Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0C6
b Directors Office, University of Guelph-Kemptville College, Kemptville, Ont., Canada K0G 1J0
Abstract
The least limiting water range (LLWR) attempts to incorporate crop-limiting values of soil strength, aeration, and water
supply to plant roots into one effective parameter (on the basis of soil water content). The LLWR can be a useful indicator of
soil quality and soil physical constraints on crop production. This study focused on assessing dynamic cultivation zone LLWR
parameters between different cropping/tillage/trafficked clay loam plots at Winchester, Ont., to identify potential management
impact on surficial soil physical conditions for contrasting growing seasons. This study also evaluated dynamic cultivation
layer LLWR variables as indicators of corn (Zea mays L.) plant establishment and corn yield. The results suggest that no-till
soils had lower average air-filled porosities (AFP) and O2 concentrations than respectively managed tilled plots for both years
of study. Potential trafficking effects on aeration properties were most evident in no-till relative to till; preferentially trafficked
no-tilled plots had lower AFP and O2 concentrations than respective non-preferentially trafficked no-till plots for both years
of study. Corn establishment and yield variability were principally explained by cumulative differences between daily AFP
and aeration threshold values, and the cumulative number of days daily AFP was below an AFP aeration threshold for specific
corn growth stage periods. Lower AFP was linked to lower yields and plant establishments. Soil strength, as measured
by cone penetration resistance, was important over certain sites, but not as important globally as AFP in predicting crop
properties. Overall, conventional tilled soils that were not preferentially trafficked had most favorable aeration properties, and
subsequently, greatest corn populations and yields. No-till soils were at greater risk of aeration limiting conditions, especially
those in continuous corn and preferentially trafficked.
Crown Copyright 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Least limiting water range; Aeration; Cone resistance; Tillage; Trafficking; Corn; Clay loam; CART
1. Introduction
Optimal crop rooting soil physical conditions are a
result of complex interactions between soil strength
(mechanical impedance) and oxygen and water supply
to plant roots. The least limiting water range (LLWR)
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-613-759-1537;
fax: +1-613-759-1515.
E-mail address: lapend@agr.gc.ca (D.R. Lapen).
0167-1987/$ see front matter Crown Copyright 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.02.004
152
Porosity
-3
Water content (m m )
0.5
0.4
Aeration Limit
0.3
0.2
0.1
LLWR
2 MPa Cone Pen. Res. Limit
Wilting Point
0.0
620
B
N
T
C
C
B
N
T
C
0
1
B
N
T
C
0
0
0
1
0
0
W
N
T
C
B
B T B
T C T
C C C
W
N
T
C
C
W
N
T
C
0 0
0 1
W
WW T
T T C
C C C
72.9
520
72.7
420
72.5
72.3 m
153
320
-50
50
Tillage
Trafficking
Cropa,b
BNTCC
BNTC
BTCC
BTC
WNTCC
WNTC
WTCC
WTC
No-till
No-till
MB plow
MB plow
No-till
No-till
MB plow
MB plow
Best
Best
Best
Best
Worst
Worst
Worst
Worst
Cont. corn
1 year corn
Cont. corn
1 year corn
Cont. corn
1 year corn
Cont. corn
1 year corn
Cone penetration resistance was used as the cultivation zone (average: 0.060.12 m depth increment) soil
strength indicator in our LLWR analyses. The measurement methods were made using the TerraPoint
combination penetration resistance/water content instrument (Young et al., 2000; Topp et al., 2001) at
soil measurement sites (Fig. 2) located down the
un-trafficked (for secondary tillage, planting, fertilizer, and herbicide activities) center of each plot
(between-row) at various stages of plant development
from planting to post-harvest. The water content
sensor on the TerraPoint uses a time domain transmissivity (TDT) approach, which is similar to TDR
except that the signal for TDT is measured as it is
transmitted, rather than reflected.
In situ soil WC and O2 concentrations were measured at one measurement site per plot (Topp et al.,
2000) from 1997 to 2001. For each plot O2 concentrations were measured in duplicate at depths of 0.05,
0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 m using double-membrane oxygen cathodes and a model P5 oxygen sensor (Jensen
Instruments, Tacoma, WA). The O2 sensor voltage
was recorded on a 21X datalogger (Campbell Scientific Canada Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.) as hourly averages of six measurements. The O2 sensors, installed
each year just after emergence, were placed directly
beneath two adjacent corn rows at selected locations
within each plot (Fig. 2). At the same four depths, soil
154
155
156
Table 2
Descriptions of variables used in statistical analyses
Variable description (AFPthr = threshold AFP value in LLWR for treatment)
AFP variables
V6AFPa,b
V6AFPDAYa,b
R1AFPb
R1AFPDAYb
R6AFPb
R6AFPDAYb
R1-V6AFPb
R1-V6AFPDAYb
R6-R1AFPb
R6-R1AFPDAYb
PR variables
V6PRa,b
V6PRDAYa,b
R1PRb
R1PRDAYb
R6PRb
R6PRDAYb
R1-V6PRb
R1-V6PRDAYb
R6-R1PRb
R6-R1PRDAYb
Crop variables
ROTa,b
YIELDc
COUNTc
First year corn (coded 1) and fifth (2000) and sixth (2001) year corn (coded 0)
Final corn yield (10 m footprint) (t ha1 )
Plant establishment (two-row average) (no. of plants m1 row)
60
60
157
Precip.
Max. temp.
Min. temp.
50
40
Planting
Killing frost
30
20
10
0
Planting
50
Maturity
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
DAP 65 and DAP 135 for 2001. The corn heat units
(CHU) at V6, R1, and R6 stages of corn development
for 2000 and 2001 are given in Table 3.
3.2. Corn establishment and yield
In 2000, planting was delayed to day of year
(DOY) 152 as a result of wet soil conditions just prior
to planting (Fig. 3). Plant establishment (COUNT)
reflected relative corn yield (YIELD) differences between treatments (Fig. 5). The correlation between
COUNT and YIELD for 2000 was 0.69 (significance
0.05 level). Moreover, plant establishment, hence
yield, was generally greater for tilled treatments than
no-tilled treatments. Yields were also consistently
Table 3
Corn heat units (CHUa ) at various stages of corn development for 2000 and 2001
Growth stage
DAP 2000
DAP 2001
CHU 2000
CHU 2001
V6 (sixth leaf)
R1 (silking)
R6 (maturity)
39
77
118b
51
79
125
773
1672
2391b
941
1597
2633
a
b
CHU = (1.8(daily min. temp 4.4) + 3.3(daily max temp 10) 0.084(daily max temp 10)2 )/2.
Corn did not really mature naturally due to killing frost on DAP (days after planting) 118.
158
150
2000
2001
normal
100
50
40
20
15
2000
2001
normal
10
5
0
30
2000
2001
normal
20
10
0
May
June
July
Aug
Fig. 4. Comparisons of site-observed precipitation and temperature data with Environment Canada normals (19712000) for Kemptville
(latitude 45 00 , longitude 75 38 ) weather station.
-1
Corn yield (t ha ) and
-1
Established plants (count m row length)
10
Yield (2000)
Yield (2001)
Establish. (2000)
Establish. (2001)
0
BNTCC BNTC
BTC
BTCC
WNTCC WNTC
WTC
WTCC
Fig. 5. Average and standard deviation of corn grain yields and corn plant establishment (measured approximately 1 month after planting)
at in situ soil O2 measurement plus additional soil sampling sites.
O2
AFP
No-till
BNTCC
BNTC
WNTC
WNTCC
0.018
0.016
0.018
0.019
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
Till
BTCC
BTC
WTC
WTCC
0.017
0.019
0.016
0.019
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
159
of study. For 2001 tilled plots, there was some discrimination among treatments. The BTC (2001) represented the highest average AFP and O2 concentrations
observed during both years of study for till and no-till
plots. Basically the slopes and linearity of the O2 concentration/AFP data emphasize soil physical factors
as important aeration constraints near the surface.
Multivariate adaptive regression spline analyses suggested that soil consolidation occurred after
spring planting for tilled plots. No-till bulk densities
were constant statistically over the growing season.
Piece-wise regression fits for tilled plot bulk densities
(00.15 m depth) showed gradual increases from DAP
1 to approximately DAP 42 at rates of 0.985 103
and 0.230 102 Mg m3 per day for best and
worst managed plots, respectively (Lapen et al., in
press). After DAP 42, bulk densities remained constant statistically at associated DAP 42 values until
fall cultivation. The R2 and standard error of regression values for the best and worst tilled plot
piece-wise regression models were 0.41 (0.05) and
0.34 (0.06), respectively. Site-specific post-DAP 42
bulk density averages were used as values to back estimate daily bulk densities between DAP 1 and 42 using approaches described above. These estimated bulk
densities were used to calculate daily AFPs. All bulk
density samples were collected with a precision of
approximately 0.05 Mg m3 . Generally, bulk densities collected at this site have a coefficient of variation
around 5% (Lapen et al., 2002b). The models used
to predict daily PR (MPa) had R2 values greater than
0.65 and standard errors of regression less than 0.83.
See Lapen et al. (in press) for details of analysis.
Table 5
Rounded average and standard deviations (parenthesis) of observed O2 concentrations (kg O2 m3 soil at 0.1 m depth) and associated AFP
(m3 m3 ) for 2000 and 2001 (see Fig. 6)
Plot
O2 (2000)
AFP (2000)
O2 (2001)
AFP (2001)
No-till
BNTCC
BNTC
WNTC
WNTCC
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.09
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.03)
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.03
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
0.14
0.21
0.15
0.11
(0.06)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.06)
Till
BTCC
BTC
WTC
WTCC
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.17
0.14
0.17
0.13
(0.03)
(0.04)
(0.06)
(0.02)
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.07
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.16
0.33
0.17
0.27
(0.05)
(0.07)
(0.06)
(0.08)
160
Fig. 6. Measured air-filled porosity vs. O2 concentrations at in situ soil O2 concentration measurement sites for each plot at 0.1 m depth
during 2000 and 2001.
Table 6
Average and standard deviations (parenthesis) (for both years) of
regression parameters derived from predicting site-specific soil
water contents from the Tsuji et al. (1994) soil water estimates
Plot
R2
No-till
BNTCC
BNTC
WNTC
WNTCC
0.72
0.89
0.73
0.77
(0.12)
(0.07)
(0.17)
(0.13)
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Till
BTCC
BTC
WTC
WTCC
0.79
0.67
0.81
0.78
(0.16)
(0.27)
(0.15)
(0.20)
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
Standard error
161
TN1
Avg.=2.2 (1.2)
N=9
TN4
Avg.=5.0 (0.3)
N=10
TN3
Avg.=4.9 (0.5)
N=34
TN5
Avg.=5.4 (0.5)
N=40
TN2
Avg.=3.4 (1.3)
N=35
Fig. 7. Regression tree predicting COUNT (nodal average (standard deviation) and N = number of observations) from LLWR, cropping,
and soil temperature information. Observations that meet node splitting definitions (bold) occur in subsequent left-hand observation group
(node); rest of observations go to subsequent right-hand node. N1, N2, N3, etc. refer to node numbers. TN1, TN2, TN3, etc. refer to
terminal nodes (no further splitting of observations occurs). Terminal node numbers are based on ranking the COUNT averages for all
terminal nodes so that the lowest average is for TN1 and highest average is for TN5. Surrogate variable split definitions for nodes are in
italics, and surrogate split improvement scores are presented as a percentage of the primary split improvement score for that node.
O2 concentrations for more than 24 h. Node 4 (N4) observations split on the basis of V6AFP = 4.8 m3 m3
day, and TN3 and TN5 had COUNT averages of 4.9
(0.5) and 5.4 (0.5) plants m1 row, respectively. On a
global basis, sites with V6AFP > 4.8 m3 m3 day had
the highest average COUNT for both years of study.
The N2 split criteria, V6TEMP = 677 C day, effectively subdivided N2 observations into cooler (2000)
(N3) and warmer (2001) (TN4) soil temperature data
sets. Reduced soil temperatures during emergence
periods can increase time required for seedling emergence (Hayhoe et al., 1993), which can potentially
decrease establishment via longer seed exposure time
to soil pathogens. Node 3 data split on the basis of
V6AFP = 1.1 m3 m3 day where sites with V6AFP
values below or equal to this split value had the lowest average COUNT in the tree model. Sites in TN2
had a marginally better average COUNT than TN1.
For each V6AFP split in the tree model, COUNT
averages were exclusively lower for sites with V6AFP
values lower than the associated split value, relative
to those for sites with V6AFP values above the split
162
value. Stand establishments can be reduced under conditions of cool soil temperatures and high soil water contents (Herner, 1986). These results suggest that
V6AFP and to a lesser extent V6AFPDAY (dominant surrogate split variable in tree model) are potentially important indicators of establishment risk for
clay loam soils in eastern Ontario. Evidently, PR and
ROT were not as important statistically as AFP on
plant establishment in the tree model.
Table 7 summarizes how COUNT observations for
each treatment were delineated on the basis of regression tree terminal nodes. Observations in TN1 and
TN2 are exclusively 2000 data. Approximately, 78%
of TN1 observations occur in WNTCC. About 63%
of all TN2 observations were in no-till, and approximately 31% of TN2 observations were in WTC and
WTCC. For TN3, about 59% of the data were from
2001 and every treatment had observations represented
within it. Modal TN3 observations for 2001 originated
exclusively from no-till data sets indicating greater potential for poorer plant establishment, relative to tilled
plots, during the more optimal planting and plant establishment conditions in 2001. TN4 contained 2001
data exclusively, but no clear treatment associations
were evident. Approximately 75 and 50% of all (both
years) respective BTC and BTCC observations were
in TN5. Interestingly, 100% of WTCC 2001 data
Table 7
Number of COUNT observations (large font numbers) that occur in each terminal node (TN) in Fig. 7 for each corn management treatment
for both years of observation
Bolded and underscored large font numbers = modal nodal group for each respective treatment/year.
Double horizontal line = delineation of terminal nodes with below site average (above line) and above site average (below line) COUNT
values.
Smaller font values = average and standard deviations () of total residual spring soil N for respective sites (kg ha1 ).
163
Table 8
Rounded average and standard deviations (parenthesis) of relative compaction for plots for 2000 and 2001
Plot
Planting (2000)
Planting (2001)
R6 (2000)
R6 (2001)
No-till
BNTCC
BNTC
WNTC
WNTCC
0.91
0.85
0.92
0.95
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.84
0.91
0.88
0.94
(0.05)
(0.02)
(0.05)
(0.02)
0.91
0.85
0.92
0.95
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.84
0.91
0.88
0.94
(0.05)
(0.02)
(0.05)
(0.02)
Till
BTCC
BTC
WTC
WTCC
0.82
0.80
0.84
0.86
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.82
0.83
0.85
0.84
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.04)
(0.02)
0.85
0.82
0.90
0.91
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.83
0.85
0.90
0.88
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.04)
(0.02)
Values are averages of observed bulk densities divided by an estimated maximum bulk density (approximately 1.56 Mg m3 ). Bold values
= highest ratios for given year, growth stage, and tillage treatment. N = 24 observations per value. Note: no-till bulk densities were
exclusively R6 values as they were statistically indifferent from those at planting.
0.4
BNTCC
AFP 2000
AFP 2001
PR 2001
R1 (00)
AFP (m
-3
PR 2000
0.3
V6 (00)
0.2
PR limit
Aeration
limit
0.1
0.0
0.4
BNTC
R1 (01)
V6 (01)
BTCC
0
BTC
PR (MPa)
164
3
AFP (m
0.2
3
2
0.1
PR (MPa)
-3
6
0.3
1
0.0
0.4
0
WNTCC
WNTC
3
AFP (m
0.2
3
2
0.1
PR (MPa)
-3
6
0.3
1
0.0
0.4
0
WTC
WTCC
5
4
0.2
3
2
0.1
1
0
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
Fig. 8. Estimated daily AFP and PR trends at in situ O2 measurement sites for 2000 and 2001.
PR (MPa)
AFP (m 3 m -3 )
6
0.3
165
N1: R6-R1AFPDAY 11
Avg.=5.6 (1.8)
N=125
R6AFPDAY<=45 (78%)
N7: R1AFP -2.0
Avg.=3.0 (1.5)
N=22
V6AFP -2.2 (66%)
N2: ROT=0
Avg.=6.2 (1.4)
N=103
R6PRDAY>72 (26%)
N3: V6PR -41.5
Avg.=5.2 (0.9)
N=41
V6PRDAY 6 (70%)
TN6
Avg.=5.6 (0.7)
N=28
TN4
Avg.=4.3 (0.8)
N=13
N4: R6-R1AFP4.5
Avg.=6.8 (1.2)
N=62
R6AFP 9.4 (68%)
N5: V6PR -44.5
Avg.=5.5 (0.9)
N=22
V6AFP 1.2 (54%)
TN7
Avg.=5.8 (0.8)
N=15
TN5
Avg.=4.8 (0.3)
N=7
TN1
Avg.=0.3 (0.5)
N=4
TN8
Avg.=7.3 (0.6)
N=32
N8: R6-R1AFPDAY15.5
Avg.=3.6 (0.8)
N=18
V6PR>-60.5 (35%)
TN3
Avg.=4.2 (0.5)
N=9
TN2
Avg.=2.9 (0.5)
N=9
TN9
Avg.=8.2 (0.7)
N=8
Fig. 9. Regression tree predicting YIELD (nodal average (standard deviation) and N = number of observations) from LLWR, cropping,
and soil temperature information. Observations that meet node splitting definitions (bold) occur in subsequent left-hand observation group
(node); rest of observations go to subsequent right-hand node. N1, N2, N3, etc. refer to node numbers. TN1, TN2, TN3, etc. refer to
terminal nodes (no further splitting of observations occurs). Terminal node numbers are based on ranking the YIELD averages for all
terminal nodes so that the lowest average is for TN1 and highest average is for TN9. Surrogate variable split definitions for nodes are in
italics and surrogate split improvement scores are presented as a percentage of the primary split improvement score for that node.
166
was 5 (9) and 27 (13) days, respectively, and the correlation between V6AFPDAY and R6-R1AFPDAY
was 0.67 (significance 0.05 level)). The top five variables (out of 24 independent variables) in the tree
model, in order of standardized importance were:
R6AFP (100%), R6-R1AFPDAY (95%), R6-R1AFP
(93%), V6AFP (79%), and R6AFPDAY (73%). In
several cases, indicators including R1-to-R6 conditions effectively delineated 2000 (wetter and lower
yielding) and 2001 (drier and higher yielding) data.
Table 9 indicates that TN1 observations were
exclusively in WNTCC (2000), while 78% of TN2
observations were in BNTCC (2000). Terminal node
3 observations were dominated by WTCC (2000),
suggesting that surface compaction/sealing and continuous corn can potentially restrict aeration of conventional tilled soils. The TN4 group represented the
lowest average yields for 2001, which were primarily
in BNTCC (31% of observations) and WNTCC (54%
Table 9
Number of YIELD observations that occur in each terminal node (TN) in Fig. 9 for each corn management treatment for both years of
observation
Bolded and underscored large font numbers = modal nodal group for each respective treatment/year.
Double horizontal line = delineation of terminal nodes with below site average (above line) and above site average (below line) YIELD
values.
Smaller font values = average and standard deviations () of total residual spring soil N for respective sites (kg ha1 ).
Note: 2 missing data for BNTCC for 2001.
167
are supported by estimated AFP and PR growing season trends at the in situ O2 measurement sites (Fig. 8),
where it was found that the predicted BTC daily AFPs
for 2000 and 2001 never dropped below the aeration
AFP value, implying that the BTC site, relative to the
other plot sites, had most favorable aeration conditions. Of all plots, potential aeration constraints were
most strongly expressed at WNTCC.
Fig. 10 illustrates differences in planting-to-R6
stage LLWR AFP indicators for the plots. No-till plots
for respective traffic treatments exhibited greater potential for low AFP relative to respective conventional
tillage and cropping system counterparts. Moreover,
75% of the continuous corn versus corn in rotation
comparisons for respective treatments for both years
showed that continuous corn plots had larger percentages of days where daily AFP was less than threshold
values, and also generally smaller cumulative differences between daily AFP and AFP thresholds.
Nevertheless, these findings must be interpreted in
context of water uptake (or lack of it) by affected
crops impacting AFP over the growing season, identified context dependent soil physical limitations over
that period, and AFP controls on establishment.
3.6. Overview of the LLWR approach
The corn growth stage LLWR indicator approach,
employing dynamic changes in bulk density and
soil strength over the growing season (Lapen et al.,
110
100
R6AFP (2000)
R6AFPDAY (2000)
R6AFP (2001)
R6AFPDAY (2001)
90
-3
70
60
R6AFP (m m ) and
R6AFPDAY (days)
80
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
BNTCC BNTC
BTC
BTCC
WTCC
Fig. 10. Average and standard deviation of planting-to-R6 LLWR AFP indicators for each plot for 2000 and 2001.
168
4. Conclusions
The data mining analyses indicated that the most
important LLWR indicators of yield were those that
expressed, at a minimum, AFP conditions for time periods between R1 and R6 stage. However, the importance of these yield indicators was manifested via an
unknown combination of plant water uptake relationships (higher yielding crops have greater uptake), and
the various establishment and post-establishment soil
physical limitations to corn growth. Specific identification of cause and effect relationships requires additional analyses. This work does, however, suggest that
the LLWR has great potential as an indicator of soil
quality and crop production.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided in part by
Ontario Corn Producers Association. We wish to
thank Mark Edwards, Bryan Dow, Mark Sunohara,
Patrick St. George, Ulrica Stoklas, Karine Turpin,
and Robyn Auld for field, technical, and laboratory
support.
References
Bengough, A.G., Mullins, C.E., 1990. Mechanical impedance to
root growth: a review of experimental techniques and root
growth responses. J. Soil Sci. 41, 341358.
Betz, C.L., Allmaras, R.R., Copeland, S.M., Randall, G.W.,
1998. Least limiting water range: traffic and long-term tillage
influences in a Webster soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 1384
1393.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C., 1984.
Classification and Regression Trees. Pacific Grove, Wadsworth.
Carter, M.R., 1988. Temporal variability of soil macroporosity
in a fine sandy loam under mouldboard ploughing and direct
drilling. Soil Till. Res. 12, 3751.
Carter, M.R., 1994. Conservation Tillage in Temperate
Agroecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Culley, J.L.B., Larson, W.E., Randall, G.W., 1987. Physical
properties of a Typic Haplaquoll under conventional and
no-tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 15871593.
da Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., 1996. The sensitivity of shoot growth
of corn to the least limiting water range of soils. Plant Soil
184, 323329.
da Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., 1997a. Estimating least limiting water
range of soils from properties and management. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 61, 877883.
da Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., 1997b. Effect of soil water content
variation on the least limiting water range. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 61, 884888.
Diaz-Zorita, M., Grove, J.H., Perfect, E., 2001. Laboratory
compaction of soils using a small mold procedure. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 65, 15931598.
Dwyer, L.M., Stewart, D.W., Balchin, D., 1988. Rooting
characteristics of corn, soybeans, and barley as a function of
available water and soil physical characteristics. Can. J. Soil
Sci. 68, 121132.
Friedman, J.H., 1991. Multivariate adaptive regression splines.
Ann. Stat. 19, 1141.
Glinski, J., Stepniewski, W., 1985. Soil Aeration and its Role for
Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Greacen, E.L., 1986. Root response to soil mechanical properties.
In: Transactions of the 13th Congress of International Society
for Soil Science, Hamburg, Germany, vol. 5, pp. 2047.
Gregorich, E.G., Reynolds, W.D., Culley, J.L.B., McGovern, M.A.,
Curnoe, W.E., 1993. Changes in soil physical properties with
depth in a conventionally tilled soil after no-tillage. Soil Till.
Res. 26, 289299.
Hayhoe, H.N., Dwyer, L.M., Balchin, D., Culley, J.L.B., 1993.
Tillage effects on corn emergence rates. Soil Till. Res. 26, 45
53.
Herner, R.C., 1986. Germination under cold soil conditions.
HortScience 21, 11181122.
Horn, R., Baumgartl, T., 2000. Dynamic properties of soils. In:
Sumner, M.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Lapen, D.R., Topp, G.C., Edwards, M.E., Gregorich, E.G., Curnoe,
W.E., in press. Combination cone penetration resistance/water
content instrumentation to evaluate cone penetration-water
content relationships in tillage research. Soil Till. Res.
169
170