Issue 2 (202)/2025

ALSE and ACS Style
Titianu, M.; Aostăcioaei, T.G.; Mihu, G.D.; Cakpo, S.; Țopa, D.; Jităreanu, G. Assessing the impact of the no-tillage system on soil physical parameters and water conservation in corn crops. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment 2025, 58 (2), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-582171

AMA Style
Titianu M, Aostăcioaei TG, Mihu GD, Cakpo S, Țopa D, Jităreanu G. Assessing the impact of the no-tillage system on soil physical parameters and water conservation in corn crops. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment. 2025; 58 (2): 169-188. https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-582171

Chicago/Turabian Style
Titianu, Matei, Tudor George Aostăcioaei, Gabriel Dumitru Mihu, Serginho Cakpo, Denis Țopa, and Gerard Jităreanu. 2025. “Assessing the impact of the no-tillage system on soil physical parameters and water conservation in corn crops.” Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment 58, no. 2: 169-188. https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-582171

Assessing the impact of the no-tillage system on soil physical parameters and water conservation in corn crops

Matei TITIANU^*, Tudor George AOSTĂCIOAEI, Gabriel Dumitru MIHU, Serginho CAKPO, Denis ȚOPA and Gerard JITĂREANU

Department of Pedotechnics, Faculty of Agriculture, Iasi University of Life Sciences, 3, Mihail Sadoveanu Alley, 700489, Iasi, Romania; email: aos.tudor@yahoo.com; serginhocakpo@gmail.com; denis.topa@iuls.ro; gerard.jitareanu@iuls.ro

*Correspondence: titianumatei@yahoo.com 

Received: Jan. 21, 2025. Revised: Apr. 06, 2025. Accepted: Apr. 08, 2025. Published online: Jun. 18, 2025

ABSTRACT. This study investigated the impact of two tillage systems, conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT), on soil physical properties and soil water conserva-tion capacity in an experiment conducted on the Big Island of Braila during two agricultural years (2022–2023). The aim was to evaluate the implications of the NT system on soil physical properties – bulk density (BD), water-stable aggregates (WTS) and soil moisture – compared with the CT system. The designated area, the Big Island of Braila, has specific climatic conditions that make this research of great interest for assessing the possibility of imple-menting NT practice in the future. The results showed that NT significantly improved soil quality, demonstrating higher structural stability and superior water retention in the upper soil layer. Although BD was higher with NT than with CT, it was within the optimal range (1.0–1.4 g/cm³) without affecting plant growth. CT showed greater BD fluctuation, especially in the surface layers, due to intense mechanical disturbance. For NT, WTS was higher at all depths, with a difference of up to 13.67% compared with CT in the first year. Soil moisture was also higher for NT, especially in the 0–10 cm layer, due to plant residues that reduced evaporation and improved water infiltration.

Keywords: conventional tillage; no-tillage; soil physical properties.

 

INTRODUCTION

Conservation tillage practices have become a topic of growing interest in the literature due to their significant influence on soil conditions and agricultural sustainability (Liu et al., 2022; Rabot et al., 2018; Toth et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023). These methods, especially no-tillage (NT), offer viable solutions for the conservation of natural resources, particularly in the context of intensive agriculture and climate change. The effects produced by different tillage systems vary according to climatic conditions and soil type, which emphasises the need for regionally adapted research (Liebhard et al., 2022). Conservation tillage, in particular NT, has shown that it can improve soil physical properties and contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without compromising crop productivity. Studies have shown that conservation methods can help to mitigate negative effects such as decreasing soil water storage and increasing evapotranspiration, thus providing a viable solution for agriculture (Omondi et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2018).

It is essential to evaluate soil conditions relative to the tillage methods to understand how these practices influence soil physical properties. Thus, parameters such as bulk density, water-stable aggregates (WTS) and soil moisture play a central role in determining soil health. Bulk density provides information about the degree of compaction; an optimal value is directly related to root development and soil porosity (Canarache, 1991). WTS are an essential indicator of soil structural stability; they are influenced by the amount of organic matter and the farming practices applied (Moraru and Rusu, 2011; Šimanský et al., 2013). Finally, soil moisture is also essential for crop development. The soil’s capacity to retain water is profoundly affected by the type of tillage applied (Cerdà et al., 2020; Page et al., 2019). The adoption of conservation tillage practices, such as the NT system, has shown significant potential to improve soil quality and water-holding capacity, which are essential for sustainable agriculture (Mihu et al., 2023). Compared with conventional tillage (CT), NT consistently leads to lower bulk density fluctuations, higher water-holding capacity and superior aggregate stability (Modiba et al., 2024).

Tillage methods have a significant impact on the soil moisture content; crop yield; and soil hydrophysical properties such as bulk density, porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Studies have shown that conservation tillage methods, such as NT and shallow cultivation, contribute to soil moisture conservation, especially during periods of limited rainfall (Robinson et al., 2022; Song et al., 2019). For example, in the 0–10-cm layer, the soil moisture content is significantly higher, up to 84%, under NT compared with the conventional method. In addition, the deepening method facilitates superior water uptake, supporting root growth and contributing to higher yields (da Silva et al., 2023). NT has proven to be a promising solution to improve soil physical and hydraulic properties, especially in finely textured environments. Although difficulties related to topsoil compaction may occur in the first years of implementation, over time, NT leads to a more stable structure and increased organic carbon, reducing environmental impacts (Komissarov and Klik, 2020). Conservation tillage can also be combined with manure application: the former minimises soil compaction and maintains optimal soil structure, while the latter helps to increase aggregate stability, organic matter content and water infiltration capacity (Dugan et al., 2024). This combined approach ensures a favourable hydrological response, reducing surface runoff and favouring water infiltration, which is essential in the context of current climate change. Implementing these solutions in agricultural practices can mitigate the negative effects of soil degradation and support more resilient and efficient agriculture (Castellini et al., 2019).

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the impact of two tillage systems, NT and CT, on soil physical properties and its ability to conserve water resources for maize. The objectives were:

• To compare soil bulk density between NT and CT for different soil layers (0–10, 10–20, 20–30 and 30–40 cm);
• To compared the WTS percentage between NT and CT for different soil layers;
• To analyse the soil’s ability to retain water under NT and CT at various soil depths;
• To understand the evolution of soil physical parameters over time depending on the tillage system used.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out in an experimental plot managed by S.C. AGRO-RU-SAVA S.R.L., in the agricultural years 2022–2023, at Mărașu farm, located on the Big Island of Brăilei (45°25’N, 27°96’E). The soils in this region are predominantly alluvial, characterised by a high degree of unevenness.

According to the FAO WRB classification (IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022), the soils are predominantly Fluvisols, characterised by recent alluvial deposits. The relief shows a high degree of unevenness, which influences drainage and agricultural land use. The research was based on a comparison of the CT and NT systems. For the CT system, the soil was tilled to a depth of 32 cm, followed by two passes with a disk harrow (Hor-sch-Joker). For the NT system, seeding was done directly with a Monosem drill on a 3 ha (30,000 m²) area (Figure 1).

 

The experimental plot was established in 2021, so at the time of the study, both systems were in their second year of application. The conventional tillage (CT) system was applied on the left side of the plot, while no-till (NT) was used on the right. Prior to 2021, the minimum tillage (MT) system had been used across the entire farm, and starting from 2022, crop rotation focused exclusively on maize, with planting dates of 15 April 2022 and 20 April 2023. During the vegetative period, for CT and NT systems, four passes were made with agricultural machinery for phytosanitary treatments in the preemergence stages – the two-, six- and eight-leaf stages – to control weeds and pests. During the flowering stage, insecticides were applied by drone due to the high height of the plants, which prevented the intervention of agricultural machinery. The CT and NT systems benefited from the same environmental conditions, including flat ground, irrigation and similar rainfall. No treatments were applied to the corn plant residues prior to planting, and harvesting was conducted for both systems using the same combine (John Deere model W540).

The experimental area is characterised by a temperate-continental climate, with a mean annual temperature of approximately 10°C, typically ranging from 10.3 to 10.5°C based on historical averages. The lowest temperatures are recorded in January and the highest temperatures are recorded in July. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 447 mm and the mean annual evapotranspiration is 705 mm. During the study, the mean annual temperature was 12.25°C in 2022 and 12.8°C in 2023, while the mean annual precipitation was 373 mm in 2022 and 485 mm in 2023.

All climate data were recorded using the farm weather station (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

 

 

To assess soil bulk density, samples were taken 3 days after sowing and after harvest (Figure 4). They were collected from undisturbed areas, using cylinders with a volume of 100 cm³ and edges cut at approximately 15° (Coughlan et al., 2002; FAO, 2023).

Each experimental plot was represented by three diagonally arranged sampling points. Samples were collected at four standard depths: 0–10, 10–20, 20–30 and 30–40 cm. Particular attention was paid to sampling from areas free from edge effects and to removing any plant debris from the soil surface. The collected samples were oven dried at a constant temperature of 105°C, and bulk density was calculated using the formula proposed by Canarache (1991):

Bulk density (g/cm³)= weight of oven dried soil / volume of the soil

(1)

To ensure representativeness and to control for spatial variability within each 3 ha plot, a systematic sampling method based on a diagonal transect grid was used. Thus, in each tillage system, five sampling points were established distributed along the main diagonal of the plot, with approximately equal distances between them (about 50–60 m). This method aimed to avoid edge influences and to ensure a uniform distribution of sampling points over the analysed area. To reduce the influence of possible local anomalies (e.g. micro-depressions, areas with compaction or wheel tracks), each sampling point was positioned in areas with homogeneous vegetation cover, far away from drainage channels, technological roads or plot boundaries. In addition, prior to sampling, the soil surface was manually cleaned of plant debris and other extraneous material to ensure homogeneity and comparability of samples.

 

 

Samples from five established locations within the experimental plots were collected to assess the physical characteristics of the soil. Approximately 20 g of soil was collected from each location and stored in aluminium containers for transport and subsequent analysis. Moisture levels were determined using the gravimetric method, which is recognised as a high precision standard in soil science.

Soil moisture was measured by sampling at six different depths up to 90 cm (0–10, 10–20, 20–30, 30–50, 50–70 and 70–90 cm). There were three replicates for each layer to ensure the accuracy of the results.

WTS analysis was performed using Eijkelkamp equipment (Monteith et al., 2024; Mwangi and Lelei, 2022). The samples were prepared and tested to determine the WTS percentage using the standardised method (Table 1). The procedure involved the following steps:

1. A total of 1 kg of soil was sampled and separated into aggregate size categories.
2. Aggregate sizes of 1–2 mm, weighing approximately 4 g, were selected for testing.

• The samples were placed in the Eijkelkamp equipment, and water was added to a specified level. The equipment partially submerged the samples and replicated rain erosion and seepage by repeated vertical movements.

1. At the end of the test, the samples were removed from the equipment, and the percentage of aggregates that remained intact after simulated water impact was considered to represent WTS these were weighed separately.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26. The soil physical characteristics were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify significant differences between tillage systems. Significant differences were confirmed using the Tukey post hoc test at the 95% confidence level.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Influence of the tillage system on soil bulk density

Conservative tillage practices had a significant impact on soil bulk density. This parameter was higher for the NT system compared with the CT system, a difference is explained by the minimal soil mobilisation for NT, which favours natural compaction of soil particles (Bartlova et al., 2015). In a long-term experiment on Planosol soils cultivated with bob (Vicia faba L.), Romaneckas et al. (2022) reported a higher bulk density in the 0–10 cm layer in the no-plough variant compared with the deep-plough variant. Although in the deep layers the differences were smaller, in the shallow layer this increase was associated with changes in pore distribution, in particular a reduction in the macropore volume and an increase in the mesopore volume. In a study conducted in Iran on loamy-clay soils using conservation tillage, including direct seeding, Alamooti and Hedayatipoor (2019) noted a significant increase in penetration resistance and bulk density at the depth of 10–20 cm. The authors also reported a higher rate of water infiltration for the NT system, suggesting that a higher density did not negatively affect water absorption capacity, but did contribute to water conservation in the soil profile. In another study conducted in Romania, Rusu et al. (2011) pointed out that NT and MT systems lead to initial soil compaction, observable in the first years of application, especially in the 0–18 cm layer. In the present study, bulk density was significantly higher for NT compared with CT, but concomitantly higher soil moisture was recorded in the early stages of plant development, suggesting a better water conservation capacity. Similarly, in a study conducted under tropical conditions, Silva et al. (2023) reported increased bulk density in the 0–20 cm layer for the NT system, but without a negative impact on water infiltration or root system development. On the contrary, there was more efficient use of available water and a significant yield increase in soybeans compared with CT.

For the CT system, there was a significant increase in soil bulk density between sowing and harvesting in both years, indicating that tillage followed by disc harrowing initially reduces soil density but allows soil re-compaction during the growing season. The NT system showed little or no increase in bulk density between sowing and harvesting, emphasising that this practice maintains the stability of the soil structure (Table 2).

The NT and CT systems resulted in optimal bulk density for crop development, namely 1.0–1.4 g/cm³. Although NT produced higher bulk density, it did not adversely affect plant growth. Thus, NT remains a viable option for soil conservation and maintenance of its physical properties.

Earlier studies indicate that the differences between CT and NT become less evident in lightly textured soils due to the different particle behaviour of these soil types (Biberdzic et al., 2020). Over time, the continued use of NT reduces the risk of soil compaction, as bulk density and penetration resistance tend to decrease progressively (Jităreanu, 2020). These results are consistent with the observations of Canarache (1991), who emphasised that the establishment of soil properties is due to the accumulation of organic matter.

In the first 2–4 years of NT, the differences in bulk density between CT and NT are small, decreasing to about 2.5%–4.8% (Table 3). This behaviour was also observed in the present study, where over time bulk density became similar for the CT and NT systems, suggesting a progressive adaptation of the soil to NT. This trend indicates that NT preserves soil structure and contributes to long-term soil improvement, making this practice a sustainable choice for soil conservation and reducing soil degradation (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

 

Table 1
Bulk density values for alluvial soils in Romania (adapted from Canarache, 1991)

Soil type	Average bulk density (g/cm³) for 0–100 cm
	Moisture content during sample collection	Corrected to field capacity
Coarse-textured alluvial soil	1.25–1.45	1.25–1.45
Medium-textured alluvial soil	1.25–1.45	1.20–1.40
Fine-textured alluvial soil	1.30–1.50	1.20–1.40

 

Table 2
Bulk density values in 2022

Depth (cm)	Bulk density (g/cm³)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	1.03 ± 0.10a	1.12 ± 0.10a	1.13 ± 0.60ab	1.29 ± 0.22ab
10–20	1.20 ± 0.10a	1.30 ± 0.412ab	1.31 ± 0.06b	1.33 ± 0.03ab
20–30	1.25 ± 0.05ab	1.30 ± 0.008ab	1.24 ± 0.002 ab	1.32 ± 0.01ab
30–40	1.36 ± 0.022 ab	1.34 ± 0.02ab	1.26 ± 0.04 ab	1.29 ± 0.01a

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, values with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different, whereas values with different lowercase letters are significantly different (Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05)

Table 3
Bulk density in 2023

Depth (cm)	Bulk density (g/cm³)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	1.11 ± 0.01b	1.24 ± 0.01a	1.03 ± 0.04a	1.02 ± 0.07 ab
10–20	1.24 ± 0.003 ab	1.33 ± 0.09a	1.30 ± 0.06a	1.33 ± 0.08a
20–30	1.26 ± 0.01ab	1.26 ± 0.02a	1.32 ± 0.044ab	1.31 ± 0.06a
30–40	1.31 ± 0.06a	1.30 ± 0.07a	1.28 ± 0.04a	1.29 ± 0.04a

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, values with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different, whereas values with different lowercase letters are significantly different (Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05)

 

 

 

Based on ANOVA, bulk density for the 0–10 cm layer in 2022 differed significantly between the CT and NT systems (p = 0.02, Figure 7). Specifically, bulk density was higher for the NT system compared with the CT system, suggesting that minimal soil mobilisation in NT contributes to slight natural compaction of the top layer.

 

 

For the 20–30 and 30–40 cm soil layers (Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively), bulk density did not differ between the CT and NT systems. However, CT showed a greater variation in bulk density compared with NT. This variability can be attributed to the influence of intensive mechanical tillage in CT.

 

 

 

In 2023, ANOVA revealed that bulk density did not differ significantly between the CT and NT systems (see Figure 10 for the 10–20 cm layer and Figure 11 for the 20–30 cm layer). However, bulk density was more consistent for NT compared with CT, reflecting the stability of soil structure maintained by conservative practices. These results emphasise that NT can provide a long-term advantage in maintaining soil structure, reducing variability and limiting the impact of excessive compaction in the surface layers.

 

 

 

Influence of tillage systems on WTS

The results showed that NT consistently yielded higher WTS compared with CT. These observations are consistent with published studies. For example, Bartlová et al. (2015) showed that CT, in particular scarification and shallow discing, increased WTS in cultivated soils in the Czech Republic. After 4 years of application, WTS was significantly higher in systems with reduced soil mobilisation, and this was positively correlated with the humic content and cation exchange capacity. In a long-term experiment in Lithuanian Cambisol, Kochiieru et al. (2023) found that the proportion of WTS and macroporosity were higher in the NT system, especially when plant debris was left on the soil. They also reported significant positive correlations between the organic carbon content and WTS, suggesting that conservation management contributes to maintaining soil structure in the long term. In a study on black soils in northeast China, Zheng et al. (2018) demonstrated that NT has the most pronounced effect of increasing the proportion of WTS in the surface layer (0–10 cm). They showed that NT and spacing tillage treatments favoured the accumulation of aggregate-associated carbon and the formation of macroaggregates, whereas conventional tillage (CT and mouldboard ploughing [MP]) resulted in a pronounced fragmentation of aggregates.

In the present study, in 2022 the NT system produced a higher WTS percentage at harvest compared with the sowing period, suggesting an improvement in soil structure stability during the growing season (Table 4 and Figure 12). WTS were 8.02%–13.67% higher in the NT system compared with the CT system. In contrast, in 2023, the WTS percentage was higher during the sowing period compared with after harvest for both the NT and CT systems (Table 5 and Figure 13) The differences between the systems were slightly smaller (10.20%–10.75%). This behaviour may be influenced by climatic conditions and mechanical interventions, such as passing agricultural machinery and irrigation.

Previous studies have confirmed that NT promotes the formation of a higher number of macroaggregates, which exhibit superior water stability compared with CT (Bartlova et al., 2015). This difference is attributed to the maintenance of higher organic matter and avoidance of excessive mechanical soil disturbance in NT, and the higher WTS percentage associated with NT emphasises the advantages of this practice in preserving soil structure and reducing erosion risks (Țopa et al., 2021).

 

Table 4
Water stable aggregates in 2022

Depth (cm)	Water-stable aggregates (%)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	40.95 ± 0.08a	45.62 ± 0.13a	39.01 ± 0.13a	45.94 ± 0.12a
10–20	37.30 ± 0.04ab	58.39 ± 0.53ab	51.93 ± 0.19ab	54.31 ± 0.39ab
20–30	34.19 ± 0.008b	39.32 ± 0.14b	45.58 ± 0.13a	56.49 ± 0.22b
30–40	18.04 ± 1.26b	41.86 ± 0.09b	29.80 ± 0.34b	44.08 ± 0.26b

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, values with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different, whereas values with different lowercase letters are significantly different (Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05)

 

Table 5
Water stable aggregates in 2023

Depth (cm)	Water-stable aggregates (%)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	48.1 ± 0.17a	65.68 ± 0.30b	39.01 ± 0.09a	47.23 ± 0.096b
10–20	56.73 ± 0.16ab	60.54 ± 0.20a	51.93 ± 0.12a	55.67 ± 0.240b
20–30	54.47 ± 0.14a	62.37 ± 0.21ab	45.58 ± 0.06a	54.98 ± -0.027ab
30–40	35.03 ± 0.32b	40.76 ± 0.26ab	29.80 ± 0.23b	42.12 ± -0.117b

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, values with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different, whereas values with different lowercase letters are significantly different (Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05)

 

 

 

Organic matter plays an essential role in the formation and maintenance of stable soil structure. Its stabilisation in microaggregates is one of the main mechanisms by which organic carbon is protected in the long term against microbial decomposition. This process contributes directly to increasing aggregate stability and reducing the risk of soil physical degradation (Verchot et al., 2011). In addition, polysaccharides produced by microorganisms contribute to the cohesion of mineral particles, facilitating the formation of microaggregates. In turn, the more complex organic carbon fractions – such as carboxylic acids and aromatic compounds, which are derived from plant debris – are involved in the consolidation of larger aggregates. This sequence of processes reflects a top-down pattern of stabilisation of soil structure, essential for maintaining the fertility and ecological functionality of soils subject to minimal tillage.

According to ANOVA, for 2022, the WTS percentage did not differ significantly between the NT and CT systems for the 10–20 cm (p = 0.315), 20–30 cm (p = 0.957, Figure 14), 20–30 cm (p = 0.475, Figure 15) and 30–40 cm (p = 0.989, Figure 16) layers. Nevertheless, the WTS percentage was more homogenous for the NT system at all layers, suggesting that the use of the ploughing within CT has a negative effect on aggregate stability.

 

 

 

 

For 2023, ANOVA also revealed no significant difference in the WTS percen-tage between the CT and NT systems at the 0–10 cm (p = 0.315, Figure 17), 10–20 cm (p = 0.957, Figure 18), 20–30 cm (p = 0.475, Figure 19) and 30–40 cm (p = 0.989, Figure 20) layers. Similarly to 2022, the WTS percentage was more homogenous for the NT system, supporting the hypothesis that the use of the ploughing within CT negatively influences the stability of the aggregates. It is noteworthy that at the depth of 30–40 cm, where the plough does not reach, aggregate stability was not influenced to the same extent as in the uppermost layers, suggesting that mechanical disturbance plays a critical role in reducing WTS stability.

 

 

 

 

 

The results emphasise that the NT system contributes significantly to maintaining a uniform and stable soil structure, in contrast to the CT system, which introduces marked variability in aggregate stability, especially in intensively mobilised ploughed layers.

These findings are supported by the study conducted by Steponavičienė et al. (2024), who showed that over two decades of NT application, there was a steady accumulation of organic carbon in the 0–10 cm layer and a visible improvement in soil structure, especially in combination with the incorporation of plant residues. Similarly, Tobiašová et al. (2023) showed that reduced tillage and NT contribute to macroaggregate stabilisation in less productive soils, whereas in more fertile soils, CT favours structural disaggregation by enhancing oxidation and the loss of stable carbon fractions. In addition, Amami et al. (2021) showed that although NT may have a lower initial infiltration rate than an MP system, it retains a more stable pore structure over time, providing better resilience against erosion under semi-arid climate conditions. The modelling showed a more even distribution of water in the soil profile after NT compared with CT, which affects the continuity of infiltration channels.

Soil moisture

The results showed that the NT system led to a higher water-holding capacity compared with the CT system, confirming the findings from a similar study (Page et al., 2019). Moreover, Król-Badziak et al. (2018) demonstrated that NT systems contribute to higher soil water content, especially in the surface layers (0–10 cm), and this effect is influenced by the phenological phase of the crop and climatic conditions. Likewise, Salem et al. (2015) reported a significant increase in soil water potential in maize crops managed under zero-tillage, correlated with increased water use efficiency and different soil water behaviour with depth and time. In a long-term experiment in Brazil, Silva et al. (2023) confirmed that even though NT systems may lead to a higher apparent soil density in the 0–20 cm layer, they do not reduce the water infiltration capacity. Indeed, they favour root development and, consequently, more efficient use of available water by plants. In addition, the authors found a 6.5% increase in soybean yield under NT, attributable to better soil water conservation and reduced water stress. In 2022, at the time of sowing, the upper soil layer (0–10 cm) showed a significantly higher percentage of water for the NT system compared with the CT system (Table 6). However, at 50–70 and 70–90 cm, there was higher soil moisture for the CT system. After harvesting, the situation was reversed: soil moisture was lower in the upper layer and on average for all depths for the NT system compared with the CT system (21.92% and 22.33%, respectively). This difference can be explained by the fact that NT was at the beginning of implementation in the experiment and the positive effects had not yet fully manifested. In 2023, the average water-holding capacity was higher for the NT system compared with the CT system at sowing (29.83% and 28.34%, respectively) and at harvest (25.92% and 24.32%, respectively) (Table 7). There were even more evident differences in the upper soil layer (0–10 cm). In 2022, the NT system had an advantage of > 1% at sowing and > 6% at harvest over the CT system. In 2023, the difference between the NT and CT systems was 2% at sowing and > 3% at harvest.

These results suggest that NT favours soil moisture retention by maintaining plant residues on the soil surface, which reduces evaporation and enhances water infiltration. As NT continues to be implemented, the water-holding capacity increases, demonstrating soil adaptation to this conservative practice. In 2022, ANOVA revealed no significant difference in soil moisture between the CT and NT systems at the 0–10 cm (p = 0.146, Figure 21), 10–20 cm (p = 1.00, Figure 22) and 20–30 cm (p = 0.157, Figure 23) layers. At deeper depths, there was greater variability in soil moisture between the two systems but with notable overlaps, indicating a reduced influence of tillage practice on soil moisture at these levels. In 2023, the results reflected the same patterns as in 2022, with no significant differences between the CT and NT systems for all analysed layers. The soil moisture patterns showed consistency over time between the CT and NT systems, emphasising that climatic factors and initial soil conditions may play a more important role than the tillage system in determining short-term moisture levels. These results suggest that, in the short term, NT and CT do not significantly influence soil moisture, but the observed trends indicate that NT may contribute to more uniform soil moisture in the long term due to reduced evaporation and improved soil structure.

 

 

 

 

The experimental period covers only two agricultural years, and it is important to recognise the methodological limitation imposed by this relatively short duration. Under such conditions, it is difficult to fully disentangle the effects generated by tillage systems from interannual climate variability, especially for parameters that are directly influenced by rainfall distribution, evapotranspiration and temperature oscillations. Differences between 2022 and 2023, such as variations in precipitation (373 vs 485 mm) and mean annual temperature (12.25 vs 12.8°C), may have influenced soil water dynamics, aggregate stability and crop development independently of the treatment applied. Therefore, although the results indicate favourable trends for the NT system in terms of structural stability and water conservation, they should be interpreted with caution. A study conducted over a longer period would allow a clearer delineation between treatment effects and natural year-to-year variability. However, the inclusion of two consecutive years, each with distinct climatic characteristics, provides valuable preliminary insight into the behaviour of conservation systems under contrasting seasonal conditions.

 

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm that soil physical properties are strongly influenced by the tillage system used. The NT system demonstrated significant improvements in soil physical qualities compared with the CT system, making it a viable option for soil conservation. In the second year of the experiment, WTS and soil moisture were higher for the NT system, suggesting its potential for long-term improvement. Overall, the NT system offers significant benefits by improving soil physical parameters and structural stability, reducing compaction and optimising water retention. The results are consistent with other studies, reinforcing that the NT system represents a sustainable soil conservation practice.

The results obtained in this study contribute to the literature by providing an integrated approach regarding the main soil physical parameters affected by NT for maize.

 

Table 6
Soil moisture in 2022

Depth (cm)	Soil moisture (%)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	5.63 ± 1.2	6.82 ± 0.86	19.66 ± 2.5	12.54 ± 0.86
10–20	17.63 ± 3.40	22.88 ± 3.43	22.88 ± 3.40	21.83 ± 0.43
20–30	26.50 ± 0.065	25.51 ± 0.210	24.22 ± 0.880	23.72 ± 0.792
30–50	27.94 ± 0.208	22.33 ± 1.07	17.38 ± 0.624	24.25 ± 0.885
50–70	26.85 ± 0.142	23.78 ± 0.056	22.55 ± 0.768	23.78 ± -0.904
70–90	28.33 ± 0.142	23.96 ± 0.050	27.29 ± 0.677	25.44 ± -0.881

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, there were no significant differences (Tukey test, p > 0.05) 

 

Table 7
Soil moisture in 2023

Depth (cm)	SOIL MOISTURE (%)
	Sowing		Harvesting
	CT	NT	CT	NT
0–10	19.79 ± 0.62b	21.57 ± 3.13ns	26.60 ± 0.96b	29.84 ± 0.185b
10–20	26.52 ± 0.039ab	22.22 ± 0.103b	26.79 ± 0.098b	28.63 ± 0.098b
20–30	28.78 ± 0.40a	32.00 ± 0.125b	26.83 ± 0.099ab	28.08 ± 0.10a
30–50	28.26 ± 0.20a	31.12 ± 0.108b	21.32 ± 0.70ab	23.41 ± 0.045ab
50–70	26.83 ± 0.110ab	30.61 ± 0.07a	18.8- ± 0.90ab	20.94 ± 0.460b
70–90	30.01 ± 0.190a	32.57 ± 0.10a	25.60 ± 0.87a	24.65 ± 0.50 b

Note: CT – conventional system; NT – no-tillage system. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error. Within each column, values with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different, whereas values with different lowercase letters are significantly different (Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05)

 

Unlike previous research, which analysed the effects on individual indicators in isolation, this work simultaneously evaluated changes in bulk density, WTS and the water-holding capacity under real field conditions in an active agricultural system, thus providing data with high practical applicability. The temperate-continental climatic context and the specificity of the maize crop provide a relevant framework for analysing the efficiency of conservative soil management systems. Moreover, the data can serve as a basis for the formulation of soil quality indicators adapted to MT systems, as well as for the development of recommendations for good agricultural practices to conserve soil structure and moisture. This study also emphasises the role of the NT system in reducing the risk of erosion and increasing water use efficiency, which are essential in the context of climate change and sustainable agriculture.

 

Author contributions: Conceptualization: MT, GJ, DT; Methodology: MT, GJ, DT, SC; Analysis: MT, TA, GJ; Investigation: MT, DT, SC, GDM; Resources: MT, GJ, DT, SC; Data curation: MT, GJ, TA, SC; Writing, review; supervision: MT, GJ, DT. All authors declare that they have read and approved the publication of the manuscript in this present form.

Funding: There was no external funding for this study.

Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

 

REFERENCES

Alamooti, M.Y.; Hedayatipoor, A. Effect of conservative tillage on physical properties of soil in irrigated wheat production. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal 2019, 21 (4), 90-95. http://www.cigrjournal.org

Amami, R.; Ibrahimi, K.; Sher, F.; Milham, P.; Ghazouani, H.;Chehaibi, S.; Hussain, Z.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Impacts of Different Tillage Practices on Soil Water Infiltration for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13 (6), 3155. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063155  

Bartlová, J.; Badalíková, B.; Pospíšilová, L.; Pokorný, E.; Šarapatka, B. Water stability of soil aggregates in different systems of tillage. Soil and Water Research 2015, 10 (3), 147-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/132/2014-SWR

Biberdzic, M.; Barac, S.; Lalevic, D.; Djikic, A.; Prodanovic, D.; Rajicic, V. Influence of soil tillage system on soil compaction and winter wheat yield. Chilean journal of agricultural research, 2020, 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392020000100080

Canarache, A. Factors and indices regarding excessive compactness of agricultural soils. Soil and Tillage Research, 1991, 19, 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(91)90083-A

Castellini, M.; Fornaro, F.; Garofalo, P.; Giglio, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Ventrella, D.; Vitti, C.; Vonella, A.V. Effects of No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage on Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Fine Textured Soils under Winter Wheat. Water 2019, 11, 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030484

Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Yakupoğlu, T.; Dindaroğlu, T.; Terol, E.; Mora-Navarro, G.; Arabameri, A.; Radziemska, M.; Novara, A.; Kavian, A. Tillage Versus No-Tillage. Soil Properties and Hydrology in an Organic Persimmon Farm in Eastern Iberian Peninsula. Water 2020, 12, 1539. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061539

Coughlan, K.; Cresswell, H.; McKenzie, N. Soil Physical Measurement and Interpretation for Land Evaluation, 1^st Edition. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, Australia, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/9780643069879

da Silva, T.S.; Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Tormena, C.A.; Schmidt, M.R.; Mazurana, M.; Levien, R. Soil Tillage and Cropping System Effects on the Physical-Hydric Properties of a Soil under No-Tillage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15936. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215936

Dugan, I.; Pereira, P.; Kisic, I.; Matisic, M.; Bogunovic, I. Analyzing the Influence of Conservation Tillage and Manure on Soil Parameter Modulations in Croplands. Plants 2024, 13, 607. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13050607

FAO. Standard Operating Procedure for Soil Bulk Density: Cylinder Method. http://dx.doi.org/10.4060/cc7568en (accessed on 2023).

FAO. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. 4th ed. https://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf (accessed on 2022).

Jităreanu, G. Treatise on Agrotechnics. Publishing House “Ion Ionescu de la Brad”, Iași, Romania, 2020.

Kochiieru, M.; Feiza, V.; Feizienė, D.; Lamorski, K.; Deweikyte, I.; Seibutis, V.; Pranaitiene, S. Long-term contrasting tillage in Cambisol: effect on water-stable aggregates, macropore network and soil chemical properties. International Agrophysics 2023, 37 (1), 59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.31545/intagr/156632

Komissarov, M.A.; Klik, A. The Impact of No-Till, Conservation, and Conventional Tillage Systems on Erosion and Soil Properties in Lower Austria. Eurasian Soil Science 2020, 53, 503-511. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320040079

Król-Badziak, A.; Żyłowski, T.; Kozyra, J.; Księżak, J. Soil moisture under no-tillage and tillage systems in maize long-term experiment. Polish Journal of Soil Science 2018, 51 (1), 103. http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/pjss.2018.51.1.103

Liebhard, G.; Klik, A.; Neugschwandtner, W.R.; Nolz, R. Effects of tillage systems on soil water distribution, crop development, and evaporation and transpiration rates of soybean. Agricultural Water Management 2022,  269, 107719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107719

Liu, S.; Gao, Y.; Lang, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, H. Effects of Conventional Tillage and No-Tillage Systems on Maize (Zea mays L.) Growth and Yield, Soil Structure, and Water in Loess Plateau of China: Field Experiment and Modeling Studies. Land 2022, 11 (11), 1881. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111881

Mihu, G.D.; Aostăcioaei, T.G.; Căpșună, S.; Țopa, D.; Jităreanu, G. No-Tillage Impact on Hydro-Physical Properties of the Soil on Corn Crop. Lucrări Științifice-Seria Agronomie 2023, 66 (1). URL: https://repository.iuls.ro/handle/20.500.12811/4020

Modiba, M.M.; Ocansey, C.M.; Ibrahim, H.T.M.; Birkás, M.; Dekemati, I.; Simon, B. Assessing the Impact of Tillage Methods on Soil Moisture Content and Crop Yield in Hungary. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081606 

Monteith, S.; Seybold, C.; Nelson, K. A practical, reproducible laboratory method for assessing soil aggregate stability. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 2024, 7 (4), e70014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agg2.70014

Moraru, P.I.; Rusu, T. Evolution of soil properties influenced by soil usage and soil tillage system. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 2011, 9, 710-713.

Mwangi, L.; Lelei, D. Method for Soil Wet Sieving Using Ejikelkamp Apparatus. SOP 002. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (CIFOR-ICRAF), 2022.

Omondi, M.O.; Xia, X.; Nahayo, A.; Liu, X.; Korai, P.K.; Pan, G. Quantification of biochar effects on soil hydrological properties using meta-analysis of literature data. Geoderma 2016, 274,  28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.03.029

Page, L.K.; Dang, Y.P.; Dalal, R.C.; Reeves, S.; Thomas, G.; Wang, W.; Thompson, J.P. (Changes in soil water storage with no-tillage and crop residue retention on a Vertisol: Impact on productivity and profitability over a 50 year period. Soil and Tillage Research 2019, 194, 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104319

Rabot, E.; Wiesmeier, M.; Schlüter, S.; Vogel, H.J. Soil structure as an indicator of soil functions: A review. Geoderma 2018, 314, 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.009

Robinson, D.A.; Thomas, A.; Reinsch, S.; Lebron, I.; Feeney, C.J.; Maskell, L.C.; Cosby, B.J. Analytical modelling of soil porosity and bulk density across the soil organic matter and land-use continuum. Scientific Reports 2022, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11099-7

Romaneckas, K.; Kimbirauskienė, R.; Sinkevičienė, A. Impact of tillage intensity on Planosol bulk density, pore size distribution, and water capacity in faba bean cultivation. Agronomy 2022, 12 (10), 2311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102311

Rusu, T.; Moraru, P.I.; Ranta, O. No-Tillage and Minimum Tillage – their impact on soil compaction, water dynamics, soil temperature and production on wheat, maize and soybean crop. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca Agriculture 2011, 68 (1), 318-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-agr:6460

Salem, H.; Valero, C.; Muñoz-García, M.; Gil Rodríguez, M.; Silva, L. Short-term effects of four tillage practices on soil physical properties, soil water potential, and maize yield. Geoderma 2015, 237-238, 60-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.08.014

Schmidt, E.S.; Villamil, M.B.; Amiotti, N.M. Soil quality under conservation practices on farm operations of the southern semiarid pampas region Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research 2018,  85-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.11.001

Silva, G.Fd.; Calonego, J.C.; Luperini, B.C.O.; Silveira, V.B.; Chamma, L.; Soratto, R.P.; Putti, F.F. No-Tillage System Can Improve Soybean Grain Production More Than Conventional Tillage System. Plants 2023, 12 (21), 3762. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12213762

Silva, W.T.L.; Campos, B.C.H.; Reichardt, K. Crop yield and root development of tropical no-till soils with different compaction levels. Plants 2023, 12 (18), 3762. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12183762

Šimanský, V.; Bajčan, D.; Ducsay, L. The effect of organic matter on aggregation under different soil man- agement practices in a vineyard in extremely humid year. Catena 2013, 101, 108-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.10.011

Song, K.; Zheng, X.L.; Lv, W.; Qin, Q.; Sun, L.; Zhang, H.; Xue, Y. Effects of tillage and strareturn on waterstable aggregates, carbon stabilization and crop yield in an estuarine alluvial soil. Scientific Reports 2019, 9, 4586. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41598-019-40908-9

Steponavičienė, V.; Žiūraitis, G.; Rudinskienė, A.; Jackevičienė, K.; Bogužas, V. Long-Term Effects of Different Tillage Systems and Their Impact on Soil Properties and Crop Yields. Agronomy 2024, 14 (4), 870. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14040870

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040818

Toth, M.; Stumpp, C.; Klik, A.; Strauss, P.; Bano, M.S.; Liebhard, G.; Strohmeier, S. Long-term effects of tillage systems on soil health of a silt loam in Lower Austria. Soil and Tillage Research 2024, 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106120

Țopa, D.; Cara, I.; Jităreanu, G. Long term impact of different tillage systems on carbon pools and stocks, soil buk density, aggregation and nutrients: A field meta-analysis. Catena 2021, 199, 105102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.105102

Verchot, L.V.; Dutaur, L.; Shepherd, K.D.; Albrecht, A. Organic matter stabilization in soil aggregates: Understanding the biogeochemical mechanisms that determine the fate of carbon inputs in soils. Geoderma 2011, 161 (3-4), 182-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.017

Wang, Y.; Yang, S.; Sun, J.; Liu, Z.; He, X.; Qiao, J. Effects of Tillage and Sowing Methods on Soil Physical Properties and Corn Plant Characters. Agriculture 2023, 13 (3), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030600

Yuan, L.; Zhou, L.; Song, C.; Qingping, Z. Trade-off between soil ph., bulk density and other soil physical properties under global no-tillage agriculture. Geoderma 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114099

Zheng, H.; Liu, W.; Zheng, J.; Luo, Y.; Li, R.; Wang, H.; Qi, H. Effect of long-term tillage on soil aggregates and aggregate-associated carbon in black soil of Northeast China. PLoS One 2018, 13 (6), e0199523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199523.

 

Academic Editor: Dr. Isabela Maria SIMION

Publisher Note: Regarding jurisdictional assertions in published maps and institutional affiliations ALSE maintain neutrality.