Soil & Water Management & Conservation

Soil and Crop Response to Varying Levels of Compaction, Nitrogen Fertilization, and Clay Content
E. G. Gregorich* D. R. Lapen B. L. Ma N. B. McLaughlin A. J. VandenBygaart
Compaction a ects nearly all soil properties and functions, thereby a ecting the growth, distribution, and function of roots, and crop productivity. Our objectives in this research were to evaluate the e ects of compaction, N fertilization, and soil texture on corn (Zea mays L.) growth and yield and to determine whether additional N fertilization could compensate for lower yields caused by compaction. Soil was di erentially compacted for 3 yr to create two compaction treatments in Year 1 and four in Years 2 and 3; N fertilizer was applied at two rates in Year 1 and four di erent rates to each compaction treatment in Years 2 and 3; yield was measured in each of the 3 yr, and soil and crop growth properties were measured a er 2 and 3 yr. Variation in soil texture across the experimental plots allowed us to partly assess the e ects of clay content on the soil and crop response to compaction. Compaction substantially reduced plant growth and productivity; yields were reduced by up to 2.7 Mg ha1 (33%) and dry matter by 4.1 Mg ha1 (26%) in compacted soils. Avoiding compaction for a year appeared to allow crop growth and yields to recover. For example, grain yield a er two consecutive years of compaction (5.21 Mg ha1) was signi cantly lower than a er 1 yr of compaction followed by no compaction (7.59 Mg ha1). Compaction increased soil strength near the bottom of the plow layer, where a carryover e ect of compaction was apparent. Compaction-induced yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay and were attributed to adverse soil physical conditions rather than limited N fertility.
Abbreviations: HI, harvest index; PR, penetration resistance.

Agriculture & Agri-food Canada Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre Central Experimental Farm 960 Carling Ave Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0C6

ompaction is a serious soil structural problem on many ne-textured soils in eastern Canada because eld operations for full-season crops are conducted in spring and late fall when the soil is o en wet and more susceptible to compaction damage (Topp et al., 1995; Lapen et al., 2004a). is problem is exacerbated by the increasing size and weight of eld machinery. Compaction of soil a ects nearly all soil properties and functions, which in turn a ect the growth and productivity of plants. Compacted soils are characterized by high strength, high bulk density, and low hydraulic conductivity and airlled porosity (Voorhees et al., 1978; Lowery and Schuler, 1991; Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2008). Soil with high strength impedes the growth (Montagu et al., 2001; Bengough et al., 2006), distribution (Kaspar et al., 1991), and function (Tardieu, 1994) of roots. With these restrictions, root systems develop super cially and, as a consequence, the roots explore a smaller volume of soil and hence intercept a limited amount of water and nutrients (Oussible et al., 1992). Lower matric hydraulic conductivity and porosity can restrict soil gas di usion and water availability. Reduced O2 content in compacted surface soils, resulting in part from reduced porosity and soil structure degradation (Topp et al., 2000; Lapen et al., 2004b), can in turn a ect the transport, absorption, and transformation (e.g., mineralization) of nutrients (Lipiec and Stpniewski, 1995). Producers continue to be concerned that compaction resulting from heavy farm equipment reduces corn grain yields. e impact of compaction on soil properties and crop production varies depending on the weather, soils, and management
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75:1483-1492 Posted online 2 June 2011 doi:10.2136/sssaj2010.0395 Received 14 Oct. 2010. *Corresponding author (Ed.Gregorich@agr.gc.ca). Soil Science Society of America, 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison WI 53711 USA All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.

SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

1483

practices (Sweeney et al., 2006; Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2008). e dominant cause of lower yields in areas a ected by compaction may not be understood, however, and producers may attempt to compensate for lower yields by adding extra fertilizer; this may enhance yields (Garcia et al., 1988; Braim et al., 1992), but higher rates of N fertilizer also increase the risk of nutrient loss to the environment, e.g., loss of N to groundwater and to the atmosphere (Ball et al., 1999). McLaughlin et al. (2003) found that doubling the N fertilizer rate from 150 to 300 kg ha1 on compacted clay loam soils only increased corn yields by 0.2 Mg ha1 compared with those on noncompacted soils, where yields were increased by 0.8 Mg ha1. Data on the relationships among the degree of compaction, soil physical and chemical properties, N fertilizer rates, and annual row crop performance are limited. is information could be useful for re ning economically optimal N fertilization rates or variable fertilizer rate application methods (Koch et al., 2004) because soil physical constraints to crop growth may override the in uence of adequate nutrients on net crop productivity. Fieldscale assessment of the impact of soil physical constraints on corn production in eastern Canada showed that eld areas with relatively low corn plant establishment (1 mo a er planting) were most strongly related to areas of high soil strength and high soil water contents (Turpin et al., 2005; Lapen et al., 2004b). In this eld study, we wanted to take a broad and holistic approach to evaluate the integrated e ects of compaction, soil N fertility, and texture on crop yield and growth. us the objectives of

this experiment were to: (i) quantify the e ects of compaction, N fertilization, and clay content on selected soil properties and corn growth and yield; and (ii) determine whether additional N fertilization can compensate for lower yields caused by soil compaction. To do this, we measured some indictors of compaction (penetration resistance and bulk density, which was expressed as relative compaction), and N fertility (soil mineral N), and examined how they changed with texture; we also examined how all of these factors a ected crop yield and growth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Description and Experimental Design

e experiment was conducted at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, ON (4522 N, 7542 W). e soil in the experimental eld trial was Brandon clay loam (an Ortho Humic Gleysol, Soil Classi cation Working Group, 1998; Typic Hapludoll, Soil Survey Sta , 1999). A pedological survey of the experimental site showed that the soil texture varied laterally across the experimental site but that it was uniform down to at least 30 cm at di erent locations across the site. e eld had been under corn for 2 yr before the start of the experiment in 2002. e experimental design in 2002 had two levels of compaction (compacted, C, and not compacted, N), two levels of N fertilizer (150 and 300 kg N ha1), and two replicates. In 2003, the plots were subdivided and compaction treatments were applied in parallel strips 6 m wide in the northsouth direction, with each strip traversing four plots in a replicate (Fig. 1). e compaction plots are identi ed here as NN, NC, CN, and CC, where N and C represent noncompacted and compacted, respectively, and the rst and second letters represent the 2002 and 2003 compaction treatments, respectively. In 2004, the compaction treatment was applied only to those plots that had been compacted in both 2002 and 2003; the other plots were allowed to recover. is created compaction treatments of NNN, NCN, CNN, and CCC for the 2004 crop year, where the rst, second, and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. e compaction treatments and abbreviations are summarized in Table 1. Soil compaction was performed by adjacent wheel-beside-wheel passes with an agricultural tractor with single 18.4R38 (467-mm width, 1800-mm o.d.) rear tires and 16.9R26 (430-mm width, 1170-mm o.d.) Table 1. Description and abbreviations for compaction treatments applied in 2002, 2003, and 2004 for each of the three crop years (C, compacted; N, not compacted).
Compaction treatment applied Crop year Compaction treatment abbreviation 2002 2003 2004 2002 N N 2003 C NN NC CN CC NNN NCN CNN CCC C N N C C N N C C N C N C N C N C N N N C

2004 Fig. 1. The experimental design of the eld trial with four replicates, four levels of compaction, and four levels of N fertilizer. 1484

SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

front tires. Large tanks lled with water were mounted on both the front and rear of the tractor to increase the total tractor mass to approximately 14 Mg, which would be typical of a loaded medium-size liquid manure spreader. Compaction treatments were applied in early spring of 2002, 2003, and 2004 immediately following an early spring rain event each year and before any other eld activity. e soil water content at the time of compaction was between eld capacity and saturation and was visibly wet on the surface; clear tracks were made, but the soil was still tra cable because excessive rutting and wheel slipping did not occur. e intent of the compaction treatment was to simulate the worst-case scenario associated with conducting eld operations in eastern Ontario under wet, but not untra cable, soil conditions (Lapen et al., 2004a,b). e general N fertilizer application recommendation for corn production on this soil in eastern Ontario is ?150 kg N ha1 (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural A airs, 2006). In 2003 and 2004, four levels of N (0, 75, 150, and 300 kg N ha1) representing a range centered on the recommended rate were applied in eastwest strips perpendicular to the compaction strips and traversing four plots in a replicate. e fertilizer was broadcast immediately before spring cultivation. e resulting experimental design in 2003 and 2004 was a randomized complete block strip-plot experimental design with four replicates, four levels of compaction, and four levels of N fertilizer; the compaction and N fertilizer treatments were applied in perpendicular strips. Strip treatments in this manner were a practical necessity in this study as a result of constraints imposed by the equipment for imposing compaction via eld tra c and fertilizer rate treatments. ere was a total of 64 plots in 2003 and 2004 (4 replicates 4 compaction 4 fertilizer rates), each 6 by 9 m (Fig. 1). A er the soil was compacted, it was allowed to stand for 1 to 2 wk to dry out, and normal spring tillage and planting operations commenced. ese operations consisted of one pass each of a disk-ripper, a disk-harrow, and a eld cultivator (Kongskilde Triple K, S-time, Kongskilde Ltd., Strathroy, ON), which partially buried the corn residue. e typical depth for the eld cultivator was about 10 cm and eld cultivation was followed by corn planting using a John Deere 7200 (6 row by 0.76 m) planter (Deere & Co., Moline, IL). Planting density was ?72,000 plants ha1 using the Pioneer 38W36 cultivar. In 2003, the corn was planted on 30 May (Day of the Year [DOY] 150) and harvested on 30 October (DOY 303); in 2004 it was planted on 20 May 20 (DOY 141) and harvested on 28 October (DOY 302).

aboveground plant parts. e aboveground plant matter (stover) and grain were both dried at 70C and then weighed for dry matter determination. Harvest index, as the ratio of grain yield to total plant mass, was calculated by dividing the grain weight by the total plant mass (stover plus grain). Similar to yield data, total stover dry matter was calculated and expressed on a zero water basis. A subsample for each stover and grain sample from each plot was ground to pass a 1-mm screen and analyzed for total N concentrations on a Carlo Erba 1500 CN analyzer (Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy). Plant N uptake was calculated as the product of the stover dry matter and its N concentration plus the grain N accumulation (i.e., product of grain N concentration and grain dry weight) on a kilogram per hectare basis. Nitrogen harvest index (NHI; Sinclair, 1998) was calculated as the ratio of N in the grain to the total amount of N in the plant, i.e., grain N accumulation divided by the product of stover dry matter and its N concentration plus the grain N accumulation.

Soil Measurements
Soil texture analysis was conducted for the surface soil (015 cm) collected from every plot using the pipette method a er the removal of organic matter (Sheldrick and Wang, 1993). Penetration resistance (PR) measurements were conducted in 2003 a er harvest. e soil pro le was uniformly wet at the time PR measurements were made because of rainfall late in the growing season a er plant senescence and harvest. e volumetric water content down to the depth of the PR measurements was between 0.29 and 0.34 m3 m3 and no signi cant di erences were observed among compaction treatments (data not shown). Duplicate measurements were made in each plot using a motorized penetrometer that uses a 12 V direct current motor that provides a steady insertion velocity of approximately 0.028 m s1. e cone of the penetrometer was 30 stainless steel with a base diameter of 0.0127 m and conformed to ASABE Standard S313.3 (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2009). e cone base was placed adjacent to a piezoelectric load sensor having a resolution of about 0.001 MPa (Adams et al., 2000). Before eld measurements, the load sensor on the penetrometer was calibrated in the laboratory using dead weights. e total penetration depth was 40 cm, with a depth measurement resolution of 0.3 cm. e PR measurements were averaged across 6-cm bands down to 30 cm (i.e., 06, 612, 1218, 1824, and 2430 cm). To compare and relate PR to other soil properties, the PR in the 0- to 15-cm depth was estimated by taking weighted means of the resistance measurements of the 0- to 6-, 6- to 12-, and 12- to 18-cm layers using weights of 2, 2, and 1. Because the soils were uniformly wet at the time of the PR measurements, the PR data were not adjusted for soil moisture content. Each year shortly a er harvest, duplicate soil cores (4.5-cm diameter) to a depth of 60 cm were collected in each plot using a hydraulic coring device. e cores were cut into four layers, 0 to 15, 15 to 30, 30 to 45, and 45 to 60 cm. e duplicate layers were composited, weighed, and sieved to pass a 2-mm sieve. A 5-g fresh soil subsample from each sample was extracted with 50 mL of 2 mol L1 KCl, shaken at 200 rpm for 60 min, and then ltered. Soil mineral N concentrations (NH4+ and NO3N) in the ltrate were determined colorimetrically with a TRAACS 800 autoanalyzer (Bran & Luebbe Analyzing Technologies,

Plant Measurements
At late stages of grain lling, the number of plants in two rows in each plot was counted and the nal harvestable plant population density was calculated. Grain yield was determined by removing ears by hand from a sample area of four 2-m-long rows in the center of each plot. A er shelling, the total grain weight of each sample was recorded. A subsample of about 500 g was taken and dried to a constant weight at 70C. Grain yield was calculated and is reported on a zero water basis. Aboveground dry matter was measured by collecting ve plants at random in each plot. ese plants were cut at the rootstem junction and ears and other parts were separated for determination of the harvest index (HI). A er shelling, the cobs were combined with the other

SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

1485

Elmsford, NY). e remaining soil was air dried, weighed again, and a er accounting for the soil removed for soil mineral N analysis, the dry soil bulk density of each layer was determined using the core volume and mass of soil for each layer. Dry bulk density was expressed as a proportion of the maximum bulk density as an estimate of relative compaction (Daz-Zorita et al., 2001). Relative compaction was calculated for only the 0- to 15-cm layer, the only layer for which clay and sand content data were available. Previous research involving experimental Proctor-type tests conducted on the soils from the experimental site (unpublished data, 2000) using small molds found that the relationship derived by Daz-Zorita et al. (2001) could be used for determining the maximum bulk density of the soils from these experimental plots and the maximum bulk density was calculated using their model:
MAX BULK DENSITY = 1.69 + ( 5.110 -4 SAND ) - ( 8.110 -4 CLAY )

[1]

where SAND and CLAY are the soil sand and clay contents (g kg1).

Statistical Analyses
e e ects of compaction and fertilizer treatments on the soil properties and crop growth variables were tested by ANOVA, using SAS, Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Years were analyzed separately because di erent compaction treatments (i.e., 2 vs. 3 yr of compaction) were used each year. Post-hoc mean comparisons were made using LSD. Soil texture varied from north (Blocks 1 and 2) to south (Blocks 3 and 4) across the experimental site (see Fig. 1), with the clay content in the 0- to 15-cm depth ranging from 160 to 480 g kg1. To assess the effect of texture on soil properties and crop response, we used clay content as a covariate in the ANOVA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Climate Conditions and Soil Environmental Variables
Weather conditions during the 2002, 2003, and 2004 growing seasons were substantially di erent, particularly with regard to precipitation. Total precipitation from 15 May to 31 October, the period that encompassed crop growth, was 466 mm in 2002, 560 mm in 2003, and 497 mm in 2004. e long-term (19702000) average precipitation for this period is 479 mm (Environment Canada, 2010). e mean daily temperatures for this period were 16.8C in 2002, 17.0C in 2003, and 16.3C in 2004; the long-term average daily air temperature for this period is 15.9C (Environment Canada, 2010).

Crop Response
Corn grain yield was the only measurement made on the eld experiment in 2002 and no signi cant di erences were observed between compacted and noncompacted treatments or between the two rates of fertilization. e mineral N in the soil samples collected to a depth of 30 cm in the spring of 2003 (data not shown) was not di erent between the N fertilizer rates applied in 2002, suggesting that there was no carryover e ect of the 2002 N fertilization to 2003. Compaction had a signi cant impact on all the crop growth parameters except plant N uptake in 2003, a relatively
1486

wet year compared with 2004. Compaction caused a substantial reduction in grain yields in 2003 (Table 2); yields in the CC treatment (5.41 Mg ha1) were 33% lower than those in the NN treatment (8.11 Mg ha1). Similarly, dry matter production was about 4.1 Mg ha1 lower in soils with 2 yr of compaction (CC) and those recently compacted (NC) than in soils that had not been compacted (NN), a reduction of 26% (Table 2). is reduction is two times larger than that observed for silage corn dry matter production reported by Nevens and Reheul (2003). A single year of compaction following a year with no compaction (NC) consistently had the same negative e ect on yield and plant growth parameters as 2 yr of compaction (CC) (Table 2). Furthermore, the e ect of compaction did not appear to carry over into a subsequent year when no compaction was applied because the yield and growth parameters in the CN treatment were usually the same as those in the NN treatment. e same e ect was also observed in 2004, when dry matter yields in the NCN treatment were the same as those in the CNN and NNN treatments (Table 3). ese results indicate that avoiding compaction for a year allowed plant growth and yields to recover and suggest that there was no carryover or memory e ect of compaction on plant growth and yields from 1 yr to the next in these soils. We are interested in whether or not there is a year-to-year carryover e ect of compaction because it is a time frame that is highly relevant for producers. Many producers will change management (i.e., plow to alleviate compaction) soon a er they observe yield reductions induced by compaction. Our results are consistent with those of Lowery and Schuler (1991), which showed that corn grain yield in compacted soils at one out of two sites was not a ected 1 yr a er compaction; 3 and 4 yr a er compaction was applied, the grain yields at both sites were not a ected. Hkansson et al. (1988) reported that yield reductions caused by compaction partially recovered a er 1 yr, and this recovery continued so that the residual compaction e ects on crop yields were no longer observed 5 yr a er the last compaction. e e ect of compaction imposed in 2002 on crop growth parameters measured in 2004 was much less than those measured in 2003; this e ect may be attributed to wetter soil conditions in 2003. In 2004, compaction had a signi cant e ect on aboveground dry matter only on soils with three consecutive years of compaction (CCC), resulting in about 25% lower dry matter production than in the other three compaction treatments where there was no compaction in 2004 (Table 3). Except for plant N uptake, the rate of N application had little e ect on crop growth parameters in 2003 (Table 2), but it signi cantly a ected all growth parameters in 2004 (Table 3). e overall mean grain yield across the experimental site was lower in 2004 than in 2003 and the reason for this could be due to relatively lower precipitation and drier soil conditions during the 2004 growing season. ere was no compaction N rate interaction in either 2003 or 2004. is is consistent with the results of Bingham et al. (2010), who observed no interaction between compaction and N on either plant growth or shoot morphology, suggesting that the response of plants to compaction is not in uenced by the availability of N.
SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

Table 2. Aboveground dry matter, plant N uptake, grain yield (0% moisture), grain N content, harvest index (HI), and N harvest index (NHI) in corn as affected by compaction, N rate, and soil clay content in the 2003 growing season.
Treatment Compaction CC NC CN NN N rate 0 kg N ha1 75 kg N ha1 150 kg N ha1 300 kg N ha1 Clay content Compaction (C) N rate (N) CN Clay content Dry matter Mg ha1 11.4 b 11.1 b 14.1 a 15.5 a 12.6 12.5 13.7 13.3 0.0258 ** NS NS *** Plant N uptake kg ha1 130 b 125 b 139 ab 159 a 123 b 123 b 146 ab 159 a 0.2031 NS ** NS *** Grain yield Mg ha1 5.41 b 5.21 b 7.59 a 8.11 a 6.59 6.27 6.96 6.59 0.0152 ANOVA *** NS NS *** *** NS NS *** *** NS NS *** *** NS NS *** Grain N content kg ha1 80 bc 75 c 97 ab 110 a 82 86 98 99 0.1873 HI NHI kg kg1 0.46 b 0.46 b 0.54 a 0.53 a 0.52 a 0.49 ab 0.50 ab 0.48 b 2.52 104 0.61 b 0.60 b 0.70 a 0.70 a 0.69 a 0.66 ab 0.66 ab 0.61 b 4.24 104

** Signi cant at P < 0.01; NS, not signi cant (P > 0.05). *** Signi cant at P < 0.001. C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. Within a treatment, means followed by different letters are signi cantly different. Soil clay content analyzed as a covariate.

Although plant N uptake at the highest N application rate was similar in 2003 and 2004 (Tables 2 and 3; 159 vs. 164 kg N ha1, respectively) the apparent recovery of applied N ([(plant N uptake in fertilized treatment plant N uptake in control)/amount of fertilizer N applied] 100) was only about 12% in 2003 but 34% in 2004. For the 75 and 150 kg N ha1 application rates, the apparent N recovery in 2003 was between 0 and 16%, but in 2004 apparent N recovery was 54%. ese yearly di erences in apparent N recov-

ery could be attributed to higher losses of N from the system due to the higher than normal precipitation in 2003.

Soil Response
In contrast to the crop response to compaction, the soil response to each compaction treatment was more apparent. e e ects of compaction, as evaluated by PR measurements, were evident in the selected soil physical properties, particularly soil

Table 3. Aboveground dry matter, plant N uptake, grain yield (0% moisture), grain N content, harvest index (HI), and N harvest index (NHI) in corn as affected by compaction, N rate, and soil clay content in the 2004 growing season.
Treatment Compaction CCC NCN CNN NNN N rate 0 kg N ha1 75 kg N ha1 150 kg N ha1 300 kg N ha1 Clay content Compaction (C) N rate (N) CN Clay content Dry matter Mg ha1 49.5 b 12.1 a 12.2 a 11.6 a 8.4 c 10.7 b 12.7 a 13.4 a 0.0210 * *** NS *** Plant N uptake kg ha1 105 119 123 118 62 d 101 c 140 b 164 a 0.2038 NS *** NS *** Grain yield Mg ha1 5.38 b 6.26 ab 6.59 a 6.29 ab 4.54 b 6.02 b 6.91 ab 7.05 a 0.0116 ANOVA NS *** NS *** NS *** NS *** NS NS NS NS NS *** NS NS Grain N content kg ha1 68 80 79 77 43 c 70 b 91 a 103 a 0.1317 HI NHI kg kg1 0.57 a 0.56 ab 0.54 b 0.55 ab 0.54 0.58 0.56 0.55 1.06 104 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.69 a 0.70 a 0.66 b 0.62 c 1.63 105

* Signi cant at P < 0.05; NS, not signi cant (P > 0.05). *** Signi cant at P < 0.001. C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second, and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. Within a treatment, means followed by different letters are signi cantly different. Soil clay content analyzed as a covariate. SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

1487

Fig. 2. Penetration resistance with depth under different compaction treatments in 2003. Symbols represent the mean value of the different compaction treatments at each depth; error bars are not included to improve clarity and visually distinguish between mean values. Treatments: C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst and second letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002 and 2003, respectively.

strength in speci c soil layers (612, 1218, and 1824 cm) within and slightly below the plow layer, which was 15 to 20 cm deep. In this part of the pro le, soil strength for 1 yr of compaction following a year of no compaction (NC) was greater than that for a year of no compaction following a year of compaction (CN) (Fig. 2). at is, soils recently compacted had greater soil strength than those compacted in the previous year. Furthermore, a carryover e ect of compaction on soil strength was also evident in 2003, with the CN treatment having signi cantly higher PR values than the NN treatment near the bottom of the plow layer, in both the 12- to 18- and 18- to 24-cm layers (Fig. 2). Linear regression analyses indicated that there was a signi cant positive relationship between PR and clay content in the 0- to 15-cm layer for compacted soils but not for noncompacted soils (Fig. 3). e slopes of the regression equations for the CC and NC treatments were signi cantly di erent from zero, but this was not the case for the NN and CN treatments (for clarity, only the CC and NN treatments are shown in Fig. 3). At relatively high clay content (i.e., >350 g clay kg1 soil), PR values in

the CC and NC treatments were more than twofold higher than those in the NN and CN treatments. e in uence of clay content on PR is attributable to cohesion forces developed between compressed clay particles, which impede subsequent separation and displacement of soil particles (Imho et al., 2004). e increase in soil strength with clay content is consistent with ndings that soils with higher clay contents are more susceptible to compaction. Smith et al. (1997) applied a simple uniaxial compression technique to 35 types of soils covering a wide range of clay content (80660 g kg1). ey reported that soils with silt + clay contents between 500 and 700 g kg1 underwent the greatest increase in compaction, as measured by the compression technique, illustrating the higher compressibility of such soils. Higher soil strength, as measured by the PR, contributed to lower yields, especially in 2003. is is shown by the highly signi cant negative relationships (P < 0.001) between PR and grain yield (Fig. 4a) and PR and HI (Fig 4b). Evaluation of these relationships can give some approximate threshold values for yields and PR. For example, grain yields for uncompacted soils (NN and CN treatments) were generally >6.7 Mg ha1 (mean yield:

Fig. 3. Relationship between penetration resistance and clay content in the surface soil (015 cm) of the compacted (CC) and noncompacted (NN) treatments in 2003. 1488

Fig. 4. Relationship of (a) corn grain yield and (b) harvest index with penetration resistance in the surface soil (015 cm) under different compaction treatments in 2003. Treatments: C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst and second letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002 and 2003, respectively. SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

7.85 Mg ha1) and PR was <1.5 MPa (mean value: 0.95 MPa). the storage and supply of available N was greater suggests that In contrast, yields in compacted soils (CC and NC treatments) the soil physical conditions caused by compaction restricted the were much more variable, ranging from 1.38 to 9.71 Mg ha1 process of N uptake by the crop. with a mean yield (5.24 Mg ha1) that was about 33% lower Regression analyses helped elucidate the role that texture and a mean PR (1.58 MPa) about 66% higher than that in the played in determining how compaction a ects crop yields. In uncompacted soils. e HI also showed a signi cant decline 2003, there was a signi cant negative relationship between with increasing PR (Fig. 4b). In uncompacted soils, the HI was grain yield and clay content and this relationship was greater >0.5 kg kg1 and the PR was generally <1.5 MPa. In the CC in the CC treatment than the NN treatment, indicating that a and NC treatments, most PR values were >1.5 MPa but the HI compaction-induced e ect on yields was greatest on soils with 1. values ranged from 0.34 to 0.56 kg kg a high clay content (Fig. 6a). Conversely, there was a signi cant Estimates of relative compaction (the ratio of dry bulk positive relationship between post-harvest soil mineral N and density to maximum dry bulk density calculated from Eq. [1]) in clay content (Table 5) and this relationship was greater in the 2003 and 2004 in the surface 15 cm of the soil also appeared to CC treatment than the NN treatment (Fig. 6b), indicating that be sensitive to compaction treatments. In both years, the relative more available N was le in compacted soils a er harvest than in compaction in the soils compacted two and three consecutive uncompacted soils. ese relationships between grain yield and years (CC and CCC) was greater than that in the uncompacted clay content and between post-harvest soil N and clay content soils (NN and NNN). e year compaction was applied (i.e., were also apparent in 2004. An explanation for these observatime elapsed since the soils were compacted) had a signi cant tions is that compaction suppressed yield, particularly in soils e ect on the soil physical properties as measured by the relawith a high clay content; the low-yielding plants could not use tive compaction. is is evident in three compaction treatments all of the N available, and consequently there was more N le in (CC, NC, and CN) from the 2003 data (Table 4) that show that the soil a er harvest in compacted soils with higher clay. Taken the relative compaction for both treatments compacted in 2003 together, these data suggest that the reductions in crop growth (CC and NC) was greater than for the treatment compacted and yield in compacted soils were related more to adverse soil only in 2002 (CN), although the di erences were not always sigphysical conditions rather than N fertility. e e ect of clay on ni cant. Similar trends are evident for 2004, where the ranking the soil response to compaction was evident because compacted of relative compaction in the 0- to 15-cm depth was in the same soils with high clay content exhibited greater soil strength and order as the time since the last compaction treatment (Table 4). relative compaction but had higher soil mineral N levels a er In both years, all of the compacted treatments had higher relaharvest than uncompacted soils with smaller amounts of clay. tive compaction than the uncompacted treatments (NN and Soil clay content played a key role in almost all of the crop NNN), although the di erence between CNN and NNN was growth parameters and soil properties in both years (Tables 2 and not signi cant in 2004. ese relative compaction results imply 3; Fig. 6). We observed a signi cant negative relationship between that there was both a carryover of compaction e ect to the folsoil clay content and these variables, indicating that soils with relalowing year(s) and that some natural remediation had occurred, tively high clay content had lower yields, dry matter production, and that, presumably, the soils will eventually recover. plant N uptake, and grain N content. is is consistent with a Soil mineral N (NH4N + NO3N), measured shortly report by Hkansson et al. (1988), who presented data for 19 ina er harvest in 2003 and 2004, showed a signi cant response to dividual experiments and showed a negative linear relationship bethe N application rate in all of the layers down to 60 cm, e.g., tween yield in compacted soils and clay content. Such relationships the highest N rate had the largest amount of post-harvest minTable 4. Relative compaction in the surface soil layer (015 cm) in eral N. Data for soil mineral N in the surface 15 cm and the the fall of 2003 and 2004. entire soil pro le (060 cm) are given Table 5; data for the 2003 2004 Parameter other soil layers is not shown. ere was a signi cant N rate Treatment Compaction Treatment Compaction compaction interaction e ect in 2004 for both the surface soil % % and the soil pro le (Table 5). For each compaction treatment, Compaction CC 90 ab CCC 92 a the mineral N in the soil pro le was signi cantly higher in the NC 93 a NCN 87 b 300 kg N ha1 treatment than any other N application rate CN 86 b CNN 82 bc (Fig. 5). e amount of mineral N in the pro le of the CCC NN 81 c NNN 80 c treatment receiving the highest N rate was larger than that for Clay content 1.44 104 9.88 105 ANOVA the soil receiving the 150 kg N ha1 rate, which in turn was lar*** *** ger than that under the 0 and 75 kg N ha1 rates. Compaction Compaction Clay NS NS had a signi cant e ect on soil mineral N levels in 2003 as well as in 2004, when soils compacted for three consecutive years *** Signi cant at P < 0.001; NS, not signi cant (P > 0.05). C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second, and third letters represent (CCC) had more post-harvest mineral N than any of the other the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. three compaction treatments. e observation that grain yield Within a treatment, means followed by different letters are and plant N uptake were lower in compacted soils even though signi cantly different.
Soil clay content analyzed as a covariate. SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

1489

Table 5. Soil mineral N (NH4N + NO3N) in the 0- to 15- and 0- to 60-cm soil depths under corn as affected by compaction, N rate, and clay content in the 2003 and 2004 growing seasons.
Parameter 2003 Treatment CC NC CN NN 015 cm 060 cm Treatment CCC NCN CNN NNN kg ha1 64.9 13.6 a 14.8 a 51.6 10.4 ab 50.9 6.6 b 53.1 8.0 b 8.8 b 7.3 b 21.3 a 0.0505 * *** NS *** 21.4 b 38.5 b 37.4 b 123.3 a ND ANOVA Compaction (C) N rate (N) CN Clay content NS ** NS ND *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ND 2004 015 cm 060 cm kg ha1 29.1 a 68.2 a 6.8 b 25.6 bc 4.6 b 20.5 c 11.0 b 36.6 b 3.0 c 4.8 c 14.4 b 29.3 a 0.0461 5.6 c 10.2 c 31.1 b 104.1 a ND

Compaction

N rate 0 kg N ha1 75 kg N ha1 150 kg N ha1 300 kg N ha1 Clay content

* Signi cant at P < 0.05; NS, not signi cant (P > 0.05). ** Signi cant at P < 0.01. *** Signi cant at P < 0.001. C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second, and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. Within a treatment, means followed by different letters are signi cantly different. Soil clay content analyzed as a covariate. ND, clay content was not determined for this layer.

were also re ected in studies by Lapen et al. (2002) demonstrating that clay content was positively correlated with moldboard plow dra and negatively correlated with corn grain yield. Both the compaction and the N fertilizer treatments affected the amount of mineral N remaining in the soil a er harvest in both years (Table 5) and the amount of plant N uptake (Tables 2 and 3), thereby a ecting the total N in the plantsoil system (i.e., plant N uptake + soil mineral N) and resulting in strong di erences in total N among the di erent treatments. e total N accounts for the amount of N that stayed within

the soilplant system during the growing season, and comparison with the amount of N applied (Table 6) therefore allows an

Fig. 5. The amount of mineral N (NH4N + NO3N) in the soil pro le (060 cm) under different compaction and N fertilization treatments in 2004. For each compaction treatment, soil mineral N levels with different letters are signi cantly different at P < 0.05. Treatments: C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. 1490

Fig. 6. Relationship of (a) corn grain yield and (b) the amount of soil mineral N (NH4N + NO3N) in the surface soil (015 cm) with clay content for the compacted (CC) and noncompacted (NN) treatments in 2003. SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

estimate to be made of the N lost during the growing season (i.e., 100% [(total N in fertilized treatment total N in control)/ (amount of fertilizer N applied) 100]). Using this comparative approach, it is evident that in 2003 about 75% of the N applied in the 75 and 150 kg N ha1 treatments (i.e., 58 and 111 kg N, respectively) and 54% of the N applied in the 300 kg N ha1 treatment (162 kg N) was lost from the soilplant system (Table 6). In 2004, the N losses were substantially lower: about 31 to 42% was lost in the 75 and 150 kg N ha1 treatments (31 and 46 kg N, respectively) and 33% in the 300 kg N ha1 treatment (100 kg N). e observation that the e ect of the N application rate in 2002 was not signi cant on yields in that year or on soil N levels in the spring of 2003 suggests that there was no carryover or residual e ect of N fertilizer applied in 2002 to subsequent years. At least some of the estimated higher losses in 2003 could be attributed to the greater amount of rainfall in that year compared with 2004. Partitioning the total N in the plantsoil system into the amount of N in the plant biomass (plant N uptake) and the N remaining in the soil at harvest (mineral N in the soil pro le, 060 cm) also shows the potential for further N loss among the treatments that could occur during the winter and following spring. In 2003, there were no di erences among compaction treatments in total N in the plantsoil system, and the amounts ranged between 177 and 212 kg N ha1 (Fig. 7a). In 2004, the total N in the plantsoil system was lower than that in 2003 and the mass of total N in the CCC treatment (173 kg ha1) was signi cantly larger than that in the CNN and NCN treatments (both about 145 kg N ha1; Fig. 7b). Reduced plant N in the CCC treatment is a direct measure or indicator of reduced N uptake, and higher post-harvest soil N in the CCC treatment would be a consequence of the reduced N uptake. e reduced N uptake during the growing season and consequent high post-harvest soil N levels in compacted soils illustrate that compaction induces a risk of further N loss by denitrication or leaching during the winter and following spring.

Table 6. Estimated N lost from the plantsoil system, relative to the amount applied, in the different fertilizer treatments in 2003 and 2004.
Year 2003 N applied Total N (plant + soil) N lost % 77 74 54 42 31 33 kg ha1 0 144 75 162 58 150 183 111 300 282 162 0 68 75 111 31 150 171 46 300 268 100

2004

paction e ects on soil properties may carry over into subsequent years a er the initial compaction, but these e ects may not be manifested in crop growth and yield characteristics. Texture played a key role in determining how compaction a ected the crop response (growth and yield) through its e ect on soil strength. We observed a positive relationship between PR and clay content in the 0- to 15-cm layer but only for compacted soils. A strong negative relationship between grain yields and clay content was also observed, indicating that compaction-induced yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay. We conclude that these reductions in crop-growth parameters were probably related more to adverse soil physical conditions than to fertility because soils with more clay exhibited greater strength

CONCLUSIONS
A eld experiment was conducted on a clay loam soil to study the e ect of soil compaction and N fertilizer on soil parameters and corn crop performance and the ability of the soil to recover from a compacted state. Di erent compaction and N fertilizer treatments were imposed in 2002 to 2004, and selected crop and soil parameters were measured. e deleterious e ects of compaction were evident, with reductions of 26% in dry matter production and 33% in grain yields in 2003. Better crop growth and productivity on soils that were not compacted in the second year led us to conclude that these soils recovered from the previous year of compaction. e soil response to compaction was even more evident than the crop response, because a carryover compaction e ect was observed in relative compaction at the soil surface and in soil strength near the bottom of the plow layer. Taken together, these results suggest that comSSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011

Fig. 7. The total N (plant N + soil mineral N in the 060-cm depth) in the plant soil system as a function of compaction treatment and N fertilization in the fall of (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. Data for N rate and compaction are averages across compaction and N, respectively. Bars with different letters are signi cantly different at P < 0.05. Compaction treatments: C, compacted; N, not compacted; rst, second and third letters represent the compaction treatments in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. 1491

and relative compaction but had higher mineral N levels a er harvest than soils with smaller amounts of clay. Even though the storage and supply of available N were greater in compacted soils, grain yield and plant N uptake were not, suggesting that the soil physical conditions caused by compaction, rather than N availability, restricted N uptake by the crop. As a consequence, relatively large amounts of post-harvest soil N in compacted soils increase the risk of N loss to the environment by denitri cation or leaching.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Doug Balchin, Steve Burtt, Mark Edwards, Lynn Evenson, Ulrica McKim, Scott Patterson, and Patrick St-Georges for their excellent technical assistance in the eld and laboratory.

Adams, B.A., G. St-Amour, and G.C. Topp. 2000. Evaluation of a piezoelectric load cell for use on cone penetrometers. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 76:205210. doi:10.1006/jaer.2000.0549 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 2009. Soil cone penetrometer. ASAE Standard S313.3 Feb1999 (R2009). ASABE, St. Joseph, MI. Ball, B.C., A. Scott, and J.P. Parker. 1999. Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 uxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Tillage Res. 53:2939. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00074-4 Bengough, A.G., M.F. Bransby, J. Hans, S.J. McKenna, T.J. Roberts, and T.A. Valentine. 2006. Root responses to soil physical conditions: Growth dynamics from eld to cell. J. Exp. Bot. 57:437447. doi:10.1093/jxb/erj003 Bingham, I.J., A.G. Bengough, and R.M. Rees. 2010. Soil compactionN interactions in barley: Root growth and tissue composition. Soil Tillage Res. 106:241246. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2008. Axle-load impacts on hydraulic properties and corn yield in no-till clay and silt loam. Agron. J. 100:16731680. doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0127 Braim, M.A., K. Chaney, and D.R. Hodgson. 1992. E ects of simpli ed cultivation on the growth and yield of spring barley on a sandy loam soil: 1. Shoot growth and grain yield; response to nitrogen. Soil Tillage Res. 22:159171. doi:10.1016/0167-1987(92)90029-B Daz-Zorita, M., J.H. Grove, and E. Perfect. 2001. Laboratory compaction of soils using a small mold procedure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:15931598. doi:10.2136/sssaj2001.1593 Environment Canada. 2010. National Climate and Information Archive. Available at www.climate.weathero ce.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e. html (veri ed 20 Apr. 2011). Meteorol. Serv. of Canada, Toronto. Garcia, F., R.M. Cruse, and A.M. Blackmer. 1988. Compaction and nitrogen placement e ect on root growth, water depletion, and nitrogen uptake. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 52:792798. doi:10.2136/sssaj1988.03615995005200030035x Hkansson, I., W.B. Voorhees, and H. Riley. 1988. Vehicle and wheel factors in uencing soil compaction and crop responses in di erent tra c regimes. Soil Tillage Res. 11:239282. doi:10.1016/0167-1987(88)90003-7 Imho , S., A.P. Da Silva, and D. Fallow. 2004. Susceptibility to compaction, load support capacity, and soil compressibility of Hapludox. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:1724. doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0017 Kaspar, T.C., H.J. Brown, and E.M. Kassmeyer. 1991. Corn root distribution as a ected by tillage, wheel tra c, and fertilizer placement. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:13901394. doi:10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500050031x Koch, B., R. Khosla, W.M. Frasier, D.G. Westfall, and D. Inman. 2004. Economic feasibility of variable-rate nitrogen application utilizing site-speci c management zones. Agron. J. 96:15721580. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.1572 Lapen, D.R., H.N. Hayhoe, G.C. Topp, N.B. McLaughlin, and E.G. Gregorich. 2002. Measurements of mouldboard plow dra : II. Dra soilcrop and yielddra associations. Precis. Agric. 3:237257. doi:10.1023/A:1015519408578

REFERENCES

Lapen, D.R., G.C. Topp, M.E. Edwards, E.G. Gregorich, and W.E. Curnoe. 2004a. Combination cone penetration resistance/water content instrumentation to evaluate cone penetrationwater content relationships in tillage research. Soil Tillage Res. 79:5162. doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.03.023 Lapen, D.R., G.C. Topp, E.G. Gregorich, and W.E. Curnoe. 2004b. Least limiting water range indicators of soil quality and corn production, eastern Ontario, Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 78:151170. doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.02.004 Lipiec, J., and W. Stpniewski. 1995. E ects of soil compaction and tillage systems on uptake and losses of nutrients. Soil Tillage Res. 35:3752. doi:10.1016/0167-1987(95)00474-7 Lowery, B., and R.T. Schuler. 1991. Temporal e ects of subsoil compaction on soil strength and plant growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:216223. doi:10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500010037x McLaughlin, N.B., D.R. Lapen, E.G. Gregorich, B.L. Ma, D. Kroetsch, and X. Wang. 2003. Field demonstration of soil compaction. CSAE Pap. 03231. Can. Soc. of Biol. Eng., Winnipeg, MB. Montagu, K.D., J.P. Conroy, and B.J. Atwell. 2001. e position of localized soil compaction determines root and subsequent shoot growth responses. J. Exp. Bot. 52:21272133. Nevens, F., and D. Reheul. 2003. e consequences of wheel-induced soil compaction and subsoiling for silage maize on a sandy loam soil in Belgium. Soil Tillage Res. 70:175184. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00140-X Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural A airs. 2006. New OMAFRA general recommended nitrogen rates for corn: e Ontario corn N worksheet. Available at www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/nitroratescorn.htm (accessed 30 Apr. 2010; veri ed 20 Apr. 2011). OMAFRA, Guelph, ON. Oussible, M., R.K. Crookston, and W.E. Larson. 1992. Subsurface compaction reduces the root and shoot growth and grain yield of wheat. Agron. J. 84:3438. doi:10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400010008x Sheldrick, B.H., and C. Wang. 1993. Particle size distribution. p. 499511. In M.R. Carter (ed.) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. Sinclair, T.R. 1998. Historical changes in harvest index and crop N accumulation. Crop Sci. 38:638643. doi:10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800030002x Smith, C.W., M.A. Johnston, and S. Lorentz. 1997. Assessing the compaction susceptibility of South African forestry soils: II. Soil properties a ecting compactibility and compressibility. Soil Tillage Res. 43:335354. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00023-8 Soil Classi cation Working Group. 1998. e Canadian system of soil classi cation. 3rd ed. Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Publ. 1646 (rev.). NRC Res. Press, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Soil Survey Sta . 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classi cation for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agric. Handbk. 436. U.S. Gov. Print. O ce, Washington, DC. Sweeney, D.W., M.B. Kirkham, and J.B. Sisson. 2006. Crop and soil response to wheel-track compaction of a claypan soil. Agron. J. 98:637643. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0254 Tardieu, F. 1994. Growth and functioning of roots and root systems subjected to compaction: Towards a system with multiple signalling. Soil Tillage Res. 30:217243. doi:10.1016/0167-1987(94)90006-X Topp, G.C., B. Dow, M. Edwards, E.G. Gregorich, W.E. Curnoe, and F.J. Cook. 2000. Oxygen measurements in the root zone facilitated by TDR. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80:3341. Topp, G.C., K.C. Wires, D.A. Angers, M.R. Carter, J.L.B. Culley, D.A. Holmstrom, et al. 1995. Changes in soil structure. p. 5160. In D.F. Acton and L.J. Gregorich (ed.) e health of our soils: Toward sustainable agriculture in Canada. Publ. 1906/E. Ctr. for Land and Biol. Resour. Res., Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON. Turpin, K., D.R. Lapen, E.G. Gregorich, G.C. Topp, N.B. McLaughlin, W.E. Curnoe, and M.J.L. Robin. 2005. Identi cation of interactions between soil-based/ management variables and corn production properties using multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS). Can. J. Soil Sci. 85:625636. Voorhees, W.B., C.G. Senst, and W.W. Nelson. 1978. Compaction and soil structure modi cation by wheel tra c in the northern Corn Belt. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:344349. doi:10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200020029x

1492

SSSAJ: Volume 75: Number 4 JulyAugust 2011