles interact n th inor anic particles to nn’mnte i)JJ a’4arepYatinn, n,c.reace
porosity, and stabilize soil structure (Kay; 19W). Influence of soil organic matter
on soIl 5.tructure, nutrient cc1mg, C cyclirg, soil biological processes, and otherens’ ct m w rw cc P r ti hei A and ctao hft A 4 F tk C
nisms involved and the magnitude at which :manaement-induced changes inSOC influence soil physical properties deserve further discussion.
Specifically, crop residue removal or addition dictates C input and SOCdvnamws At present, crop residues are confronted by a number of competing omand off- farm uses. Cn on.e. .han.d, crop residues are need.ed to conserve soil andwater, reduce water and wind erosion, and maintain 5CC concentration (Ailhelrnet aS. 2004). On the o.ther hand, residues have potential offifarm uses includingcellulosic ethanol production (Perlack et aS, 2005) hher production (Reddy andYang, 2005), and livestock feed (Tanaka et al., 2005).
Influence of residue-management-induced SOC gains or losses on soilphysical behavior such as structural stability, compactibilty; and soil-waterrelationships has not been widely documented, Changes in s:oil physicalproperties and SOC concentration. in. re.sidue naan.agement studies have oftenbeen discussed as static or separate parameters with little errph.asis on the mutualinterrelationships between soil structure and SOC. A synthesis of information onSOC vs. soil physical behavior relationships is needed to better understand theimplications that crop residue management m.a.y have on. soil physical properties.Co rreiat:ions between. soils truct.ural properties no 5(i( concen.trati.on 0.avcreported, but inisirmahon is frassmented. anci. h.as not teen .resented in a comnac.mf:r.rr.ess’ ork. a.ppl.i.e.u to crop residue m..a r.agemert.
Ther.vfore. the snecific abiective of this caaote.r is to discuss the reIE.itionsflipsof SOC with soil structural s:tabihty, con.sistency, compaction, soil wa.ter n.tpellenc.y.and hwirau lic properties based cn ublisb.ed stodi.es .vitl5, phas.ic .n cr0 presidue managemen.t. We revicnved (I) published studies, which assessed theindependent effects of cr011 residue management on soil physical properties andSOC concentration and (ii) relevant studies reporting information on SOC vs. soil
13
fropacts of SoU Organk Carbon on SO Fhysic& Sehavor
pnJperties deserve discussion to bettr.r uric.erstand interactions and soiPspacificra.sponse to crop resid.ue manazement.
FACTORS THAT AFFECT RELATIOHSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIC CARBONAND SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESThe xtent at which c.haniie.s in soc concentration a.ect soil physical propertiesdepends on various interacting factors in.cluding climatic corditions, amount anconsthuen[s ot SOC testura Jas. tillace management. and thers iFig, 20. Forexa.mpie, cli.mate in inte ractiort with tillage ard cropping systems directly influrrnces crop residue production and rates of soil orcanic matter decomposition(Benjamin et iL, 200 :), Fhe numerous ir1toracting factors make the charactorizahon of SOC influence on. soil physical and hydraulic properties somewhat difficult.
Amount and Constituents of Soil Organic CarbonBoth aniouot and form c t SOC influence soil physical behavior. A narrow range
t i sem-at is t nron nt s wn n a dueedor no effects on soil phyical properties. l.n the central Great Piains correlation
Fig. 24, Factors and interactions that influence relationships of soil organic C concentration withsol structural, compaction. consistency, mechanical, and hydraulic properties
11
oe
pfr
et
os
sfS
OL
wh
oh
ip
sc
dt
Snt
.(
9ta
nvd
nd6
ut
Cr
tIt
alu
MW
(i
00)
62
)07,
thj
4)
bU
ranq
and
ai0
1)Sl
lrn
Uut
6t
rm
nm
nn
noni
lM
ID(m
r)
29+
I0
(p,
)0
6P
ici
it
)OO
)w
yd
iiunit
ed
tat
No-
tnt
mO
jIO
VU
)/
1.1
‘cO
nta
OlO
jL
ucim
Sp
lfl
taw
nm
nlf
lA
U(n
um
bdra
p)
1+
1.no
tilt
ii
2°
UM
dK
h’
7M)
ran
‘99
0)an
dul
lmci
i)7’
rC
rm3r
itam
No-
till
and
plow
till
Prr
ato,
Mg
mC
207
0t0
2u
(00
Qci
’rc
t(tO
OIt
Iii
ino
,A
im
nvnti
on
Itil
lP
tr p1
1m
)I
2U
OM
‘)t
.62
ciocta
l‘i
nci
tIl
uam
’0
zm
tm
(ci
ci‘0
0,#
(a0
000,
At
naC
iirv
tior
tilla
noP
cii
1Mm
),4
IU
10
/ac
id0
ciIt
)a
Iad
niC
nqul
anI
‘00
)ci
ItIn
cci
Uni
‘0S
tat
sS
traw
man
agem
unt
cin
ut)
Mg
rI
i)S
QC
K/
81ci
quct
(C
0‘c
iio
amU
nit
6S
tate
sN
otil
lan
dpl
owtil
l(M
gm
‘)L
0‘01
Ii..
k0
uBi
C.i
cin
a)(
A)
911.
nU
i1
6t
awn
mp
IMm
).
80
00
(kg
‘10
80
II
cici
anqui
a1
100/)
‘ci
itt.
mU
0ta
tes
Str
awm
anag
emen
tin
WD
PT
(s)
21
09
0(
k1
1
6.c
iC
rgui
(20
:jun
iteL
citit
.N
o-til
lan
apl
owi)
ii
t%L
iPi
ciL
iiU
t..
cici
Ic
ii’
I
.I
000;
..
6ii
i‘c
i.i
‘0.
t-t
sP
low
till
inct
gru
cin
II
1g‘a
)C
C’
,
Ici
Blci
icc
in
pit
tU
)tnij
Itin
UnI
6ta
ciN
tII
aplo
wII
L)k
/06
1)I
(kg
‘)0
01l,j
,,I
‘I‘-
i.*
‘agiint
at
the
001
prob
abIl
ity
leci
et..
“Si
gniti
cant
atth
e0.
1)01
orob
abti
.tty
ieci
&..
Ii4
5r
mai
weih
tdm
citi
oltg
yyu
/1
sta
tsi
inl
igp,
iU.’
.ia
bau.g
tcSt
ibili
tyFP
OM
bra
Icit
inc
ilO
ti‘$
‘ci
0ttti
cii.
cii
iib
mit
TO
nto
tal
c.rg
ana
ci.cc
ipai
belt
dci
stit
citO
bu0
dinut
Po
ct0
1ib
mx
Poc
tor
max
imum
bulk
dens
it)
WD
PIw
ater
dto
ppe
neui
anon
tim
ePL
plas
tic
limit
ILliq
uid
limit
anpaus of Soii Organic Carbon on Soil pnf5:rai BehaOor 19
Ii0•
r
0
S
U
Fig. 2-2. Relationship of added crop residue C plus estimated added root and rhizodeposition C(C ) on changes in soil organic C (SOC) in the 0 to 30 cm depth increment between 2001 and2008. NT denotes the noulli cropping system. The CP denotes the chisel plow cropping system.CC denotes the continuous corn rotation, Rot denotes the mixed grass and broadleaf crop rotadon, (From Benjamiii et al,, 2010).
.1Ioa.rn i..n the entral Creat Piixl..ns, there was n.o signiheant correlation between
i’ rtntpoanc1npi n r ;oth1 r 15 p
2t1- t.o 37-cm oepth, macroa.ggregates were positively correl.ate.d, although weaklysoth differeocen ).O SOC cooentratun across orooping system; with )vrentamounts of annu.ai bi.omass C input (henamin e.t aS, 3058). Oifferences in root
7aern5 and intenictions ho twc.en soc and ml so fractions mao a liectSoil gregation at deeper depths. Further assessment P SOC 05. soil structurerelahon.ships for the whole sod profile is; needed to understand how d.ifferentscena nos of crop residue management in tluence soil properties.
Tillage also affEcts the na.ture and partitioning of organic binding.: a.gents thatS4regatr n ad mak 4it mU r itm 37 i rt IL w w r rr
of temporary and tra.nsient organic binding agents through a rapid oxidization of
is
5) 40
Total C from 2001 to 2008
515 ILL
!mpacts of Soil 0rgnic Carbon on Soil Physical behavior 21
ration promotes aggregation, reduces soil compactifility, and improves soilhdraulic propertiet... On the ot.her hand, improved soil slructu ra•.l properties promote hOC preteotion and storu’e, hoji i essontal to lontoterm C seauestrat,una.m. overall soil productivi.ty. The s.pecifi.c relatiunships of SOC with soil physioropertios are discussed in the Ollowin ntionS.
EFFECT OF ORGANIC CARBON ON SOIL WATER REPELLENCYCropoesdue derived SC may induce some hd ruphobic proportion to soil Thbk’2i). While excessive soil water repellency ca.n adversely affect soil structurevid I dro1og a rr t al 100( MaDor ild nd F Tuff van 2003i s1 ht srepellency observed in cultivated s ils can have positive impacts or aggregate stahilization and long4erm C sequestration (Hailett et oh, 2001; Eynard et oh, 2006;[,amparter et al., 2009). Residues are a food source for decornposers including earth
hr ,,,,h rn’orvnt ,n n 1J I
eoFaeva.nea. of Otee andiio,-aOSrorw[n stru,lore.
yo ‘grore .r/iy: 5• I
oati r ISo ani.rcgatos with I
0
0 n* aI 0din oO I Ipan.ic ) i4
I{S,I w r
• / ‘0 i,.tj “‘.
15 n 0. o
I ‘I’,o, ‘, IiI ow
I 001 ‘a wa
I ‘ r
‘,I ‘I C r
r a
impacts of Soil Organic Carbon on Soil Physical Behavi.or
into raction between clay content and SOC concentration most probablyi.ncreasrsw. it h.vdrophobicitv in clavuy soils over clay or SoC concentration alone.Assoc.iation of SOC or humic with clay nyneah ha been found to
we h d b it mJ iL( h w t 1 2 1 Z d IUc \ICret aL, 2007). ,Particu larly, recalcitrant SOC fractions associate vi ith the finest claytmctions and induce high hvdrophohictv (Soaccini of a!., 2002). Predornjnantfactors that influence the manifestation of soil water repellency include SOC, cia.,concentration, and coil matric øo tential (Ce lunge et a!.. 2007; BlancoCanqui andLal. 2008b1.
increase in SOC concentration with intensive cropping systems with highresidue in.put als.o increases water repelle]rcy Continuous cropping systems withconservation tiiiage hich leave residues on the soil surface, can accumulateFtC near the soil surface and induce water repellency to soils. a 3.3vrcropping system e\perment in the central Great Plains, continuous wheat had5 times greater aggregate water repellency than the average across sorghumfallow, wheahsorghum [Sorghum b/color (Li MoenchffaIiow, continuous sorghum,and who atfta How under nmtill for the 0 to 2.Swm soil depth iBlancrvCanqui etal,, 20’lOay The hvdrophobicitv of residuederived SOC varies with the quality ofcrop residues. Ce Jonge et al. (2007) observed that soils under barley and potatoes(Sotanum tuberosum Li had slightly greater soil water repellency than those underroe (Scrub cop-eat L., wheat, and corn. They also observed that grass plots hadconsistently greater soil water repellency tha.n croppod systems at all soil watercontents. Overall, changes in SOC concentration with residue removal or additionma chrne the hydrophohicity rf soil dependl04 on the uuartth and qualite ofrcSjdues. More eiperimenta! data on the impacts of crop residue management onsoil water repellency are needed.
EFFEcT OF ORGANIC CARBON ON SOIL STRUCTURALSTABILITY AND STRENGTH1nfluenc of ,.,,,:,,.,,,,ic matter on cii aggrecation has been ‘videl iiscussed (Ticd all and.. Oadeg, 1982; Cha.ney and Swift, 1964; ft/oil and Ma.gdoft, 2004; Fig. 2.-4),hut discussion. on the specific impacts of crop residue removal or addition on SOCvs. n)il structure rel.aeimsships is somewhat limited (Table 20). Crop rvsidu.es maydiffer on their impacts on soil structure from other amondnsents (‘e.g. animalmanure, sawdust, and compos;t as SOC i.nfluences on. soil. structure depend onhe F. pe and qualitt of um ndmt nts (Bhngl t i 20’bb L t OC n th
due removal n.a have a. greater im pact on soil structura.i parameters such asaggregate stahlitv and strength than o.n other soil physical properties (Sparrowet al.. 2006).
residue management., wheat and sorphun. residue removal from irrigated andI md I r d Uc d t H’ r t. it r i o rt mand SOC concentration from 5 to e45 g kg’ ihordovskv et a!Application ot crop residues h.as the opposite effect to residue removal
because it increases SOC concentration and. it thus improves aggregate stahi !i.ty.On a silt koam in Ohio. increase in SOC concentration wa i nearly related is
to the tncrewe In percentage ot waterwtahie aggregates in the . to 1°cmdepth a.fter a Ayr wheat straw applica.tion at five different rates to not.i.ll, plowtill,arid r idge’tili soils (0uiker and Sal, •‘l999 On a loam in Spain an increase i.n SOConcentration with the application of wheat straw at five different levels increased0 ‘t ihilit plvniri r ib f in 1 iv tilt ii tr
‘.lOsom depth in a r study (Jordan et al., 2010,). Addition of hvproduct:s of cornstover fermentation can also increase soil aggregate stability by increasin.g. SOCconcentration. Johnson et a!, (201.4) reported that addition of stover fermentationo pr ou in’ 4so kg ot 0C s ne 0011100 I1n1rl\ wd me ‘u gaostability, explaining 98” of its variability.
The main mechan.isms by which crop residue removal reduces the stability of wetaggregates is by reducing the amount of organic binding agents and hvdrophobIcitvt ig,re.,ates ‘Tisdall and Oido ‘2 Fig 4) \‘, discued eirlir l1ght ‘rsubcritical water repellency can contribute to aggregate stabilization (Coebel et aL,2005; Bottinelli et aL, 201. Crop residues are a source of transient, temporary andpersistent organic binding agents that are essential to soil aggregation. Transient orabile ‘ ii organ e r’attr raztic n brf rind soil partnJ n 1e.at s hik th
ot rm-kon r I,Jtr3nt eltOr r’s,t[, ceIud d n k aggr gtec
20041. Lkonstituents of soil org,anic mat..ei, particularly persistent fractions, react withoils valent ca000s, oxides, and aiuminos.it icates to form complex compounds andstabjlize aggregates (Tisdali and Codes, 19821.
The SOC concentration and. soil aggregates are mutually interrelated(Bossoyt et aL, 2.005). The SOCwnriched organic materials form and stabilize
,, ir L. OIL o so<soil prevent SOC fran rad doconwssojtion. tAeas’er aggregates store less oUt,,
than more stable aggregates. Macr<oaggregateprotected SOC is mostly labile andsoung with faster turnosor rate than ma rosoggregate protected SOC tPuget etal., 21105). Labile SOC fractions decrease more rapidly than stable or recalcitrantSOC Iracttons following residue removal (Karlen et al.. 1.994).
‘The degree at which the residuederived SOC associates with soilmineral pa.rticles and stabih.z.es aggregates depend.s on ‘the degree of residuede mposit r (K i ‘99” The a’ wia ot r LIdu i I ga’o mat’ n
IS S
I SS5S I i. ‘c it it
U I I
: •1 UI ‘• I . — i ,I II ii
11 rt t I i r S
S
I i’ ‘.1 ‘it i rid ‘i ri I 1
EFFECI OF ORGANIC CARBON ON SOIL COMPACTION‘I —
—
I’
S L, 511 : .1 I11tri! ii tri,_ [il L. h Ii it !
Us5’.,’.
S SI
I!ls! i’, •‘s 1’.S ‘ siI’I• ‘.II ri I t5I
•SSI5S
II’ I. n: ._S•(
•
‘ - fl -• ‘-, l \L1’ Irii Hi - -• I5_ 1 1 fl,
• Ils 1’i ii ;.it fl i’Zn • k,n ‘‘-I-— I nd kbis h’—
US’S• I hi I s
• Ism I it 1 i; F nfl prs --Sa I
din. r€i—ud . ith in T iisL’ n II’,Fn; m,ittir ritint n —II—’ fi th {IiI1II .11ttrir • ‘j1i(Itr5ItiIIL !,*5III’r iflil I ii’. Ifl”’sf’, _flhI’) ‘1ii] I’t5I!U. ( ttI,’!
itli ‘I i’tiJ __i’’’ iIIr!ItIti(I tiU ltitIili’FIil’ 1’IiIk lit ifl’slt\ :\r; ftjS5’Vfl,
5SI5I5 i: it tI lI!t— t i
-,S
fl’S —
F!’ • ;1II!_is •t:- ISit
•‘
‘—•_-
S
h-’- - •••I•
2
aa
y •54 . 5j4:
072.i.*
.•..B‘1
I..
•,• I540i /.J ..r’ •s’Poios
L.(i•5 is .5 20l()rgii ( btfl kgtj
Fig. 27 Efidct of sod orgonic C ccncentratl•on on (Aibulk density and(8) macros orosityme of rIce straw management (data from lal et al, 1980).
lmo3cts of Soil Organic Carbon on Soil Phsicai Behavior
••a
%,“‘rn.
•• •.? •
I
.‘.
‘ •.0.ii04
1
I •$.
ar.. - 1854
a•
I
Fig. 2—8. Relationship of soil organic Cwith Proctor maximum bulk densityacross a number of soils under notill,conventional till, and pasturelands (Oatafrom Wagner et aL, 1994; Thomas et aL,1-996; Aragán et aL, 2000; BlancoCanquiet at., 2009).
concentration. The Proctor maximunr bulk density decre.ased sig ni.fica ntlyas SOC con.centra.ticm mccvça -.vhe roar: Prsactor critical water content .ncr-ased.
CCX .:ancentraw .n increase .Proetor maximum bulk densit •f• criti.ca
water content were strongly correlate.d with cha.nes in SOC :oncentrationrosa rdies.s soil class w. 5O)P5
and climatic zones (Pie. 2--iCC and 2OSDi. Those resuits indcate that a decreasein SOC concentration can increase risks of soi.i compaction. Soil compactibility
is sensitive to management and may be more significantly affected by changesin SOC concentration than other soi physical. prenerties, The decrease in soilwater content at which the soil is most compacted due to the decrease in SOCconcentration is important to mana.ge soil compaction, The imp.I ica.ti.on is that
ok
,
a
•IbT,d.a
.‘
-.30ii ‘-
]i
•
bv, -,- 0mm, ,ii
:1I •
-. - !.ThP 0.1,111; 4
A,ro,, .%j
•.
.4
-,--
-oo;- P’ 03101; 131) —
‘C- 23) -
8
.4
Imparri of Soil Organic Carbon on Soil Phvsxai E3erovior 3’
1.3 1.-f
04 04
02
i_I
I 0 12 If. 2-4 20 12 lo 40 0 4 2 0 214 24 20 32 14, 40‘o4} Orn,r I ,rhon ‘.oI ()rg.nr I .rIio
Fig. 2—10. Effect of soil organic C on (A and B) Proctor maximum bulk density and (C and D) crithcal water content at maximum compaction in the 0 to 5cm soil depth in two different climaticregions in the United States (data from Thomas et aL 1996; BlancoCanqui et aL 2OO9)
also changes the strength of bonds a.nd electrica.i charges at t.he intramggregatet’ ‘o rt n rgn md ra’n to I
behavior of the soil matrix (boano., t990; Ball et ab,
The i.ncrease in maximum compactihilitv with decreased SOC concentrationan have in orta.nt implicatIons for managi.ng crap residues noel .011 compaction.
ft sugges.ts that residues s.houid he returned, to soil to male tam or increase SOCend to reduce. ‘f least in pains m- -t 1m risks to eve-naive compacm
to alleviate soil compaction has been on reducing axle loads, controllingamine and r’’nc” f ro1ifj0 aoi mpemefltn remedation ni-ensures .auchas ubsoil.ing. vertical till..age, and others. The ability of 5QC to i.nfluence t.he
o IS u° pt itol i ° c nve in h w hI 0 in C It 1 w 1 Ci a aexcessive soilcompaction. While crop residue mulch alone may not be highlye-ffbctive in reducing SOIl bulk density from an i.ncrease in applied stress (Gupta:.et al., 1987). SOC accumuIaton with continued residue addition may improve sodresilience a.nd rebounding capaci.ty in the long term. The role of SOC in alleviatingexcess-Cc oil compaction can he particularly relevant at lois than at high axleP ads I told quipmcnt torali bccmsc nT managenwnt is critic 0 to redave
I “-c S,4., 0
•S
S •
B
a-.
S•
•‘•,-Se,.-‘ S S,. r’-Oi-460’<Ii4NJI
I)
Impac.ts of Soü Org.anic Carbon on SoIl Ph.ysical Behavior
pore voLume, water retention. and soil structural para.meters, and changes in SOC
concentration had much stronger effects than changes in clay concentration,
Differences in SOC concentration may also affect porosity by altering soil
particle. densi.ty (Table 2—1). The few studies have available on this topic have
that particle density decreases with an increase in so concentration.
Across various cultivated soils in t.he iiy, Ball tt aL (2P00) reported that particle
density was negatively and significantly correlated. (r —0,38; P < 000i) with SOC
concentrat.ion. Sin. ilarly, across no’diIl, chisel pionc and. moldboard plow systems
in Ohic, BianccoCanqui et al. (2006b) found that partic.le density was• as sensitive
to changes i.n SOC c.oncentrati.on as bulk density. They reported that a decrease in
SOC concentration due to differences in residue managernen.t between notill and
plowed systems explaflied 38% (P < 0,001) of the variability in particle density in
the (P to lOwm soil depth. Similar to the effects on bulk density; the decrease in
particle donsfly with incirease in SOC coo.centration is attrihuted to the thintion
effect of soil organic particles. Changes in particle density can affect soil hydraulic
properties by altering soil porosity.
Ma,ny studies have shown t.hat residue managementilndrced changes in SOC
concentration alter water retentIon. On two silt barns in Iowa1 increased SOC
concentration by doubling the amount of corn stover for 10 yr in ncotill increased
plant available water at —0,5, —1.4, and —9.8 kPa (Karben et aL, 1994. On a silt loam in
Ohio, wheat straw addition to no’till plots for 7 yr increased both water retention
at >30 kPa suctions and SOC concentration in the (P to iOwm depth (I. uiker and
Lab, 1999). Correlations in Table 2—2 for three contrasting noflil soils show that
water retention and plant available water decreased linearly with a loss in SOC.
ccncentration due to corn stover removal (BiancmCanqui et al., 2G06a; Blances
Canqui et al., 2007). Decrease i.n SOC concentration reduces the soil’s ability to
a.bsorb and retain water because it reduce.s the specific surface area of the soil,
Orgaric particles have a . greater specific surface area and water adsorption
c.apacity than soil inorganic particles (Ra.wis et al., 2003). Hudson (1994) foun.d
that soils containing 4% organic matter retained plant available water twice more
th.an soils containing 1% organic matter. Obness and Archer (2005) found tha.t
change in *lant avai.iabie water ranged between 2.5 and 5% for each 1% chan.ge.
in SOC concentration for soifi with O.5% SOC and 40% cl.ay concentrations.
Recently, Kvaerno and Haugen (2011), while assessi.ng the performance of a
number of pedotransfer functions in predicting soil water characteristics ba..sed
on particIessze distribution, organic matter content, and bulk density acros.s 540
soil h.orizons on cultivated lands in Norway, found that pedotran.sfer functions
which included organic m.atten content as one of the input parameters were the
b.est predictors of soil water retention unuor low suctions.
rr acts of Soil Organic Cabon on Soil Physvai BehaOor
s.i.ze distribution to influence soil compaction. structural, and hydraulic properties.
The SOC bu.ffers risis of excessive sci.i compaction, incrc..a.ses soil aggreg.at.e ila
bi1it and streng.th. m:acroporositv, induces shyht water repellencu and
imriroves water retention.
The met hanisms by whc.h SOC influences oi physical propertIes are
numerous and compicx Organic particles stabIli?e soil aggregates by h riding
individual particles into stable ruts and. strengthening the irtenparticle cohesion•w ithin a.nd among aggregates.. Organic fih can also induce hydrophobicproperties. to soil, reducing aggregate slaking. Because crop residues h.ave elasticrepcr4wc inc icr d in m n p e1 wt cit pun hk
behavior, and reboundmg capact v to the whole soil. Organic particles also have
lower density than mineral particles, which dilutes the aivl bulk densit , reducingrisks of excessive compression and compaction of the soil. Prestsnce of a ne twork
of fine roots F ung.ai h .‘.phaeand other biologicai comp nents n agtofneralparticles a d increase friction forces among: soil particles. Organic particles can
iso impart uzbt oo c tr cal eb rge to the nOd simihir to la pu fiOes to react
and develop complex chemical bonds among soil particles to Further improve
soil physical moperties. These myriad benefits of SOCenriched materials can be
readily altered by management practices such as crop residue removal.
Crop residue removal adversely impacts soil physical properties by depletingSOC. but C input through highbiomass producing crop rotations (e.g., continuouscropping svsfems may maintain and improve soilphvsical characteristics. Residuerranagcment ritcg 0c e g no tub thai inceae SOC oneentration mprose
‘tr eturu mna ti nci }‘ lrauot rrp rt e’- r’ ma an’ in
in SOC concentration i.s s’ tron.gly correlated with maxi mu.m soil compactibi.lityand critical water content, indicating that cultivated soils with increared SOCconcentration are less susceptible to compaction and can be trafficked at greatersoil water content without the risks soil compaction conipa rub with soils low
concentration.
The numerous benefic al effects; of on ditterent soil chusical parametersut the need for maintaining .ptiirrtm levels of SOC through annual crop
ron idue .retur n and use of noRill farming to ma.intai.n or improve soil functions.Because excessive renrcvai i.:f crop residues for ofhfarm uses rea.di.ly reducesSOC conccmtra.tion., it can ac.lverselr affect soil is;hvsical behavior. Residue mulchimproves soil physical propertiru not only by increasing SOC conceneratinn
I ut aO h prot an the il —art icC tr rn the n e h FCt. ot raindr aed
cc dueing abrupt f.uctuation of soil temperature, freezing and tf.awing, andwetti.ng a.nd drying cycles. Overall, increasing SOC concentration throughproper crop residue management may n.ot only reduce net em.issi,ons of C to the
BiancoCanqui, H., and B, Lal. 2008b. Corn stover rem.oval impacts on microscaIe soil pf.ysic.alpnap€.rms. Geoderma 145:335—346., doi:10.10i6/jgeoderma.2008.03.0i6.
BlancmCanqui, H., B. Lal, B.C. lzaurralde, W.M. Post, and MJ. Shipitalo. 2006b. Organic carboninfluences on particle density and rheological properties for a silt loam soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.i. 70:1407—1414. doi:10..2136/sssaj200S.03S5.
BlancmCanqui, H., B. Lal, LB. Owens, W,M.. Post, and Mi. Shipitalo, 2007. Rapid changes in soil car’ban. and structural properties due to stover removal from notill corn plet Soil Tillage Bes.92:144—155. doi:10.1016/j.stilL200&02.002.
BlancoCanqui, H B. Lal, W.M. Post, B.C. lzaurraide, and LB. Owens. 2006a. Soil structuralparameters and organic carbon in notill corn with variable stover retention rates. Soil Sci.171:468—482. doi.:10.1097/01.s.s.0000209364.8S816.lb.
BlancoCanqui, H., LB. Stone, AJ. Schlegel, DJ. Lyon, M,F. Vigil, M. Mikha, and RW. Stahlrnan.2009 Notill i.nduced increase in organic carbon reduces maximum bulk density of soils. SoilSci. Soc. Am. 1. 73:1871—1879, doi:10.2136/ss’saj2008.0353..
BlancoCanqui, H., L.B. Stone, and P.W. Stahlman. 2010a. Soil response to longterm cropping systems on an Argiustoll in the c.entral Great Plains.. Soil Sci. Soc.. Am.i.. 74:602—611. doi:i0.2136/sssaj2009.0214.
Boivin, P., B. Schäffei, and W. Sturny. 2009. Quantifying the relationship between soil organiccarbon and soil physical properties using shrinkage modelling. Eur. I. Soil Sd. 60:265—275.do :10.1I11/J.13652389.200&01I07..
Bordovsky, D.G., M. Choudhary, and CJ. Gerard. 1999. Effect of tillage, cropping, and resdue management on soil properties in the Texas B.olling Plains. Soil Sd. 164:331—340.doi:10.1097/00010694499905000’OOOOS.
Bossuyt, H., 3. SIx, and P.R. Hendrix. 2005. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates withinearthworm casts. Soil Biol. Biachem. 37:251—258. doi:10.1016/j..soilbio.2004.07.035.
Bottnel1i, N., V. Hallaire, S. MenasseriAubry, C. Le Guillou, and D. Cluzeau. 2010. Abundance andstability of belowground earthworm casts influenced by tillage intensity and depth. Soil Tubage Res. 106:263—267. doi:10.1016/j.stlll.2009.11.00S.
Chancy, K., and R.S. Swift. 1984. The influence of organic matter on aggregate stability in some British soils. 3. Sail Sci. 35:223—230. doi:10.1111/j.13652389.1984.tb0O278.x.
Chenu, C., Y. Le Bissonnais, and D. Arrouays. 2000. Organic matter influence an clay wettability andsail aggregate stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 3. 64:1479—1486. doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.6441479x.
Davidson, i.M., F. Gray, and 0.1. Pinson. 1967. Changes in organic matter and bulk density withdepth under two cropping systems. Agron. 3. 59:375—378. doi:10.2134/agronjl967.00021962005900040025x.
Dc Jong, E., D.F. Acton, and H.B. Stonehouse. 1990. Estimating the Atterberg limits of southern Saskatchewan soils from texture and carbon contents, Can. 3. Soil Sd. 70:543—554. doi:iO.4141/cj.ss90057.
Do Jorge, L,W,, P. Moldrup, and O.H. Jacobsen. 2007. Soilwater content dependency of waterrepellency in soils: Effect of crop type, soil management, and physicabchemical parameters.Soil Sci. 172.. :S77—588. doi:10..1097/SS.0b013e318065c090.
Dexte A.B., G. Richard, 1.3. Arrouays, E.A. Czyz, C. Jolivet, and 0. Duva . 2008. Complexedorganic matter controls soil physical properties. Geoderma 144:620—627. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.022.
DiazZorita, M., and G Grosso. 2000. Effe.ct of soil texture, organic carbon and water retention on the com.pactibility of soils from the Argentinean pampas. Soil Tiliage Bes. 54:121—126.doi : 10.1016/S01.674987(00)000894.
Doe.rr, S..H.., R..A. Shakeshy,.. a.nd B.P.D. Wal.sh. 2000. Soil wa.te.r repelle.n.cy: Its causes, character’is.tics and hydrogeomorphological significance. Earth Sci. Rev. 51:33—65. doi:iO.1016/S001282S2(00)000118.
Duiker, S.W., and B. Lal. 1999. Crop residue and tillage effects on C sequestration in a Luvisol in den”tral Ohio. Soil Tiilage Bes. 5 2:73—81. doi:10.1016/S0167’1987(99)00059’8.
Eynard, A., T.E. Schumscher, M.i. lJndstrom, D.D. Malo, and B.A. Kohl. 2006. Effects of aggregatestructure and organic C on wettability of Ustolls. Soil Tillage Bes. 88:205—216. doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.06.002.
• :. .,, —V_i: •H._Ui., .
\L(’’ ‘, L3 i. ‘ .4.’.:n . ‘.‘. -i’
.‘ ‘ .: ‘,- _.-, _‘Ln. ‘ _‘_ .—
— ‘-- : H’’ :1
-. .4 .i’p- . ij rp’’ 1 — ‘
‘1 . ‘ .
. I •‘ I H
4 ,--‘ U ‘‘“ r c’.’ 2 .t
j n.: 2 .• f I tft4’ ._ ‘“‘rc-’ 1.4.••••• . . •ii.l’ i(C 1 -‘ 3’
-. 4’ .4 ‘.4 .4 0 - ‘ .0:4 fl,j I ‘ I-.
it.‘ iNPTh n0004’’
‘, - i.’:’, ..‘iS’,, . -I:
‘4 .i ‘‘ 1 3—! U ‘ V. ‘OJU! UN 1% cOlO CI I,
iW’: A’ / 1’ Fwns y. IC Hit’ tcc, ! N Up <,3fJ’ Bloodwnrrh 2003 ff. of yjI Jirgo: ftrhni’ nI .otc” ‘t.fltic’, r-’a I ), I ‘U. j9( 10 .UIU!S00W 70b1R 3U000 1 6.
0 1 A ‘+ v q . )U I I ‘‘-. 0 u in (air c ‘ ,.
4’ (Jr’c,’ 4 .. iPv--op n4’’t (1 necintror tn’ •n. I nfl_, .ui 1’9druI..v UeIupi’.i-nl-1 4’ N ‘.V 44$ n fti 1,
‘II’ .( ti’ .12 iQC !i’’’’ ‘ .4. ,_0 ‘ ,‘‘. 4
‘4 4. I. - ‘ft ‘
.4 . .. ‘ ., I •. . . I . •_ . . ,
it’s.. Id’4c’’’,d’Ot’ .‘I’’ta .1 •‘.u’ •i ‘jo’’,’? I,i’’ 0., 4.).
:3 . c-’’. g. ::-‘-11! :‘ 1 H