SHORT-TERM VARIATIONS OF SOIL PHYSICAL-PROPERTIES AS A FUNCTION OF THE AMOUNTS AND C N RATIO OF DECOMPOSING COTTON RESIDUES .2. SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY, WATER-RETENTION AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY/
E. Rawitz et al., SHORT-TERM VARIATIONS OF SOIL PHYSICAL-PROPERTIES AS A FUNCTION OF THE AMOUNTS AND C N RATIO OF DECOMPOSING COTTON RESIDUES .2. SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY, WATER-RETENTION AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY/, Soil & tillage research, 32(2-3), 1994, pp. 199-212
There are conflicting reports on the role of soil microfauna and flora
on the decomposition of incorporated crop residues and its effects on
soil structure. This study examined the temporal changes in soil bulk
density, compressibility and hydraulic properties as affected by the
amounts of added cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) residues and carbon/ n
itrogen (C/N) ratios. The work was carried out at constant temperature
(25 degrees C) and soil water content (0.18 +/- 0.01 g g(-1)). All th
e measured properties showed the same trend indicating a transient ''f
lush'' of activity between the first and sixth week ofincubation, with
a sharp maximum (or minimum) in the third week. After 6 weeks these p
roperties again changed direction, and tended towards their initial va
lue. The maxima (minima) are indicative of pore clogging or slime accu
mulation lowering the hydraulic conductivity and increasing water rete
ntion in the 20-75 cm suction range, increasing compressibility and lo
wering tensile strength. These results are consistent with the model o
f Hadas et al. (1994, Soil Tillage Res., 32:183-198). Most of the effe
ct dissipated by Week 6 and was followed by some recovery, which may b
e due to the activity of a microbial population that either acts more
slowly than that responsible for the initial flush, or may have had it
s initiation inhibited by the first population. Differences between tr
eatments were very minor compared to the above temporal changes found
in all the treatments. The sharp changes in properties within a short
period after the start of incubation may explain why they were not det
ected in the field by Rawitz et al. (1989, Final Rep. on BARD project
812, Hebrew Uni. Jerusalem; 1994, Soil Tillage Res., 32:347-366).