Skip to main content
Log in

Issues of spatial and temporal scale in modeling the effects of field operations on soil properties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tillage is an important procedure for modifying the soil environment to enhance crop growth and conserve soil and water resources. Process-based models of crop production are widely used in decision support, but few explicitly simulate tillage. The Cropping Systems Model (CSM) was modified to simulate tillage and related field operations for single seasons or multiple years. This paper provides an overview of how the new routines were implemented and discusses issues of spatial and temporal scaling that influenced the underlying strategy. The processes considered included effects of crop residues on the soil surface and on chemical and physical properties that vary with soil depth. Each event is described by date and implement used. The implement is characterized by its effects on soil properties, including mixing of soil layers and crop residues and changes in soil bulk density. The modeled responses are illustrated with a hypothetical case comparing effects of four implements (mold board plow, tandem disk, tine harrow, and planking) and a field experiment where winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was grown with different tillage and residue management practices. From a modeling viewpoint, a key issue was how to manage different spatial and time scales. The soil is simulated as varying only with depth but in reality, the thickness of the soil is affected by tillage. This poses challenges for ensuring that the masses for water, nutrients, residues and the soil per se are conserved as soil layers are mixed and the density of each layer is altered. The model runs on a daily time step, but events such as tillage, application of residue, and irrigation can all happen within a single day and the sequence/timing can influence simulations. The new routines for field operations improve representation of tillage and residue management in the CSM model, but they are best viewed as providing a framework for future work that explicitly considers effects of residue type, soil type and distribution, and soil moisture on tillage effects and that deal with effects of rainfall kinetic energy in more detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andales AA, Batchelor WD, Anderson CE (2000) Incorporating tillage effects into a soybean model. Agric Syst 66:69–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton FE, Booster DE (1981) Strip-till planting in dryland cereal production. Trans ASAE 24:59–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham F et al (2007) Tillage. Deere & Company, Moline

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell RQ, Hawes JD (1994) Trends in tillage practices in relation to sustainable crop production with special reference to temperate climates. Soil Till Res 30:245–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dadoun FA (1993) Modeling tillage effects on soil physical properties and maize (Zea mays L.) development and growth. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, MI

  • Debele B, Srinivasan R, Yves Parlange J (2007) Accuracy evaluation of weather data generation and disaggregation methods at finer timescales. Adv Water Resour 30:1286–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Défossez P, Richard G, Boizard H, O’Sullivan MF (2003) Modeling change in soil compaction due to agricultural traffic as function of soil water content. Geoderma 116:89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363:543–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, Wilkens PW, Porter CH, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Boote KJ, Singh U, Uryasev O, Bowen WT, Gijsman AT, White JW, Tsuji GY (2009) Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer, DSSAT4.5. University of Hawaii, CD-ROM, Honolulu

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt LA, White JW, Hoogenboom G (2001) Agronomic data: advances in documentation and protocols for exchange and use. Agric Syst 70:477–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Wilkens PW, Singh U, Gijsman AJ, Ritchie JT (2003) DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18:235–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel DD, Western AW, Grayson RB, Turral HN (2004) Process parameterization and temporal scaling in surface runoff and erosion modelling. Hydrol Processes 18:1423–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kladivko EJ (2001) Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil Till Res 61:61–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32:25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht MA, Al-Kaisi M (2005) Strip-tillage effect on seedbed soil temperature and other soil physical properties. Soil Till Res 80:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipiec J, Hatano R (2003) Quantification of compaction effects on soil physical properties and crop growth. Geoderma 116:107–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobb DAR, Huffman E, Reicosky DC (2007) Importance of information on tillage practices in the modelling of environmental processes and in the use of environmental indicators. J Environ Manage 82:377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster GS, Palic DB, Dunn GH (2002) Soil management alters seedling emergence and subsequent autumn growth and yield in dryland winter wheat-fallow systems in the Central Great Plains on a clay loam soil. Soil Till Res 65:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul JCJ (1994) Do not use a simple model when a complex one will do. J Mar Syst 5:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Passioura JB (1996) Simulation models: science, snake oil, education, or engineering? Agron J 88:690–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds JF, Acock B (1985) Predicting the response of plants to increasing carbon dioxide: a critique of plant growth models. Ecol Modell 29:107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie JT (1998) Soil water balance and plant water stress. In: Tsuji GY, Hoogenboom G, Thornton PK (eds) Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer R, Wall PC, Govaerts B (2007) Model-based assessment of maize cropping under conventional and conservation agriculture in highland Mexico. Soil Till Res 94:83–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk AIJM, Bruijnzeel LA, Rosewell CJ (2002) Rainfall intensity-kinetic energy relationships: a critical literature appraisal. J Hydrol 261:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter CH, Jones JW, Gijsman AJ, Adiku S, Dzotsi K, Gargiulo O, Naab JB (2009) Modeling organic carbon in DSSAT v4.5. ORIJ. doi:10.1007/s12351-009-0059-1

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey W. White .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White , J.W., Jones, J.W., Porter, C. et al. Issues of spatial and temporal scale in modeling the effects of field operations on soil properties. Oper Res Int J 10, 279–299 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-009-0067-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-009-0067-1

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Navigation