RESISTANCE OF A RED LATOSOL TO PENETRATION: COMPARISON OF PENETROMETERS, MODEL ADJUSTMENT, AND SOIL WATER CONTENT CORRECTION

Duarte, Thiago F.; Silva, Tonny J. A. da; Bonfim-Silva, Edna M.; Fenner, Willian

doi:10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v40n4p462-472/2020

Thiago F. Duarte ^**Corresponding author. Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil. E-mail: thiago.duarte@ufr.edu.br

Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8471-104X

Tonny J. A. da Silva

Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil.

Edna M. Bonfim-Silva

Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil.

Willian Fenner

Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil.

*Corresponding author. Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil. E-mail: thiago.duarte@ufr.edu.br

Area Editor: Fernando França da Cunha

Thumbnail

FIGURE 1
Red Latosol saturation process in the study plot. Detail demonstrating access tube for moisture measurement with Diviner 2000 probe.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 2
Difference between measured penetration resistance and the reference penetration resistance (at θ_m = 0.20 kg kg^-1) as a function of soil moisture.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 3
Penetration resistance measured under field conditions using a manual penetrometer, as a function of volumetric soil moisture (%). A) 0–0.10 m layer; B) 0.10–0.20 m layer; C) 0.20–0.30 m layer; D) 0.30–0.40 m layer; E) 0.40–0.50 m layer; F) 0.50–0.60 m layer.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 4
Penetration resistance profile measured using a manual penetrometer under field conditions at the beginning (PR initial) and at the end (PR final) of the experiment.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 5
Penetration resistance curves measured in the field (manual penetrometer) and in the laboratory (bench-top penetrometer) as a function of soil water content mass basis (θ_m = kg kg^-1).

Thumbnail

FIGURE 6
Regression between penetration resistance measured in the field (manual penetrometer) and laboratory (bench-top penetrometer) as a function of soil water content.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 7
Penetration resistance as a function of soil water content mass (θ_m = kg kg^-1) measured using a bench-top penetrometer.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 8
Comparison of measured and simulated penetration resistance (PR) values using the Busscher & Sojka (1987)Busscher WJ, Sojka RE (1987) Enhancement of subsoiling effect on soil strength by conservation tillage. Transactions of ASAE 30:888-892. model.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 9
Comparison of measured and simulated penetration resistance (PR) values using the Busscher et al. (1997)Busscher WJ, Bauer PJ, Camp CR, Sojka RE (1997) Correction of cone index for soil water content differences in a coastal plain soil. Soil and Tillage Research 43:205-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00015-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00... model.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 10
Comparison of measured and simulated penetration resistance (PR) values using the Jakobsen & Dexter (1987)Jakobsen BF, Dexter AR (1987) Effect of soil structure on wheat root growth, water uptake and grain yield. A computer simulation model. Soil and Tillage Research 10:331-345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(87)90022-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(87)900... model.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 11
Comparison of measured and simulated penetration resistance (PR) values using the Mielke et al. (1994)Mielke LN, Powers WL, Badri S, Jones AJ (1994) Estimating soil water content from soil strength. Soil and Tillage Research 31:199-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)90080-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)900... model.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 12
Correction of soil penetration resistance as a function of soil moisture (kg kg^-1). θ_ref: soil moisture reference value used to evaluate the models.

Thumbnail

TABLE 1
Student t-test results for penetration resistance values measured using a field (PR –field) and bench-penetrometer (PR – bench).

Thumbnail

TABLE 2
Adjusted parameters of the evaluated penetration resistance models.

Thumbnail

TABLE 3
Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of penetration resistance correction methods as a function of soil moisture.

Thumbnail

TABLE 4
Comparison of reference penetration resistance (PRreference) values and the corrected penetration resistance values based on the proposed method and the Busscher methods.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

	PR – bench (MPa)	PR – field (MPa)
Mean	4.18	1.45
Variance	4.46	0.56
Observations	44	44
Pearson correlation	0.85
Difference means hypothesis	0.00
gl.	43
Stat t	11.81
P(T<=t) uni-caudal	0.00
t critical uni-caudal	1.68
P(T<=t) bi-caudal	0.00
t critical bi-caudal	2.02

Penetration resistance models	Adjusted parameters
Penetration resistance models	a	b	c
Busscher & Sojka (1987)Busscher WJ, Sojka RE (1987) Enhancement of subsoiling effect on soil strength by conservation tillage. Transactions of ASAE 30:888-892.	0.0712	5.0589	-1.3000
Busscher et al. (1997)Busscher WJ, Bauer PJ, Camp CR, Sojka RE (1997) Correction of cone index for soil water content differences in a coastal plain soil. Soil and Tillage Research 43:205-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00015-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00...	11.5189	-8.49036	-
Jakobsen & Dexter (1987)Jakobsen BF, Dexter AR (1987) Effect of soil structure on wheat root growth, water uptake and grain yield. A computer simulation model. Soil and Tillage Research 10:331-345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(87)90022-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(87)900...	-2.6716	4.2082	-10.1530
Mielke et al. (1994)Mielke LN, Powers WL, Badri S, Jones AJ (1994) Estimating soil water content from soil strength. Soil and Tillage Research 31:199-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)90080-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)900...	0.3223	-1.1479	-

Reference soil water content (kg kg^-1)	RMSD- proposed method	RMSD- Busscher method
0.10	0.29	1.63
0.15	0.28	0.54
0.20	0.29	0.35
0.25	0.30	0.58
0.30	0.29	0.99

Reference soil moisture content (kg kg^-1)	PR_reference (MPa)	Proposed method (MPa)	Busscher method (MPa)
0.10	4.39	4.11	2.83
0.15	2.66	2.40	2.18
0.20	1.87	1.59	1.53
0.25	1.42	1.13	0.88
0.30	1.13	0.85	0.23

[1] *Corresponding author. Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis/ Rondonópolis - MT, Brasil. E-mail: thiago.duarte@ufr.edu.br

Brasil

Brasil

RESISTANCE OF A RED LATOSOL TO PENETRATION: COMPARISON OF PENETROMETERS, MODEL ADJUSTMENT, AND SOIL WATER CONTENT CORRECTION

ABSTRACT