Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-4hcbs Total loading time: 0.982 Render date: 2021-12-01T10:50:47.443Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Comparison of alternative farming systems. I. Infiltration techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

S.D. Logsdon
Affiliation:
Soil Scientists, USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011.
J.K. Radke
Affiliation:
Soil Scientists, USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011.
D.L. Karlen
Affiliation:
Soil Scientists, USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011.
Get access

Abstract

Quantitative data are needed to understand how alternative farming practices affect surface infiltration of water and associated surface soil properties. We used a rainfall simulator, double ring infiltrometer, small single ring infiltrometers, and tension infiltrometers to measure water infiltration for Clarion loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludoll) and for Webster silty clay loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Haplaquoll) soils located on a conventionally-managed and an alternatively-managed farm in central Iowa. Steady-state measurements suggested that infiltration rates were somewhat higher for the alternative farming system. Bulk densities were sometimes lower, and volume of large pores was a little higher for the alternative farming system. Small single rings were more reproducible than rainfall simulators or double ring infiltrometers, and data trends were the same as for rainfall simulators.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

1.Ankeny, M.D., Kaspar, T.C., and Horton, R.. 1988. Design for an automated tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc.Amer. J. 52:893896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Ankeny, M.D., Kaspar, T.C., and Horton, R.. 1990. Characterization of tillage and traffic effects on unconfined infiltration measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 53:837840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Baker, J.M., and Lascano, R.J.. 1989. The spatial sensitivity of time-domain reflectometry. Soil Sci. 147:378384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Berry, E.C., and Karlen, D.L.. 1993. Comparison of alternative farming systems. II. Earthworm population density and species diversity. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1990. Alternative Agriculture: Scientists' Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
6.Dasberg, S. 1985. Time-domain reflectometry field measurements of soil water content and electrical conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 49:293296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Heard, J.R., Kladivko, E.J., and Mannering, J.V.. 1988. Soil macroporosity, hydraulic conductivity, and air permeability of silty soils under long-term conservation tillage in Indiana. Soil and Tillage Research 11:118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hudson, B.D. 1990. Concepts of soil mapping and interpretation. Soil Survey Horizons 31:6182.Google Scholar
9.Jordahl, J.L., and Karlen, D.L.. 1993. Comparison of alternative farming systems: III. Soil aggregate stability. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:2733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Karlen, D.L., and Fenton, T.E.. 1991. Soil map units: Basis for agrochemical-residue sampling. In R.G. Nash and A.R. Leslie (eds). Groundwater Residue Sampling Design. ACS Symposium Series 465. Amer. Chemical Soc., Washington, D.C. pp. 182194.Google Scholar
11.Karlen, D.L., Sadler, E.J., and Busscher, W.J.. 1990. Crop yield variation associated with Coastal Plain soil map units. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:859865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kay, R.L., and Baker, J.L.. 1989. Management with ridge tillage to reduce chemical losses. Paper No. 89–2157. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
13.Logsdon, S.D., Allmaras, R.R., Nelson, W.W., and Voorhees, W.B.. 1992. Persistence of subsoil compaction from heavy axle loads. Soil and Tillage Res. 23:95110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Meyer, L.D., and Harmon, W.C.. 1979. Multiple-intensity rainfall simulator for erosion research on row sideslopes. Transactions of the Amer. Soc. Agric. Engineers 22:100103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Mukhtar, S., Baker, J.L., Horton, R., and Erbach, D.C.. 1985. Soil water infiltration as affected by the use of the paraplow. Transactions of the Amer. Soc. Agric. Engineers 28:18111816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
17.Onstad, C.A., Radke, J.K., and Young, R.A.. 1981. An outdoor portable rainfall erosion laboratory. Proceedings of the Florence Symposium “Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement.” IAHS Pub. No. 133:415422. International Assoc. of Hydrol. Sci., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
18.Pikul, J.L., Zuzel, J.F., and Ramig, R.E.. 1990. Effect of tillage-induced soil macroporosity on water infiltration. Soil and Tillage Research 17:153165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Prieksat, M.A., Ankeny, M.D., and Kaspar, T.C.. 1992. Design for an automated, self-regulating, single-ring infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 56:14091411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3:144155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Rodale Institute. 1990. The Thompson Farm: On-Farm Research. Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
22.Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, a Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
23.Steinwand, A.L. 1992. Soil geomorphic, hydrologic, and sedimentologic relationships and evaluation of soil survey data for a Mollisol catena on the Des Moines Lobe, central Iowa. Ph.D. dissertation. Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
24.Topp, G.C., and Davis, J.L.. 1981. Detecting infiltration of water through soil cracks by time-domain reflectometry. Geoderma 26:1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1986. Construction and assembly plans for demonstration rainfall simulator. Agricultural Research Service and Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
26.Wilson, G.V., and Luxmoore, R.J.. 1988. Infiltration, macroporosity, and mesoporosity distributions on two forested watersheds. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 52:329335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Zuzel, J.F., Pikul, J.L., and Rasmussen, P.E.. 1990. Tillage and fertilizer effects on water infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:205208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of alternative farming systems. I. Infiltration techniques
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of alternative farming systems. I. Infiltration techniques
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of alternative farming systems. I. Infiltration techniques
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *