Koruyucu Toprak İşlemesinde Dipkazan Tipinin Toprak Parçalanması Üzerindeki Etkisinin Araştırılması

Öz

Toprak işleme operasyonunun temel amaçlarından biri, uygun toprak parçalanmasına sahip bir tohum yatağı sağlamak ve koruyucu toprak işlemesi için nispeten iri agregata sahip bir üst toprak oluşturmaktır. İşlenmemiş sert toprağın kırılması için derin sürümün gerekli olduğu göz önüne alındığında, aynı işlemle bir tohum yatağı oluşturulması işlem verimliliğini artırabilir. Bu çalışma, dipkazan tipinin toprak agregası üzerindeki etkisini araştırmak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bunun için dört toprak altı dipkazanı (Konvansiyonel, Bentleg, Paraplow ve kanatlı Paraplow), farklı toprak nemi içeriğinde (%8, %12, %16 ve %20) ve faklı traktör hızlarında (0.5, 1, 1.2 ve 1.4 m/s) test edilmiştir. Toprak parçalanması, farklı derinliklerde (10, 20, 30 ve 40 cm) değerlendirilmiştir. Diğer iki araçla karşılaştırıldığında, Kanatlı-Paraplow ve Paraplow, dipkazan sonunda bir kanat ve keski olması nedeniyle daha fazla zemin örselenmesi göstermiştir. En yüksek ortalama ağırlık çapına [(MWD) = 19.9 mm], Bentleg ile 10 cm derinlikte ve %20 nem içeriği kullanarak ulaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte en düşük değer (3.37 mm), 40 cm derinliğindeki kanatlı Paraplow ve nem içeriği %8 ile elde edilmiştir. Düzgün bir tohum yatağı sağlamak için 0.5-8 mm agrega büyüklüğü göz önüne alındığında, 0.8P (PL=Zeminin plastisite limiti) su içeriğinde herhangi bir derinlikte tohum yatağı sağlayabilmede kanatlı-Paraplow dipkazanı uygun bir araçtır. Yavaş ileri hızlarda, ince parçacıklar daha derin bir tabakaya elenmek için yeterli zamana sahiptir; bu da tohum yatağı oluşturma için faydalı olmaktadır. Toprağın nemini azaltmak, toprağın bozulmasını ve parçalanmasını artırmaktadır. Ayrıca, MWD'nin yüksek nemlerde daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ortalama ağırlık çapı,Paraplow,Dipkazan,Toprak agregası

Investigation Tine Type Effect on Soil Fragmentation for Conservation Tillage

Abstract

One of the main aims of tillage operation is to provide a seedbed with appropriate soil fragmentation and to create relatively large aggregates of topsoil to achieve conservation tillage. Considering that subsoiling is necessary for hardpan breakup, the creation of a seedbed with the same operation can increase the operation efficiency. The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of tine type on soil aggregate. For this purpose, we tested four subsoiling tines of conventional, Bentleg, Paraplow, and winged-Paraplow in the field at soil moisture contents of 8, 12, 16, and 20% and the tractor forward speeds of 0.5, 1, 1.2, and 1.4 m/s. Soil fragmentation was evaluated in different depths of 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm. Winged-Paraplow and Paraplow, compared with two other tools, showed more soil disturbance due to having a wing and chisel at the end of the tine. The highest mean weight diameter (MWD) =19.9 mm was reached using a Bentleg at a depth of 10 cm and moisture content of 20%. In comparison, the lowest value of 3.37 mm was related to the winged-Paraplow at a depth of 40 cm and moisture content of 8%.Considering the aggregate size of 0.5-8 mm for providing a proper seedbed, the winged-Paraplow tine is a suitable tool that can provide seedbed at any depth at a water content of 0.8PL, where PL denotes plastic limit. At slow forward speeds, fine particles had enough time to sift to a deeper layer, which is beneficial for seedbed creation. Reducing the soil moisture increased soil disturbance and its fragmentation. Moreover, it was observed that MWD was higher at high moistures..

Keywords

• Mean weight diameter,Paraplow,Subsoiler tine,Soil aggregate

References

1. Abbaspour-Gilandeh Y & Sedghi R (2015). Predicting soil fragmentation during tillage operation using fuzzy logic approach. J. Terramech. 57: 61–69.
2. Ahmadi H & Mollazadeh K (2009). Effect of plowing depth and soil moisture content on reduced secondary tillage. Agric. Eng. Int.: The CIGR EJournal. 11: 1-9.
3. Ahaneku I E & Ogunjirin, O A (2005). Effect of tractor forward speed on sandy loam soil physical condition during tillage. Nigerian J. Tech. 24: 51-57.
4. Adam, K M & Erbach D C (1992). Secondary tillage tool effect on soil aggregation. Trans. ASAE. 35: 1771–1776.
5. Allmaras R R, Burwell R E, Holt R F (1969). Plow layer porosity and surface roughness from tillage as affected by initial porosity and soil moisture at tillage time. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 31: 550-556.
6. Askari M, Shahgholi G, Abbaspour Y (2019). New wings on the interaction between conventional subsoiler and paraplow tines with the soil: effects on the draft and the properties of soil. Arch. Argon. Soil Sci. 65: 88-100.
7. Barzegar A R, Asoodar M A, Khadish A, Hashemi AM, Herbert S J (2003). Soil physical characteristics and chickpea yield responses to tillage treatments. Soil and Till. Res. 71: 49–57.
8. Barzegar A R, Hashemi A M, Herbert SJ, Asoodar MA (2004). Interactive effects of tillage system and soil water content on aggregate size distribution for seedbed preparation in Fluvisols in southwest Iran. Soil Till. Res. 78: 45–52.

9. Berntsen R & Berre B (1993). Fracturing of soil clods and the soil crumbling effectiveness of draught tillage implements. Soil Till. Res. 28: 79–94.
10. Bogrekci I & Godwin RJ (2007). Development of an image-processing technique for soil tilt sensing. Biosys. Eng. 97:323–331.
11. Braunack MV & Dexter AR (1989). Soil aggregation in the seedbed: a review. II. Effect of aggregate sizes on plant growth. Soil Till. Res. 14: 281–289.
12. Chen Hou R, Gong Y, Li H, Fan M, Kuzyakov Y (2009). Effects of 11 years of conservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in Loess Plateau of China. Soil and Till. Res. 106: 85–94.
13. Czyż EA, Dexter AR (2009). Soil physical properties as affected by traditional, reduced and no-tillage for winter wheat. Int. Agrophys. 23: 319-326.
14. Dalla Rosa J, Cooper M, Darboux F, Medeiros J C (2012). Soil roughness evolution in different tillage systems under simulated rainfall using a semivariogram-based index. Soil Till. Res. 124: 226–232.
15. Ghadernejad K, Shahgholi G, Mardani A,Ghafouri Chiyaneh H (2018). Prediction effect. farmyard manure, multiple passes and moisture content on clay soil compaction using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J. Terramech. 77: 49–57.
16. Gill W R, McCereery W F (1960). Relation of size of cut to tillage tool efficiency. Agric. Eng. 41:372-374.
17. Godwin R J (2007). A review of the effect of implement geometry on soil failure and implement forces. Soil Till. Res. 97: 331-340.
18. Gökalp boydafi M, Turgut N (2007). Effect of Tillage Implements and Operating Speeds on Soil Physical Properties and Wheat Emergence. Turkish J. Agric. For. 31: 399-412.Hakansson I, Myrbeck A,Etana A (2002). A review of research on seedbed preparation for small grains in Sweden. Soil Till. Res. 64: 23–40.
19. Heege H J., Vosshenrich H H (1998). Soil cultivation: new methods and new technologies. In Club of Bologna, Proceedings of the 9th meeting, Bologna, 15–16 Nov 1998 (Editione Unacoma Service srl), pp. 53–64.
20. Heege H J (2013). Precision in Crop Farming. Site Specific Concepts and Sensing Methods: Applications and Results. Springer, United States.
21. Hemmat, A., Ahmadi, I. & Masoumi, A. 2007. Water infiltration and clod size distribution as influenced by ploughshare type, soil water content and ploughing depth. Biosys. Eng. 97: 257–266.
22. Kabiri, K. & Zarean, S. 2002. Evaluation of draft requirement and soil inversion of moldboard plow at different levels of speed and plowing depth. J. Agric. Sci. Nat. Res. 9: 129-138.
23. Kemper, W D. & Rosenau, R C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 425–440.
24. Kemper, W D. & Chepil, WS. 1995. Size distribution of aggregates. Second Ed. In: Black, C.A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I: Physical and Mineralogical Properties, second ed., SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 498–519.
25. McKyes, E. & Maswaure, J. 1997. Effect of design parameters of flat tillage tools on loosening of a clay soil Soil Till. Res. 43: 195–204.
26. McKyes, E. 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Developments in Agricultural Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
27. Munkholm, L J. 2002. Soil Fragmentation and Friability. Effects of Soil Water and Soil Management. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Crop Physiology and Soil Science (Ph.D. Thesis).
28. Murungu, F S., Nyamugafata, P., Chiduza. C., Clarck, L J. & Whalley, W R. 2003. Effect of seed priming, aggregate size and soil matric potential on emergence of cotton (Gossypium hirstum L.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Till. Res. 74: 161–168.
29. Nasr, H M. & Selles, F. 1995. Seedling emergence as influenced by aggregate size, bulk density, and penetration resistance of the seedbed. Soil Till. Res. 34: 61–76.
30. Ling R F & Roberts H V (1975). IDA: An Approach to Interactive Data Analysis in Teaching. J. Bus. 48: 411–451.
31. Ojenigi S O & Dexter A R (1979). Soil factors affecting the macro structure produced by tillage. Trans of the ASAE. 22: 339-343.
32. Rahimi-Ajdadi F & Abbaspour-Gilandeh Y (2011). Artificial Neural Network and stepwise multiple range regression methods for prediction of tractor fuel consumption. Measurement. 44: 2104–2111.
33. Russell E W (1973). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 10th ed. Longman, Green and Co., London (849 pp.).
34. Salar M R, Esehaghbeygi A, Hemmat A (2014). Soil loosening characteristics of a dual bent blade subsurface tillage implement. Soil Till. Res. 134: 17-24.
35. Slowinska A (1994). Changes in structure and physical Properties of soil during spring tillage operations. Soil Till. Res. 29: 397-407.
36. Tahan Y H, Hassan A, Hammadi A (1992). Effect of plowing depths using different plow types on some physical properties of soil. A. M. A. 23: 21-24.
37. Woodruff D W RT, Lewellen J E, Duffas E D (1986.) An investigation into the effects of soil compaction and irrigation on sugar beet infected with rhizomania. Soil Till. Res. 21: 353-360.