Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:19:58.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water infiltration and surface-soil structural properties as influenced by animal traffic in the Southern Piedmont USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2011

Alan J. Franzluebbers ,
John A. Stuedemann  and
Dorcas H. Franklin
Alan J. Franzluebbers*
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, 1420 Experiment Station Road, Watkinsville, GA 30677, USA.
John A. Stuedemann
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, 1420 Experiment Station Road, Watkinsville, GA 30677, USA.
Dorcas H. Franklin
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, 1420 Experiment Station Road, Watkinsville, GA 30677, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: alan.franzluebbers@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Surface-soil structural condition in perennial pastures is expected to be modified by how forage is (a) harvested through haying or grazing and (b) stimulated through source of nutrients applied, as well as by compactive forces, e.g., grazing cattle or hay harvest machinery. Changes in surface-soil condition can affect hydrologic processes that have important implications for plant growth, greenhouse gas emissions and off-site water quality. We determined the effects of harvest management and nutrient source on the rate of ponded water infiltration and penetration resistance in a bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.]/tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum Schreb. S.J. Darbyshire) pasture on a Typic Kanhapludult in Georgia. During a period when soil was wet (61% water-filled pore space), the rate of water infiltration was 2.8 ± 1.5 times greater when forage was left unharvested as when hayed or grazed (mean ± standard deviation among nine nutrient source × harvest management comparisons). During a subsequent period, when soil was dry (28% water-filled pore space), the rate of water infiltration followed the same treatment pattern, but was not statistically different among harvest-management practices (1.5 ± 0.4 times greater between unharvested and other systems). Penetration resistance of the surface at 10 cm depth followed the order: unharvested (62 J) < hayed (100 J) < low grazing pressure (119 J) < high grazing pressure (137 J). Water infiltration during the wet period was negatively related (P ⩽ 0.01) to soil-water content (r = − 0.57), penetration resistance at 0–10 cm depth (r = − 0.50) and bulk density at 3–6 cm depth (r = − 0.53), but was positively related to surface residue C (r = 0.47) and soil organic C concentration at 12–20 cm depth (r = 0.42). These results suggest that complex soil physical (i.e., aggregation, penetration resistance and infiltration) and biological (i.e., plant growth, surface residues and soil organic matter) interactions occur in pastures. We conclude that well-managed grazing systems with excellent ground cover should have adequate hydrologic condition to promote pasture productivity and limit environmental contamination from runoff. Further work is needed to understand the linkages between field- and watershed-scale hydrology in perennial pastures and their implications on water quality.

Keywords

bulk densitycompactionpasture managementpenetration resistancesoil organic carbonsurface residue
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 256 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Greenwood, K.L. and McKenzie, B.M. 2001. Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: A review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41:1231–1250.Google Scholar
2DeLaune, P.B., Moore, P.A. Jr.Carman, D.K., Sharpley, A.N., Haggard, B.E., and Daniel, T.C. 2004. Development of a phosphorus index for pastures fertilized with poultry litter – factors affecting phosphorus runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 33:2183–2191.Google Scholar
3Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H. and Taylor, C.A. Jr 1988. Infiltration and interrill erosion responses to selected livestock grazing strategies, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Range Management 41:296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Alderfer, R.B. and Robinson, R.R. 1947. Runoff from pastures in relation to grazing intensity and soil compaction. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 39:948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Trimble, S.W. and Mendel, A.C. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent – a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253.Google Scholar
6Franklin, D.H., Cabrera, M.L. and Calvert, V.H. 2006. Fertilizer source and soil aeration effects on runoff volume and quality. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:84–89.Google Scholar
7Kuykendall, H.A., Cabrera, M.L., Hoveland, C.S., McCann, M.A., and West, L.T. 1999. Stocking method effects on nutrient runoff from pastures fertilized with broiler litter. Journal of Environmental Quality 28:1886–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Pierson, S.T., Cabrera, M.L., Evanylo, G.K., Kuykendall, H.A., Hoveland, C.S., McCann, M.A., and West, L.T. 2001. Phosphorus and ammonium concentrations in surface runoff from grasslands fertilized with broiler litter. Journal of Environmental Quality 30:1784–1789.Google Scholar
9Franzluebbers, A.J., Stuedemann, J.A. and Wilkinson, S.R. 2001. Bermuda grass management in the Southern Piedmont USA: I. Soil and surface residue carbon and sulfur. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65:834–841.Google Scholar
10Franzluebbers, A.J., Wilkinson, S.R. and Stuedemann, J.A. 2004. Bermuda grass management in the Southern Piedmont USA: X. Coastal productivity and persistence in response to fertilization and defoliation regimes. Agronomy Journal 96:1400–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Franzluebbers, A.J. and Stuedemann, J.A. 2005. Bermuda grass management in the Southern Piedmont USA: VII. Soil-profile organic carbon and total nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:1455–1462.Google Scholar
12Franzluebbers, A.J. and Stuedemann, J.A. 2009. Soil-profile organic carbon and total nitrogen during 12 years of pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129:28–36.Google Scholar
13Bouwer, H. 1986. Intake rate: Cylinder infiltrometer. In Klute, A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed., Agronomy No. 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 825–844.Google Scholar
14Franklin, D.H., Cabrera, M.L., Steiner, J.L., Endale, D.M., and Miller, W.P. 2001. Evaluation of percent flow captured by a small in-field runoff collector. Transactions of the ASAE 44:551–554.Google Scholar
15Herrick, J.E. and Jones, T.L. 2002. A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1320–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Franzluebbers, A.J. and Stuedemann, J.A. 2010. Surface soil changes during twelve years of pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:2131–2141.Google Scholar
17Taylor, H.M. and Gardner, H.B. 1962. Penetration of cotton seedling taproots as influenced by bulk density, moisture content, and strength of soil. Soil Science 96:153–156.Google Scholar
18Clark, J.T., Russell, J.R., Karlen, D.L., Singleton, P.L., Busby, W.D., and Peterson, B.C. 2004. Soil surface property and soybean yield response to corn stover grazing. Agronomy Journal 96:1364–1371.Google Scholar
19Busscher, W.J., Bauer, P.J., Camp, C.R., and Sojka, R.E. 1997. Correction of cone index for soil water content differences in a coastal plain soil. Soil and Tillage Research 43:205–217.Google Scholar
20Tollner, E.W., Calvert, G.V., and Langdale, G. 1990. Animal trampling effects on soil physical properties of two southeastern U.S. Ultisols. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 33:75–87.Google Scholar
21Pietola, L., Horn, R., and Yli-Halla, M. 2005. Effects of trampling by cattle on the hydraulic and mechanical properties of soil. Soil and Tillage Research 82:99–108.Google Scholar
22Scholefield, D. and Hall, D.M. 1986. A recording penetrometer to measure the strength of soil in relation to the stresses exerted by a walking cow. European Journal of Soil Science 37:165–176.Google Scholar
23Shipitalo, M.J. and Edwards, W.M. 1998. Runoff and erosion control with conservation tillage and reduced-input practices on cropped watersheds. Soil and Tillage Research 46:1–12.Google Scholar
24Starr, G.C., Lal, R., Owens, L., and Kimble, J. 2008. Empirical relationships for soil organic carbon transport from agricultural watersheds in Ohio. Land Degradation and Development 19:57–64.Google Scholar
25Singer, M.J. and Le Bissonnais, Y. 1998. Importance of surface sealing in the erosion of some soils from a Mediterranean climate. Geomorphology 24:79–85.Google Scholar
26Zhang, X.C. and Miller, W.P. 1996. Physical and chemical crusting processes affecting runoff and erosion in furrows. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60:860–865.Google Scholar
27Watts, C.W. and Dexter, A.R. 1997. The influence of organic matter in reducing the destabilization of soil by simulated tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 42:253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Franzluebbers, A.J., Wright, S.F., and Stuedemann, J.A. 2000. Soil aggregation and glomalin under pastures in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1018–1026.Google Scholar
29Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L., Baker, S.A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P.B., and Conover, D.M. 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical, and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141:310–322.Google Scholar
30Beetz, A.E. and Rinehart, L. 2010. Rotational Grazing. National Center for Appropriate Technology, Fayetteville, AR. 12 p. Available at Web site http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/rotgraze.html (verified August 5, 2011).Google Scholar
31Briske, D.D., Derner, J.D., Brown, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Teague, W.R., Havstad, K.M., Gillen, R.L., Ash, A.J., and Willms, W.D. 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands: Reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:3–17.Google Scholar
32Sollenberger, L.E. and Vanzant, E.S. 2011. Interrelationships among forage nutritive value and quantity and individual animal performance. Crop Science 51:420–432.Google Scholar