Soil water drying and recharge rates as affected by tillage under continuous barley and barley-canola cropping systems in northwestern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In areas of the northwestern Canadian Prairies, barley and canola are grown in a short growing season with high rainfall variability. Excessively dry soil in conventional tillage (CT) in dry periods and excessively wet soil in no-tillage (NT) in wet periods could cause a significant decrease in crop production by influencing the availability of soil water. The effects of CT, NT and NT with a 7.5-cm residue-free strip on the planting rows (NTR) on soil water drying (–dW/dt) and recharge (dW/dt) rates were studied in 1992 and 1993 during wet and dry periods to evaluate the impact of NTR, NT and CT systems on soil moisture condition. The soils, Donnelly silt loam and Donnelly sandy loam (both Gray Luvisol) were selected and soil water content by depth was measured by time domain reflectometry. Water retained at 6 matric potentials from –5 to –160 kPa were observed. In the field study, –dW/dt was significantly greater in CT than in NT in the silt loam for the 0- to 30-cm layer during the first 34 d after planting in 1992. The 0- to 30-cm soil layer in CT and NTR dried faster than in NT during a period immediately following heavy rainfall in the silt loam in 1993. The drying coefficient (–K d ) was significantly greater in CT and NTR than in NT in the silt loam soil in 1993 and in the sandy loam soil in 1992 in the top 30-cm depth. The recharge coefficient (K r ) was significantly greater in NT and NTR than in CT for the silt loam soil. The NTR system increased the –dW/dt by 1.2 × 10 -2 to 12.1 × 10 -2 cm d -1 in 1992 and 1993 in the silt loam soil and by 10.2 × 10 -2 cm d -1 in 1993 in the sandy loam soil as compared with NT. The dW/dt was 8.1 × 10 -2 cm d -1 greater in NTR in 1992 and 1993 in the silt loam soil and was 1.9 × 10 -2 greater in NTR in 1992 than in CT in the sandy loam soil. The laboratory study indicated that NT soils retained more water than the CT soils. The NTR practice maintained better soil moisture conditions for crop growth than CT in dry periods than NT in wet periods. Compared with NT, the NTR avoided prolonged near-saturated soil conditions with increased soil drying rate under extremely wet soil. Key words: Water drying, water recharge, water depletion, wet and drying periods, hydraulic properties, soil capacity to retain water
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".