Next Article in Journal
Yield Prediction for Winter Wheat with Machine Learning Models Using Sentinel-1, Topography, and Weather Data
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Experiments of a Double-Cutterbar Combine Header Used in Wheat Combine Harvesters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transformation of Organic Soils Due to Artificial Drainage and Agricultural Use in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture13040818
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Reduced and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Aggregates and Organic Carbon Parameters of Different Soil Types

by
Erika Tobiašová
1,*,
Joanna Lemanowicz
2,
Bożena Dębska
2,
Martina Kunkelová
1 and
Juraj Sakáč
1
1
Institute of Agronomic Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2 St., 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
2
Department of Biogeochemistry and Soil Science, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, 6/8 Bernardyńska Street, 85-029 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(4), 818; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040818
Submission received: 3 February 2023 / Revised: 28 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 31 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cropping System Impact on Soil Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tillage is a significant type of soil intervention and should be conducted based on the specific soil type. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different tillage intensities (RT: reduced tillage; CT: conventional tillage), which are correlated with carbon sequestration, on soil properties. The study areas included fields on real farms in Eutric Fluvisol (EF), Mollic Fluvisol (MF), Haplic Chernozem (HC), Haplic Luvisol (HL), Eutric Regosol (ER), Eutric Gleysol (EG), and Stagnic Planosol (SP). The effects of tillage systems depended on the soil type and were more evident in soil aggregates of more productive soils. Agronomically, the most valuable fractions of aggregates were dominant in more productive soils (EF, MF, HC) in the CT system and less dominant in less productive soils (HL, ER, EG, SP) in the RT system. Smaller aggregates (<0.5 mm), which indicate deterioration of soil properties, were negatively correlated with clay (r = −0.364, p < 0.01), total organic carbon (r = −0.245, p < 0.05), and stabile carbon fractions (r = −0.250, p < 0.05). In the case of soil organic carbon, tillage system was mainly correlated with soil texture. Tillage had no influence on soils with lower proportions of silt. On the whole, the suitability of the tillage system for a specific soil type depended on soil productivity and soil texture; however, EG was an exception and showed no differences in response to the tillage system used. The results of this study show that the main factors influencing the choice of tillage system are soil type and genesis, soil texture, and soil production ability.

1. Introduction

The intensity of tillage significantly influences soil properties, meaning that its suitability differs based on soil type. Basic tillage systems depend on the intensity of the disturbance and include conventional (usually mouldboard ploughing) and conservation (reduced, usually chiselling/disking or no-till management) systems [1]. Reduced tillage (RT) is a non-inversive tillage method associated with fewer tillage operations per year [2]. No-till technology (NT) is the best when it comes to emissions. It positively influences the decrease in carbon mineralization [3] and supports soil aggregation [4]; however, it is associated with increased risk of soil compaction [5], lower yields [6,7], and poor water infiltration [8]. Ploughing has a positive impact on these parameters [9]. Each mechanical disturbance of the soil affects the soil structure, resp. soil aggregates. Farmers usually alternate between these tillage systems. Alternating tillage improves aggregate size and stability, although NT is limited to the topsoil [4]. At the 0.0–0.1 m and the 0.1–0.2 m soil depths, NT and subsoiling (SS) contribute to higher proportions of wet-sieved macroaggregates (WSA) compared with CT. Deeper tillage increases the proportion and stability of macroaggregates, as well as soil organic carbon (SOC) content at a depth of 0.1–0.3 m [10]. SOC content increases as the aggregate size increases [11]. NT supports the stabilization of carbon in aggregates [12,13]. The content of smaller dry-sieved aggregates (DSA) increases with tillage intensity [14]. DSA stability is an important factor that is closely associated with clay content. NT appears to be the best for forming aggregates that are more resistant to erosion and degradation [15]. However, RT increases SOC sequestration and the stability of agricultural soil aggregates [16]. Overall, tillage influences the aggregate dynamics [17]. Tillage is one of the key elements that determine the carbon stock in agricultural soils [18]. Tillage also has different effects, depending on the conditions. Mouldboard ploughing had a negative effect on soil organic fractions in Mediterranean dryland areas [8], but a positive effect on carbon sources in deeper sections of the soil [19]. SS and ploughing increase SOC storage [20]. Moreover, the turning of straw by deep ploughing increases SOC content and root length density [7]. The incorporation of organic carbon into soil aggregates is one of the main mechanisms of carbon sequestration in arable land [21]. Changes in the aggregates are observed after changes in the chemical structure of soil organic matter (SOM) [22]. Soil properties influence SOM in the aggregates more substantially than land use management [23], and even they depend on specific aggregate sizes [24]. The stability of organic substances is influenced by the intensity of oxidation, which changes in relation to the level of soil disruption. Carbon can also be sequestered by the incorporation of plant residues into deeper layers of the soil, mainly through ploughing or SS [20]. However, tillage systems have different effects, depending on the soil type. Tillage systems have been presented as more appropriate, although the conditions under which they are used differ. In some cases, their economic effects may be preferred, while in others, their ecological effects may be preferred. However, it is not possible to generalize the influence of tillage on all soils, because each soil has its own specific profile based on its genesis [25], region [26], and soil management [27]. Each tillage system has advantages in relation to specific soils, and their use can therefore not be generalized. The suitability of each method should be reviewed in relation to the soil type due to its specific genesis.
The aim of this study was to determine the differences in the influences of two different tillage systems based on soil type properties—fractional composition of soil aggregates, labile organic carbon fractions, and stabile organic carbon fractions—associated with carbon sequestration.

2. Materials and Methods

Studied fields are located in the Podunajska (Nové Zámky, Šaľa, Vráble, Piešťany) and Eastern Slovak (Trebišov, Michalovce, Sobrance) lowlands. These fields are on real farms that use tillage systems. Each locality included 3 areas with similar soil types. Geological substrates in the lowlands are Neogene clay, sand, and gravel that are covered with loess and loess loam in some areas. Fluvial sediments are found along the rivers Vah and Laborec. The region is monotonous, mostly wavy, and covered with loess and loess loam. In some places, Neogene rafts of clay, sand, and gravel are found. The localities are situated in slightly warm to warm climatic regions (Table 1) [28]. The samples represent high and very high productive soils (80–83 points; HC, MF, EF) and productive and medium productive soils (63–78 points; HL, ER, EG, SP) based on the values of soil production potential (http://www.podnemapy.sk/portal/verejnost/bh_pp/bh.aspx (accessed on 17 December 2019)).
The study consisted of 7 types of soil (EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; and SP: Stagnic Planosol [29]) from three agricultural areas in Slovakia. Two tillage systems: reduced tillage (RT, disking to a depth of 0.10–0.12 m) and conventional tillage (CT, mouldboard deep ploughing), representing non-invasive (shallow) and invasive (deep) tillage, respectively, were used. Each system was used in three fields of arable land with different crop residue management systems, resp. carbon balance in all 21 areas. Cereals were the dominant crops in all 126 fields. The organic carbon balance in the last 10 years was 8.083–20.013 t ha−1. The average basic properties of soils from fields included in the study are presented in Table 2.
Soil sampling was conducted at two depths (0.0–0.1 m and 0.0–0.3 m), resulting in 252 samples (7 soil types × 3 fields × 3 different carbon inputs × 2 tillage systems × 2 depths).

Soil Samples and Analytical Methods Used

The fields in the agroecosystems were located in different farms under real production conditions. Three sample replicates were collected from a depth of 0.10 m and 0.30 m each and used for soil aggregate determination. These homogeneous soil samples represent the entire soil profile. This was not the average value of soil samples from three depths, but actual sampling at both depths. The samples were dried at 25 ± 2 °C.
To determine the fractions of soil aggregates, the soils were separated using a sieve [30]. The fractions of dry-sieved macroaggregates were >7, 5–7, 3–5, 1–3, 0.5–1, and 0.25–0.5 mm, while the fractions of wet-sieved macroaggregates were >5, 3–5, 2–3, 1–2, 0.5–1, and 0.25–0.5 mm. These represent the different soil size fractions in the net aggregate with different potentials for sequestration. The distribution of particle sizes was determined after dissolution of CaCO3 in 2 mol. HCl·dm−3 and oxidation of the organic matter with 30% H2O2. Following repeated washing, samples were dispersed in Na(PO3)6. Silt, sand, and clay fractions were determined using the pipette method [31].
To determine the chemical properties, the soil samples were sieved (2 mm, resp. 0.25 mm). The total organic carbon (TOC) content was determined through wet combustion using K2Cr2O7 oxidation [32] and labile carbon (CL) was determined through KMnO4 oxidation [33]. The non-labile carbon (CNL), lability of carbon (LC), the index of carbon lability (LIC), carbon pool index (CPI), and carbon management index (CMI) [34] were calculated. Next, labile fractions of carbon, cold water extractable organic carbon (CWEOC), and hot water extractable organic carbon (HWEOC) were determined according to the method by Ghani et al. [35], with final organic carbon being determined using wet combustion [32].
The obtained data were analysed using Statgraphic Plus statistical software. A multifactor ANOVA model was used to compare individual treatments. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with separation of the means by LSD and multiple-range test (two files with n = 252 and n = 126). Correlation analysis was used to determine the relationships between macroaggregate fractions, particle size distribution, and organic carbon and its parameters. Significance of Pearson correlation coefficients were tested at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Macroaggregates

The most significant effect of the tillage systems was observed in the SP (Table 3), and was present in almost all the DSA and WSA fractions. In SP, the contents of smaller aggregate fractions (0.25–1 mm) were higher in the case of RT, where the cyclic oxidation and reduction support the acidification that contributes to leaching of exchangeable cations and the destruction of clay minerals [36] that leads to the disintegration of larger aggregates. Moreover, Fe and Al oxides were more involved in the formation of the smaller aggregates [21], but their higher proportions characterize the deterioration of the soil structure [37]. In the case of CT, the larger aggregate fractions (>1 mm) were present in greater quantities due to the incorporation of organic sources, which are also rich in carbon, that contribute to the stability of the aggregates [38].
In the case of more (high and very) productive soils (HC, MF, EF), the larger fractions (>3 mm) and smaller fractions (<3 mm) of DSA were present in higher proportions in RT and CT, respectively. However, in the case of less (low and medium) productive soils (EG, ER, HL), smaller DSA fractions were present in higher proportions in RT only. The tillage system had a stronger effect on DSA than WSA and was more markedly visible in more productive soils. The carbon in DSA is less stabilized than that in WSA, therefore they are more easily disturbed [39]. Similar high proportions of smaller DSA fractions in CT of more productive soils and in RT of less productive soils are mainly due to organic sources. More productive soils are richer in organic carbon, but after increased tillage, this content decreases due to increased oxidation, leading to the disintegration of the aggregates, resulting in higher content of smaller aggregates. Less productive soils are low in organic carbon and are naturally dominated by smaller aggregates. Sesquioxides can act as the main aggregating agent [17].
In the case of WSA, the influence of tillage was more significant in more productive soils (with the exception of SP). Agronomically, the contents of the most valuable fractions of macroaggregates (0.5–2 mm, WSA; 0.5–3 mm, DSA) were found in more productive soils subjected to CT and in less productive soils subjected to RT. Each mechanical soil intervention increases the oxidation process [40,41], which leads to the mineralization of organic carbon substances. Therefore, the tillage system had a greater effect on soils with a higher content of organic carbon, which participates in the formation of DSA and WSA. Larger fractions of WSA (>2 mm) were positively correlated with clay content and TOC, especially the stabile fractions. Conversely, smaller fractions of WSA (<2 mm) were negatively correlated with clay content and TOC (Table 4). This points to the importance of organic substances in the mechanism of soil aggregation. Since more productive soils are richer in organic carbon, the influence of the tillage method was more pronounced in these soils.
Plant residues incorporated in the soil come from labile sources and are stabilized by mixing with minerals. This is reflected in a higher proportion of agronomically valuable aggregates during CT. On the contrary, root exudates are an important source of labile carbon in mechanically undisturbed soils; however, the mechanism of the stabilization is restricted to alternating dry and wet periods [42], which dominate in the rhizosphere in RT. Moreover, the fine roots, mucilage, and exudates stimulate microbial activity [43] as an additional source of labile carbon. In more productive soils, the most agronomically valuable aggregates are formed by disrupting larger aggregates through ploughing (CT), while in less productive soils, they are formed by aggregating smaller aggregates as a result of their non-disruption (RT). This can result in similar proportions of aggregates in both tillage systems. The stabilization of SOM is mainly controlled by organo-mineral complexes [44].

3.2. Soil Organic Carbon

Analysis of EF showed statistically significant differences across all parameters (Table 5). In the case of RT, the contents of both labile (CWEOC, HWEOC, CL) and stabile (CNL) organic carbons were higher. The lability of organic carbon was also higher. EF is a soil characterised by a fluctuation of underground water level, alluvial accumulation of organic carbon [45], and high substrate heterogeneity [46]. However, these effects are largely negated by conversion to arable land. After a change in the hydromorphic regime of this soil, its natural properties are mainly a reflection of actual agronomic interventions [47]. Although the content of organic carbon was higher in RT, its lability was also higher, which in the long-term leads to its decrease [48]. The exception again was SP, which had a significantly higher content of organic carbon—mainly the labile form—in the CT system.
With regard to SOM, the tillage system affects the textural composition, which is one of the factors that characterises the transformation of organic substances. Overall, tillage did not influence soils with a lower proportion of silt (MF < HL < EG) (Figure 1). On the other hand, statistically significant differences in TOC (Figure 2) were observed in soils with a higher proportion of silt (SP > ER > HC > EF) (Figure 1), which bound a significant amount of carbon [49]. Soil texture is one of the parameters [50] that influences quantity and quality.
The influence of clay on carbon content has been determined [51,52]. EF contained the finest—grained soil, which had not only the highest proportion of clay (Figure 1), but also the lowest proportion of sand (Figure 1). In the RT system, MF was followed by EG>EF>HC>ER>HL>SP (Figure 3a), while in the CT system, the order was EG>EF>SP>ER>HL>HC (Figure 3b). Moreover, the differences observed in RT were significantly higher than those observed in CT. EF, MF, and EG contained the highest clay content (Figure 1). Tillage system was most pronounced in EF, whereas it had no effect on MF and EG. The TOC contents of RT and CT were highest in MF>EG>EF, which are soils from floodplains and are characterized by higher organic matter content [53,54]. The same positions and orders of ER and HL were maintained in both CT and RT. However, the position of SP and HC differed significantly depending on tillage system. In the case of RT (Figure 3a), TOC content was lowest in SP, while in the case of CT (Figure 3b), it was lowest in HC. TOC content was intermediate in HC in RT and in SP in CT. It can therefore be concluded that CT is more suitable for SP. In this soil, the ploughing acts on the organic carbon, stabilizing it through alternating oxidation and reduction conditions. This can also contribute to the development of the root system [3,55], leading to an increase in the activity and diversity of the microbial community that subsequently supports the growth of new carbon sources. In the case of HC, ploughing causes higher aeration, which leads to a decrease in the carbon content [56] and a disturbance of the originally diverse microbial community and the potentially existing substrates. Conservation tillage (reduced, minimum), which retains more precipitation, seems to be more suitable in semi-arid areas of HL [57]. However, without ploughing, compaction can occur in soils with higher clay content [58].
No differences in TOC content were recorded for soil samples taken at a depth of 0.1 m (Figure 4a), apart from in MF. However, significant differences were recorded for soil samples taken at a depth of 0.3 (Figure 4b). The tillage system did not affect the carbon parameters of soil samples taken at depths of 0.1 m or 0.3 m. The influence of the tillage system on the carbon content is often observed only to a depth of 0.1 m, and its distribution in deeper parts of the soil is negligible [19]. However, it is inaccurate to make comparisons at such a depth, because during ploughing, organic sources are incorporated to a greater depth (>0.1 m) and thus the TOC content in ploughed soils can be higher than in unploughed soils because the organic input in RT is limited. Although RT produces lower emissions compared with CT, it indirectly decreases the biomass of microorganisms through the lower input of carbon into the soil [59] as well as the microbial diversity, which is bound to these sources. This ultimately inhibits the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere into the soil. The properties of the layer 0.1 m deep are regulated by agronomic measures, thus the differences between the soils in this layer can decrease over time and it can ultimately reach a state called “natural hydroponics”. It is therefore difficult to make any assessments of the influence of tillage systems and the associated carbon sequestration in this soil layer. Koch a Stockfisch [60] reported that, after ploughing, organic carbon, particularly the labile components at the 0.30–0.45 m depth, increased [61], while greater stabilization of organic carbon occurred in deeper layers of the soil [62]. Moreover, the rhizosphere zone is not limited to this layer, thus nutrient uptake and other processes also take place at depths below 0.1 m. It is therefore important to monitor the influence of whichever soil management system is in use at a greater soil depth. Several studies in Brazil and the Midwestern part of North America showed a redistribution, but not a decrease, of carbon in the soil after reduction in tillage [63].

4. Conclusions

The effect of the tillage system cannot be generalized to all soils, but its suitability is determined by the soil type. The potential for carbon sequestration in arable land is closely associated with soil aggregation and the stability of organic carbon. There are no rules for determining the suitability of the tillage system. The favourable effect of tillage on soil aggregates depended on soil productivity and, in the case of soil organic carbon, on soil texture. Based on this, due to better conditions for aggregation, the CT system was more suitable for more productive soils (HC, MF, EF), while the RT system was more suitable for less productive soils (HL, ER, EG), with the exception of SP. RT was associated with several carbon parameters (except SP). Since carbon sequestration is controlled by physical (soil aggregation) and chemical (organic carbon stability) factors, the suitability of tillage systems based on soil types is as follows: CT is better for EF, MF, HC, and SP; and RT is better for HL and ER. Tillage had no significant effect on EG. These results show that the choice of tillage system depends on a combination of soil type and actual soil conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.T., J.L. and B.D.; Methodology, E.T., J.L., B.D., M.K. and J.S.; Investigation, E.T., J.L. and B.D.; Data curation—compilation and analysis of results, E.T., J.L. and B.D. Writing—original draft, E.T., J.L. and B.D. Writing—review and editing, E.T., J.L., B.D., M.K. and J.S. All authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research has been made as part of the project KEGA 005SPU-4/2022. Incorporation of contemporary environmental topics into the teaching of soil-related subjects.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Azimi-Nejadian, H.; Hossein Karparvarfard, S.; Naderi-Boldaji, M. Weed seed burial as affected by mouldboard design parameters, ploughing depth and speed: DEM. simulations and experimental validation. Biosyst. Eng. 2022, 216, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Van Balen, D.; Cuperus, F.; Haagsma, W.; De Haan, J.; Van den Berg, W.; Sukkel, W. Crop yield response to long-term reduced tillage in a conventional and organic farming system on a sandy loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 225, 105553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, X.; Li, Q.; Tan, S.; Wu, X.; Song, X.; Gao, H.; Han, Z.; Jia, A.; Liang, G.; Li, S. Evaluation of carbon mineralization and its temperature sensitivity in different soil aggregates and moisture regimes: A 21-year tillage experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 837, 155566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Weidhuner, A.; Hanauer, A.; Krausz, R.; Crittenden, S.J.; Gage, K.; Sadeghpour, A. Tillage impacts on soil aggregation and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen after 49 years. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 208, 104878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arachchi, L.P.V. Effect of deep ploughing on the water status of highly and less compacted soils for coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) production in Sri Lanka. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 103, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hofbauer, M.; Bloch, R.; Bachinger, J.; Gerke, H.H. Effects of shallow non-inversion tillage on sandy loam soil properties and winter rye yield in organic farming. Soil Till. Res. 2022, 222, 105435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, J.; Pang, D.-w.; Jin, M.; Luo, Y.-l.; Li, H.-y.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.-l. Improved soil characteristics in the deeper plough layer can increase grain yield of winter wheat. J. Integr. Agr. 2020, 19, 1215–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Melero, S.; Panettieri, M.; Madejó, E.; Macpherson, H.G.; Moreno, F.; Murillo, J.M. Implementation of chiselling and mouldboard ploughing in soil after 8 years of no-till management in SW, Spain: Effect on soil quality. Soil Till. Res. 2011, 112, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ucgul, M.; Saunders, C. Simulation of tillage forces and furrow profile during soil-mouldboard plough interaction using discrete element modelling. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 190, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hu, R.; Liu, Y.; Chen, T.; Zheng, Z.; Peng, G.; Zou, Y.; Tang, C.; Shan, X.; Zhou, Q.; Li, J. Responses of soil aggregates, organic carbon, and crop yield to short-term intermittent deep tillage in Southern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gao, L.; Wang, B.; Li, S.; Wu, H.; Wu, X.; Liang, G.; Gong, D.; Zhang, X.; Cai, D.; Degré, A. Soil wet aggregate distribution and pore size distribution under different tillage systems after 16 years in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena 2019, 173, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Modak, K.; Biswas, D.R.; Ghosh, A.; Pramanik, P.; Das, T.K.; Das, S.; Kumar, S.; Krishnan, P.; Bhattacharyya, R. Zero tillage and residue retention impact on soil aggregation and carbon stabilization within aggregates in subtropical India. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 202, 104649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ndzelu, B.S.; Dou, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, R.; Liu, X. Tillage effects on humus composition and humic acstructural characteristics in soil aggregate-size fractions. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 213, 105090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jin, V.L.; Wienhold, B.J.; Mikha, M.M.; Schmer, M.R. Cropping system partially offsets tillage-related degradation of soil organic carbon and aggregate properties in a 30-yr rainfed agroecosystem. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 209, 104968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pi, H.; Huggins, D.R.; Sharratt, B. Dry aggregate stability of soils influenced by crop rotation, soil amendment, and tillage in the Columbia Plateau. Aeolian Res. 2019, 40, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sae-Tun, O.; Bodner, G.; Rosinger, C.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Mentler, A.; Keiblinger, K. Fungal biomass and microbial necromass facilitate soil carbon sequestration and aggregate stability under different soil tillage intensities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 179, 104599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xue, B.; Huang, L.; Huang, Y.; Yin, Z.; Li, X.; Lu, J. Effects of organic carbon and iron oxides on soil aggregate stability under different tillage systems in a rice–rape cropping system. Catena 2019, 177, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Qiu, S.; Yang, H.; Zhang, S.; Huang, S.; Zhao, S.; Xu, X.; He, P.; Zhou, W.; Zhao, Y.; Yan, N.; et al. Carbon storage in an arable soil combining field measurements, aggregate turnover modeling and climate scenarios. Catena 2023, 220, 106708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gál, A.; Vyn, T.J.; Michéli, E.; Kladivko, E.J.; McFee, W.W. Soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation with long-term no-till versus moldboard plowing overestimated with tilled-zone sampling depths. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 96, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guo, X.; Wang, H.; Yu, Q.; Ahmad, N.; Li, J.; Wang, R. Xiaoli Wang All rights reserved. Subsoiling and plowing rotation increase soil C and N storage and crop yield on a semiarLoess Plateau. Soil Till. Res. 2022, 221, 105413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 2099–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kogut, B.M.; Artemyeva, Z.S.; Kirillova, N.P.; Yashin, M.A.; Soshnikova, E.I. Organic Matter of the Air-Dry ad Water-Stable Macroaggregates (2–1 mm) of Haplic Chernozem in Contrasting Variants of Land Use. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2019, 52, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kpemoua, T.P.I.; Barré, P.; Chevallier, T.; Houot, S.; Chenu, C. Drivers of the amount of organic carbon protected inside soil aggregates estimated by crushing: A meta-analysis. Geoderma 2022, 427, 116089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Almajmaie, A.; Hardie, M.; Acuna, T.; Birch, C. Evaluation of methods for determining soil aggregate stability. Soil Till. Res. 2017, 167, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kochiieru, M.; Feiziene, D.; Feiza, V.; Volungevicius, J.; Velykis, A.; Slepetiene, A.; Deveikyte, I.; Seibutis, V. Freezing-thawing impact on aggregate stability as affected by land management, soil genesis and soil chemical and physical quality. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 203, 104705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Renton, M.; Flower, K.C. Occasional mouldboard ploughing slows evolution of resistance and reduces long-term weed populations in no-till systems. Agric. Syst. 2015, 139, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Clarke, L.E. The effect of no-till farming on the soil functions of water purification and retention in north-western Europe: A literature review. Soil Till. Res. 2019, 189, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Korec, P.; Lauko, V.; Tolmáči, L.; Zubrický, G.; Mičietová, E. Region and Districts of Slovakia. A New Administrative Structure; Q111: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1997; 391p. [Google Scholar]
  29. WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2015: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps World Soil Resources Reports No. 198; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sarkar, D.; Haldar, A. Physical and Chemical Methods in Soil Analysis; New Age International (P) Ltd.: Delhi, India, 2005; 228p. [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for Soil Analysis; International Soil Reference and Information Centre: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  32. Orlov, D.S.; Grišina, L.A. Chemical Analysis of Humus; IMU: Moskva, Russia, 1981; 272p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Loginov, W.; Wisniewski, W.; Gonet, S.S.; Ciescinska, B. Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation. Pol. J. Soil Sci. 1987, 20, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  34. Blair, G.J.; Lefroy, R.D.B.; Lisle, L. Soil carbon fractions, based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a Carbon Management Index for agricultural systems. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 1995, 46, 1459–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghani, A.; Dexter, M.; Perrott, K.W. Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: A sensitive measurement for determining impacts of fertilisation, grazing and cultivation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 1231–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ranst, E.V.; Dumon, M.; Tolossa, A.R.; Cornelis, J.-T.; Stoops, G.; Vandenberghe, R.E.; Deckers, J. Revisiting ferrolysis processes in the formation of Planosols for rationalizing the soils with stagnic properties in WRB. Geoderma 2011, 163, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Whalen, J.K.; Chang, C. Macroaggregate characteristics in cultivated soils after 25 annual manure applications. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 1637–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. An, S.; Mentler, A.; Mayer, H.; Blum, W.E.H. Soil aggregation, aggregate stability, organic carbon and nitrogen in different soil aggregate fractions under forest and shrub vegetation on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2010, 81, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wei, X.; Shao, M.; Gale, W.J.; Zhang, X.; Li, L. Dynamics of aggregate-associated organic carbon following conversion of forest to cropland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grandy, A.S.; Robertson, G.P. Initial cultivation of a temperate-region soil immediately accelerates aggregate turnover and CO2 and N2O fluxes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 1507–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Six, J.; Paustian, K. Aggregate-associated soil organic matter as an ecosystem property and a measurement tool. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 68, A4–A9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ariani, M.; Hanudin, E.; Haryono, E. The effect of contrasting soil textures on the efficiency of alternate wetting-drying to reduce water use and global warming potential. Agr. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brax, M.; Buchmann, C.; Kenngott, K.; Schaumann, G.E.; Diehl, D. Influence of the physico-chemical properties of root mucilage and model substances on the microstructural stability of sand. Biogeochemistry 2020, 147, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cai, A.; Feng, W.; Zhang, W.; Xu, M. Climate, soil texture, and soil types affect the contributions of finefraction-stabilized carbon to total soil organic carbon in different land uses across China. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 172, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Luster, J.; Kalbitz, K.; Lennartz, B.; Rinklebe, J. Properties, processes and ecological functions of floodplain, peatland, and paddy soils. Geoderma 2014, 228–229, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rychtecká, P.; Samec, P.; Rosíková, J. Floodplain forest soil series along the naturally wandering gravel-bed river in temperate submontane altitudes. Catena 2023, 222, 106830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vásconez Navas, L.K.; Becker, J.N.; Heger, A.; Gröngröft, A.; Eschenbach, A. Are active and former floodplain soils of the lower middle Elbe similar? A study of soil characteristics and possible implications for forest restoration. Catena 2023, 222, 106814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mayer, M.; Krause, H.-M.; Fliessbach, A.; Mäder, P.; Steffens, M. Fertilizer quality and labile soil organic matter fractions are vital for organic carbon sequestration in temperate arable soils within a long-term trial in Switzerland. Geoderma 2022, 426, 116080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Christensen, B.T.; Sörensen, L.H. The distribution of native and labelled carbon between soil particle size fractions isolated from long-term incubation experiments. J. Soil Sci. 1985, 36, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laborde, J.P.; Wortmann, C.S.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lindquist, J.L. Modeling soil texture and residue management effects on conservation agriculture productivity in Nepal. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 213, 105113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ndzana, G.M.; Zhang, Y.; Yao, S.; Hamer, U.; Zhang, B. The adsorption capacity of root exudate organic carbon onto clay mineral surface changes depending on clay mineral types and organic carbon composition. Rhizosphere 2022, 23, 100545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oades, J.M. The retention of organic matter in soils. Biogeochem 1988, 5, 35–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Du Laing, G.; Rinklebe, J.; Vandecasteele, B.; Meers, E.; Tack, F.M.G. Trace metal behavior in estuarine and riverine floodplain soils and sediments: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 3972–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rinklebe, J.; Shaheen, S.M. Assessing the mobilization of cadmium, lead, and nickel using a seven-step sequential extraction technique in contaminated floodplain soil profiles along the central Elbe River, Germany. Water Air Soil Poll. 2014, 225, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. McDonald, G.K.; Taylor, J.; Verbyla, A.; Kuchel, H. Assessing the importance of subsoil constraints to yield of wheat and its implications for yield improvement. Crop Pasture Sci. 2013, 63, 1043–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Willems, A.B.; Augustenborg, C.A.; Hepp, S.; Lanigan, G.; Hochstrasser, T.; Kammann, C.; Müller, C. Carbon dioxide emissions from spring ploughing of grassland in Ireland. Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 2011, 144, 347–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cantero-Martínez, C.; Angás, P.; Lampurlanés, J. Long-term yield and water use efficiency under various tillage systems in Mediterranean rainfed conditions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2007, 150, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. López-Garrido, R.; Madejón, E.; Murillo, J.M.; Moreno, F. Soil quality alteration by mouldboard ploughing in a commercial farm devoted to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions. Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 2011, 140, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dalal, R.C.; Henderson, P.A.; Glasby, J.M. Organic matter and microbial biomass in a vertisol after 20 yr of zero-tillage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1991, 23, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Koch, H.J.; Stockfisch, N. Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several years of conservation tillage. Soil Till. Res. 2006, 86, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Paustian, K.; Collins, H.P.; Paul, E.A. Management controls on soil carbon. In Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems; Paul, E.A., Paustian, K., Elliott, E.T., Cole, C.V., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 15–49. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sisti, C.P.J.; Santos, H.P.; Kohhann, R.; Alves, B.J.R.; Urquiaga, S.; Boddey, R.M. Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 76, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jantalia, C.P.; Resck, D.V.S.; Alves, B.J.R.; Zotarelli, L.; Urquiaga, S.; Boddey, R.M. Tillage effect on C stocks of a clayey Oxisol under a soybean-based crop rotation in the Brazilian Cerrado region. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 95, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00818 g001 550
Figure 1. Differences in particle size fractions; EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Figure 1. Differences in particle size fractions; EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Agriculture 13 00818 g001
Agriculture 13 00818 g002 550
Figure 2. Differences in total organic carbon in the soils. EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol; RT: reduced tillage; CT: conventional tillage. The different letters (a and b) represent statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) based on the LSD test.
Figure 2. Differences in total organic carbon in the soils. EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol; RT: reduced tillage; CT: conventional tillage. The different letters (a and b) represent statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) based on the LSD test.
Agriculture 13 00818 g002
Agriculture 13 00818 g003 550
Figure 3. Differences (mg·kg−1) in total organic carbon content of soils in (a) reduced tillage and (b) conventional tillage systems; EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Figure 3. Differences (mg·kg−1) in total organic carbon content of soils in (a) reduced tillage and (b) conventional tillage systems; EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Agriculture 13 00818 g003
Agriculture 13 00818 g004 550
Figure 4. Differences (mg·kg−1) in total organic carbon of soils from a depth of (a) 0.0–0.1 m and (b) 0.0–0.3 m. EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Figure 4. Differences (mg·kg−1) in total organic carbon of soils from a depth of (a) 0.0–0.1 m and (b) 0.0–0.3 m. EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol. Error bars represent maximum and minimum values.
Agriculture 13 00818 g004
Table
Table 1. Soil sampling locations.
Table 1. Soil sampling locations.
Soil TypeLocalityA (m)T (°C)P (mm)
Eutric
Fluvisol		Trebišov
(Milhostov, Kráľovský Chlmec, Streda n.Bodrogom) 		1049.0564
Mollic
Fluvisol		Nové Zámky
(Nové Zámky, Komoča, Šurany)		11010.4566
Haplic ChernozemPiešťany
(Piešťany, Trebatice, Krakovany)		1639.4611
Haplic
Luvisol		Vráble
(Vráble, Nová Ves n./Žitavou, Horný Ohaj)		1449.1605
Eutric
Regosol		Šaľa
(Šaľa, Močenok, Horná Králová)		1309.8568
Eutric
Gleysol		Michalovce
(Hažín, Petrikovce, Lúčky)		1009.1593
Stagnic
Planosol		Sobrance
(Blatné Revištia, Blatná Polianka, Bežovce)		1209.1652
A: Average altitude; T: Average annual temperature; P: Average rainfall per year.
Table
Table 2. Average values of basic pedological characteristics of the soil types.
Table 2. Average values of basic pedological characteristics of the soil types.
Soil TypeTOC (g·kg−1)pH/KClClay (%)Processes in Soil Genesis
EF21.33 ± 2.91 b6.44 ± 0.49 d34.28 ± 3.05 aalluvial accumulation of C
MF32.25 ± 7.21 a6.73 ± 0.95 a32.31 ± 5.94 ahumification
HC18.09 ± 4.46 bc6.59 ± 1.11 bcd25.60 ± 1.60 bhumification
HL16.87 ± 3.18 bcd6.37 ± 0.83 bc22.95 ± 4.48 billimerization
ER10.50 ± 2.48 d6.16 ± 1.06 ab13.59 ± 3.88 coxidation, degradation
EG22.29 ± 4.92 b6.01 ± 0.92 cd32.46 ± 5.34 agleyzation
SP16.77 ± 3.41 bcd5.97 ± 0.98 cd21.55 ± 4.49 bpseudogleyzation, ferrolysis
EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol; TOC: total organic carbon. The different letters (a, b, c, and d) represent statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) based on the LSD test.
Table
Table 3. Differences in the fractions of soil macroaggregates of different soils and tillage.
Table 3. Differences in the fractions of soil macroaggregates of different soils and tillage.
DSA (%)
>7
mm		5–7
mm		3–5
mm		1–3
mm 		0.5–1
mm		0.25–0.5 mm
EFRT39.10 a39.10 a10.63 a13.15 a17.70 b10.13 b
CT29.71 a29.71 a8.02 b12.74 a26.53 a14.35 a
MFRT41.16 a14.62 a15.44 a15.50 b6.34 b2.65 b
CT24.47 b6.74 b11.29 b27.41 a18.58 a6.72 a
HCRT28.34 a12.05 a15.61 a18.46 b10.18 b4.66 a
CT25.69 a10.14 b13.39 b21.84 a14.21 a5.48 a
HLRT22.97 b8.96 a12.44 a18.31 a11.96 a7.28 a
CT39.14 a10.00 a13.70 a19.39 a8.83 b3.18 b
ERRT32.38 a11.28 a13.79 a19.01 b10.16 a4.22 a
CT28.50 a9.17 a13.48 a23.03 a13.14 a4.49 a
EGRT40.22 a9.31 a11.78 a18.18 a11.29 a4.31 a
CT42.91 a10.69 a13.18 a16.77 a8.22 b3.58 a
SPRT31.56 b8.75 b11.86 b17.57 b11.47 a6.30 a
CT38.28 a10.60 a14.04 a19.15 a9.51 b3.85 b
WSA (%)
>5
mm		3–5
mm		2–3
mm		1–2
mm		0.5–1
mm		0.25–0.5 mm
EFRT24.68 a23.05 a20.02 b11.26 b9.46 a4.20 a
CT10.82 b18.58 a28.61 a18.00 a11.64 a4.77 a
MFRT32.57 a18.10 a18.69 b8.82 b9.45 a5.02 a
CT8.88 b17.46 a25.06 a17.72 a15.81 a7.16 a
HCRT5.73 a9.84 a16.51 a12.22 a20.99 b14.33 a
CT1.91 b3.49 b7.33 b9.08 a40.36 a15.30 a
HLRT6.26 a8.22 a18.34 a16.51 a23.48 a13.01 a
CT8.02 a11.78 a21.82 a17.39 a20.04 a9.00 a
ERRT9.19 a10.12 a15.36 a15.81 a22.51 a12.67 a
CT5.81 a9.39 a20.49 a17.58 a20.79 a11.41 a
EGRT24.76 a19.80 a21.49 a12.10 a9.64 a4.48 a
CT23.08 a21.5 8a22.40 a14.96 a9.11 a3.12 a
SPRT15.12 b16.02 b21.30 a17.50 a13.48 a6.68 a
CT28.73 a23.49 a19.21 a12.47 b6.54 b3.40 b
EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol; RT: reduced tillage; CT: conventional tillage; DSA: dry-sieved macroaggregates; WSA: water-resistant macroaggregates. The different letters (a and b, bold) show statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) based on the LSD test.
Table
Table 4. Correlations between the clay and organic carbon contents and the fractions of water-resistant macroaggregates.
Table 4. Correlations between the clay and organic carbon contents and the fractions of water-resistant macroaggregates.
WSA FractionsClayTOCCNL
>5 mm0.323 **0.210 *0.201 *
3–5 mm0.377 **0.310 **0.325 **
2–3 mm0.197 *0.237 *0.252 *
1–2 mm−0.186 *nsns
0.5–1 mm−0.285 **−0.311 **−0.317 **
0.25–0.5 mm−0.364 **−0.245 *−0.250 *
WSA: water-resistant macroaggregates; TOC: total organic carbon; CNL: non-labile carbon. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; ns: nonsignificant.
Table
Table 5. Differences in the parameters of different soils and tillage.
Table 5. Differences in the parameters of different soils and tillage.
TOCCWEOCHWEOCCLCNLLCLICCPICMI
(g·kg−1)
EFRT23.20 a0.61 a1.19 a2.06 a21.15 a0.097 a0.904 a0.956 a86.47 a
CT19.45 b0.56 a1.02 b1.48 b17.97 b0.082 b0.761 b0.803 b61.23 b
MFRT26.96 a0.65 a1.40 a2.45 a27.52 a0.102 a1.002 a0.520 a88.81 a
CT38.01 a0.54 a1.42 a3.49 a3.452 a0.103 a1.751 a0.700 a134.08 a
HCRT21.47 a0.67 a1.27 a2.26 a19.21 a0.117 a1.177 a0.993 a121.76 a
CT14.70 b0.59 b1.18 a1.67 b13.03 b0.129 a1.286 a0.712 a93.79 a
HLRT17.59 a0.59 a1.16 a1.76 a15.83 a0.110 a0.767 a0.376 a29.18 a
CT16.15 a0.52 a1.13 a1.67 a14.48 a0.115 a0.806 a0.346 a27.90 a
ERRT19.93 a0.67 a1.16 a2.08 a17.85 a0.116 a0.842 a0.505 a43.86 a
CT17.07 b0.57 b1.10 a2.10 a14.97 b0.147 a1.048 a0.445 b45.29 a
EGRT23.40 a0.56 a1.04 a2.01 a21.39 a0.095 a0.660 a0.564 a37.31 a
CT21.16 a0.47 a0.94 a2.69 a18.48 a0.145 a1.100 a0.505 a60.61 a
SPRT14.43 b0.42 b0.94 a1.27 b13.16 a0.098 a0.780 a0.578 a44.92 b
CT19.10 a0.52 a0.97 a1.86 a17.25 a0.107 a0.844 a0.770 a64.72 a
EF: Eutric Fluvisol; MF: Mollic Fluvisol; HC: Haplic Chernozem; HL: Haplic Luvisol; ER: Eutric Regosol; EG: Eutric Gleysol; SP: Stagnic Planosol; RT: reduced tillage; CT: conventional tillage; TOC: total organic carbon; CL: labile carbon; CNL: non-labile carbon; LC: lability of carbon; LIC: index of carbon lability; CPI: carbon pool index; CMI: carbon management index; CWEOC: cold water extractable organic carbon; HWEOC: hot water extractable organic carbon. The different letters (a and b, bold) show statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) based on the LSD test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tobiašová, E.; Lemanowicz, J.; Dębska, B.; Kunkelová, M.; Sakáč, J. The Effect of Reduced and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Aggregates and Organic Carbon Parameters of Different Soil Types. Agriculture 2023, 13, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040818

AMA Style

Tobiašová E, Lemanowicz J, Dębska B, Kunkelová M, Sakáč J. The Effect of Reduced and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Aggregates and Organic Carbon Parameters of Different Soil Types. Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tobiašová, Erika, Joanna Lemanowicz, Bożena Dębska, Martina Kunkelová, and Juraj Sakáč. 2023. "The Effect of Reduced and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Aggregates and Organic Carbon Parameters of Different Soil Types" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040818

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop