Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. 7 .SgeR. aio,W 31 USA 53711 WI Madison, Rd., Segoe S. 677 (2005). 69:893–901 © J. Am. Soc. doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0280 Sci. Soil in Published ([email protected]). author Management *Corresponding Water & Conservation. Soil & 2004. Aug. 20 Agroforestry, Inter- Received of for Education. Institute the national Center and Station, the Experiment Agricultural from Missouri the Contribution Co- 203 65211. Missouri, Agroforestry, MO of for lumbia, Univ. Building, Center Resources Udawatta, Natural R.P. Anheuser-Busch Re- and Natural Environ- Building, Anheuser-Busch Soil, 302 of sources Sciences, Dep. Atmospheric Gantzer, and C.J. South and mental Potchefstroom, Anderson Street, S.H. Botha Sci- 2520; X804, Soil Africa Bag Agriculture, Private of Section, Dep. Provincial ence West North Seobi, Tshepiso E re- management. by crop benefit row some from provide runoff may ducing buffers domi- hydrology, will surface horizon claypan the the nate compared Although depth treatment. 30-cm crop per row cm the 1.1 po- with and increased cm 0.90 treatments by buffer storage agroforestry water tential Results and treatment. grass crop the row that the show with compared treatments buffer The try treatment. crop row the K than treatments ( buffer 1000- agroforestry higher to and 33% (60- and mesoporosity 3 coarse were and diam.) ( row porosity the lower Total with compared areas. 2.3% buffers crop agroforestry was and density grass the Bulk within 0.05) density. bulk and determine distributions, to ( increments conductivity depth hydraulic 10-cm saturated four collected from were long) treatments cm 7.6 the by from diam. in cm (7.6 cores Soil trees. Michx.) ( oak white swamp redtop of consist apart, ( m 36.5 and ( wide m watershed 4.5 1997. buffers, management in implemented Agroforestry buffers no-till agroforestry with The 1991 in established Missouri. was northeastern in shed ( evalu- corn were a Albaqualf) Vertic in properties mesic ated smectitic, hydraulic (fine, soil soil Putnam on a effects for buffer Agro- income. grass–legume farm and diversify and forestry quality water improve to regions ate aigwt rp aiganro o pcn.Ti sys- This spacing. row narrow alter- a spacing having row crops wide with a having croppingnating loss crops Strip row soil 1993). of al., and strips et uses Schwab velocity 1976; runoff al., et reduces (Martin that system ping 2000). Murrow, (Coun- crops and higher-value tryman expen- for economical is only 1993). drains and al., and sive et terraces (Schwab of erosion construction from However, sys- soil drainage protect water to surface tems and been terraces has with management crop managed row under slopes steep with ou corniculatus Lotus gigantea Agrostis sat olSineSceyo America of Society Science Soil gooetypouto ytm aebe nrdcdi temper- in introduced been have systems production Agroforestry otu ti rpighsbe dniida crop- a as identified been has cropping strip Contour a he n 4tmshge ( higher times 14 and three was csiesraewtrrunoff water surface xcessive feoinadnnon-orepluin Land pollution. nonpoint-source and erosion of nlec fGasadArfrsr ufrSrp nSi yrui Properties Hydraulic Soil on Strips Buffer Agroforestry and Grass of Influence e mays Zea oh,boe( brome Roth), .bicolor Q. . ihpnok( oak pin with L.) .–oba [ L.)–soybean ABSTRACT seioSoi .H nesn*R .Uaat,adC .Gantzer J. C. and Udawatta, P. R. Anderson,* H. S. Seobi, Tshepiso il.,adbrok( oak bur and Willd.), P K P Bromus Ͻ sat Ͻ ,si ae eeto,pore-size retention, water soil ), .5,rsetvl,frtegrass the for respectively, 0.05), .5 ntegasadagrofores- and grass the in 0.05) lcn max Glycine uru palustris Quercus p.,adbrsottrefoil birdsfoot and spp.), sapicplcause principal a is Published onlineMay6,2005 L)Mr. water- Merr.] (L.) .macrocarpa Q. Muenchh.), o nAlbaqualf an for P ␮ m Ͻ 893 ln h otu.Sha ta.(93 siae soil estimated (1993) al. et Schwab contour. performed are the planting and along tillage if effective more is tem Abbreviations: move- water surface enhances downward and 2003; inhibits ment which al., 2003) et al., Motavalli et 1997; Wang Olsson, al., and et Crockroft (Blanco-Canqui 2002; horizon subsoil by content underlain clay is high horizon a surface layer, transmis- this water However, topsoil sufficient pores. with shallow sion texture, a loam silt have a soils usually Dirk- Claypan and 1986). (Klute storage sen, and movement water soil influ- ence greatly texture and type Soil systems. conservation 9%. about agroforestry by runoff and signifi- water Grass reduced to strips sedimentation. failed strips reduce buffer cantly agroforestry the though to peren- 8 that demonstrated within have also infiltration studies Other improve yr. 10 can buffers planting ( switchgrass ( bluegrass Kentucky and follows: as were ( buffer ( riparian and maple rates the silver cultivated infiltration of The with components 2002). al., for compared et (Bharati times fields grazed five rate infil- the increased tration buffer riparian into multispecies infiltration width A water soil. the doubled the strip doubling grass that 7.5-m-wide observed a of (1999) strips; al. the et from upslope Schmitt infiltration increase reduce strips and buffer runoff Grass terraces. as with loss low soil as with ble be to equation ha loss Mg 5.1 soil universal the with loss t h fet fgasadarfrsr ufr nsoil on buffers agroforestry and grass evalu- of to effects was study properties the this ate of hydraulic purpose The on soils. claypan practices for strip buffer forestry loss. soil subsequent to h relative mm (70 horizons subsoil claypan (2002) found al. et Blanco-Canqui studied runoff. 1997) (Blanchard Donald, herbicide and and 1998), Pomes, and Kelly 1996; al- N, total and P establishment total tree runoff, reduced and agro- and strips grass grass and forestry The after watershed. P, control yr a with total 2 compared losses sediment, buffers N runoff, these total that water found soil surface They claypan reduced 2002). a al., on et losses on (Udawatta strips nutrient buffer and contour sediment, agroforestry runoff, and grass of fects 1977). Wood, al., et 1995; (Broersma infiltration increase can vegetation nial rmsinermis Bromus olpoete r eyiprati eetn soil selecting in important very are properties Soil itei nw oprn h mat fgasadagro- and grass of impacts the comparing known is Little ef- the evaluate to conducted was study a Recently, K K sat sat Ϫ Ϫ 1 1 ob eylw(.0 mh mm (0.002 low very be to hogottepoieof profile the throughout o hs ol,w soils, these for ) yr K aiu virgatum Panicum crsaccharum Acer sat Ϫ

auae yrui odciiy pH conductivity; hydraulic saturated , 1 o ti rpig hc a compara- was which cropping, strip for es) ioh ( timothy Leyss), o pratensis Poa ae,nutrient water, Marsh.) ihincrea hich ..Te hwdthat showed They L.). hempretense Phleum lya ol They soil. claypan a Ͼ surface . rs filter grass L.) Ϫ ses mohbrome smooth Beise al., et (Blevins 1 ihnthe within ) uofand runoff w ae pH. water , horizons L.), Ͼ Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. ubri aetee stesadr eito ftema fsxobservations. six of mean the of deviation standard the is parentheses in Number § 23 28 8 3)63(1 05(.)9()61(0.6) 6.1 (0.2) 7.0 (0.2) 6.8 pH (1) 9 (2) 13 (5) 21 C Organic (2.3) 20.5 (1.3) 18.9 (2.3) 19.4 CEC† (31) 643 (23) 721 (18) 729 (31) 287 Silt (23) 227 (9) 219 (2.8) 22–38 (5.1) 7–22 Clay (2.9)§ 0–7 capacity. ‡pH exchange cation CEC, † depth Soil Bt E m (5000 AE watershed agroforestry Ap the in loam silt Putnam the for horizon horizon Soil by properties chemical and physical Soil 1. Table treatments. crop bulk row distributions, pore-size and retention, density, al., water et com- soil and measure (Udawatta to pare was watershed study Missouri the a of objective northeastern The at 2002). in soil site claypan a study for properties hydraulic interval elevation 0.5-m with site study of map Topographic 1. Fig. 894 .9 gha Mg 3.699 htwsdmrae nery19.Tewtrhdwsudrbfes.Frtegasbfe ramn,smlswr taken were samples treatment, buffer grass the For ha buffers). Mg 2.755 were 2000 and through from soybean 1992 cm average from 20 The yields 2002). sampled corn al., were con- et and soils (Udawatta under preparation treatment, planting land was buffer tour no-till agroforestry watershed with The rotation, 1991. corn–soybean early a watershed in north-facing demarcated a in was located that was site study MO The Novelty, 1). near (Fig. Center Research Memorial Greenley the at 1 oiidfo dwtae l,20) h ne a hw loca- shows map Missouri. inset in The watershed 2002). line; of gray al., (wider tion et watershed the Udawatta of from end (wide modified outflow the strips at located buffer water- is grass A way agroforestry box). (superimposed region lines), sampling and black lines), gray (thin lines contour %slope). 2% h xeietlwtrhdue o hssuyi located is study this for used watershed experimental The w Ho water. of pH , AEIL N METHODS AND MATERIALS Ϫ K 1 n .0 gha Mg 8.500 and ) sat o rs ufr gooetybfe,and buffer, agroforestry buffer, grass for xeietlSite Experimental 85 51 3 3)49(0 84(.)9()52(0.1) 5.2 (1) 9 (1.7) 38.4 (30) 439 (30) 531 (5.1) 38–57 mgkg g cm Ϫ 1 5071.6 gha Mg (5.017–10.660 OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL Ϫ 1 (1.680– Ϫ Ϫ 1 1 ,smlswr ae iwybtentescn n third and second the between midway taken were samples ), pe olhrzn ftearfrsr aese r pre- average the are on claypan watershed the area, agroforestry study the In the 1. Table of in sented horizons soil upper uighg analprosi obnto ihprosof periods with combination in periods (Uda- rainfall cm runoff high surface 37 produce during and claypans Restrictive 4 2002). between al., et depths watta variable hori- at B mesic restrictive (claypan) drainage smectitic, zon a (fine, have loam soils The silt Epiaqaulf). Kilwinning Vertic and cm). undis- loam 6 in silt about trunk nam were tree trunks oak treatment, tree pin of buffer a (diameters from agroforestry soil distant turbed the cm 20 and was grass which cm trees, the 150 as areas from grass–legume to the treat- distant referred in two was are which The buffer treatment, buffer. buffer contour contour the the within within ments locations two and location. planting suitable a establish to were corresponding to soil horizons Trees loosened auger. appropriate with spacing. 45-cm-diam. filled a 3-m back were by at holes created The strips hole 75-cm-deep buffer a the in planted planted of were center trees oak the bur and in oak, white swamp oak, Pin in- ( foil. strips grass brome buffer redtop, the cluded grass– throughout The planted 1997. combination in established legume grasses, were positions) of which slope composed trees lower are and at strips legumes, buffer m agroforestry (22.8 The apart 1). m (Fig. 36.5 at strips buffer watershed. the from losses Runoff herbi- sediment nutrient, 1991. and determine for to cide, monitored available being not is quality were water data yield respectively; he ntetidbfe.Frterwco ramn,three treatment, crop and row buffer the second For the buffer. replicate third in Six the three trees). in with from three chosen m were (1.5 third trees locations and two second between the midway from each trees (three trees oak pin the six For treatments. buffer sam- grass were and watershed agroforestry the the of for edge pled southern the from counting 1). (Fig. treatments density, bulk retention, water soil determine and to taken were depth. cm 38 the about at occurred (pH cation pH water content, and silt C, content, organic Clay capacity, exchange 2000. in horizon by analyzed loam. conducted silt was Putnam study the this on for only site early experimental and spring, The winter, summer. the during evapotranspiration lower hdfrtearfrsr ufr rs ufr n o crop row and buffer, grass buffer, agroforestry the for shed h ol ntearfrsr aese eempe sPut- as mapped were watershed agroforestry the in soils The area crop row the included study this for treatments The 4.5-m-wide of consists watershed agroforestry ha 4.44 The ol rmtescn n h hr otu ufrstrips buffer contour third the and second the from Soils nitre olcrs . mi im n . mi length, in cm 7.6 and diam. in cm 7.6 cores, soil Undisturbed were watershed the from profiles six from samples Soil K sat h oe eetkno 9Jn 03fo h water- the from 2003 June 19 on taken were cores The . cmol c kg apigProcedures Sampling Ϫ 1 Bromus gkg p.,adbrsottre- birdsfoot and spp.), Ϫ 1 w aafrthe for data ) 2 ra to 1 area, w ‡ Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. lcrclcnutvt ftewtrws06 Sm dS 0.68 was water the of conductivity electrical ramn .1 .5 .407 .002 .10.57 0.11 0.25 0.70 0.74 0.14 0.053 0.015 Depth Treatment mean Depth mean Treatment to (0.0 pressure water soil of function a as content water soil Average 2. Table kPa porosity. 0 total at determine content to water used core was saturated pressure The water 1990). soil al., et ( son micropores and diam.), tive 1000- mac- classes: four into ( divided ropores and were sizes (Ghildyal Pore measurements 1987). retention Tripathi, water from sizes pore chambers. pressure in aggregates soil the core fur- at the for measurement cross-sections and ther into sliced subsample, were oven-dried cores Air-dried the the volume. mass, from core density. air-dried content the bulk water using soil calculated determining was in density determine used Bulk 35 to was at oven-dried that dried was content subsample water air A were weight. cores constant a Soil 1986). (Klute, pressures at plates with samples some on used low was for very method used head falling was the method while 2002). head al., constant et (Blanco-Canqui The macropores depth excluding with matrix disappear soil these since the the on evaluate treatments to and of edge effects core the along flow boundary remove treatments. of arrangement systematic the to bag, due plastic and 4 a measured 30, at in conducted. to stored sealed were 20 and trimmed, surements 20, laboratory, was to the core 10 to Each Cores 10, transported cm. buffers. to 40 samples 0 fourth to depths: additional 30 and four three from third taken the with were between buffers) midway from taken m (18 buffers aiblt ihntetet o ahsi yrui property hydraulic soil each for treatments within variability ceramic with funnels in measured was retention Water ments. heecoha h otm n hnstrtdi uswith tubs in saturated then and before bottom, water the at cheese-cloth ooe ntecr ufc.Teproeo eln a to was sealing of purpose The mac- visible surface. plug core and water, walls the to core bentonite on the of along ropores ratio samples the 8:1 seal an to at mixed slurry, bentonite Treatment oimasrto ai a .4 yig a sdt apply to used was syringe A 2.34. was ratio absorption sodium 96.The 1986). Bv.A .404 .006 .904 .90.93 0.41 0.39 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.44 0.48 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.45 0.59 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.47 0.69 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.49 0.80 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.42 0.47 0.43 0.43 0.54 0.24 0.48 0.43 0.45 0.49 0.45 0.47 0.57 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.48 0.49 Ag vs. 0.50 GB others vs. RC 0.51 0.52 cm 30–40 0.53 cm 20–30 cm 10–20 cm 0–10 (Ag) buffer Agroforestry (GB) buffer Grass (RC) crop Row ooeet fvrac et eecnutdt hc for check to conducted were tests variance of Homogeneity effective estimate to used was equation rise capillary The measure- retention water for resaturated were cores Soil oe eermvdfo odsoae oee with covered storage, cold from removed were Cores ufrtetet n oldph,adteANOVA. the and depths, soil and treatments buffer ␮ fetv im) iemsprs(0 o60- to (10- mesopores fine diam.), effective m Ϫ Ͼ K ϫ 0.4, 1000- sat depth Ϫ aus(lt n ike,1986). Dirksen, and (Klute values 3kapesr eeto a esrdusing measured was retention pressure 33-kPa K Ϫ sat ␮ 1.0, fetv im) oremsprs(0 to (60- mesopores coarse diam.), effective m n ae eeto eemaue.The measured. were retention water and aoaoyAnalyses Laboratory ttsia Analysis Statistical Ϫ 2.5, Ϫ Ϫ 3kasi ae rsue(Klute, pressure water soil kPa 33 5.0, Ͻ EB TA. GOOETYIFUNEO YRUI PROPERTIES HYDRAULIC ON INFLUENCE AGROFORESTRY AL.: ET SEOBI Ͻ Ͻ Ͻ 10 .1 .2 .5 .205 .40030.30 0.053 0.14 0.52 0.52 0.052 0.021 0.010 0.010 .1 .1 .1 .2 .4 .6 .40.81 0.14 0.066 0.046 0.028 0.018 0.016 0.010 0.0 Ϫ ␮ 0 and 10, fetv im;Ander- diam.; effective m K Ϫ Ͻ sat 0kasi water soil kPa 20 Ϫ 0.010 Њ 0.4 determination, eoemea- before C Ϫ ␮ 1 effec- m n the and Њ Cto Ͻ ANOVA Ϫ 0.010 1.0 P lodtrie;teewr iie into divided and were these were determined; treatments also between Contrasts had properties variances. were all homogeneous for treatments using Data within 1999). SAS Institute, variances (SAS with homogeneous when conducted procedure further GLM was the variance of Analysis n olwtrpesr.Tewtrcnet t00and 0.0 at contents water The pressure. for water different not soil was any contrast buffer agroforestry vs. and fer 0.0-kPa was 0.0 contrast the both others at vs. for crop different row treatments The 2). among (Table pressure different was sure different or depth estimate same the An at depth. treatments between soil LSD the each dif- for at significant treatments find between to calculated ferences were LSD) (Duncan’s ences oiyi h ufc et oprdwt h second the with compared depth surface compared the pressures depth water in 10-cm soil rosity for to depth 0- 20-cm Ϫ to the 10- in the (Ta- pres- with higher selected pressures a was water for content soil sure water soil measured Generally, 2). all ble for depth soil current the in observations our study. re- support soils. water sandy-textured findings for soil These pasture higher under soil while had than soil, management tention content between tree clay high retention under (1997) a water soil for al. trees et soil and Messing pasture in grass tillage. differences of no yr found 1 a and of prairie tillage virgin of retention years water lowered 30 at (Albaqualf) to loam 12 silt that Crowley found and Scott (1989) treatment. crop Wood row the with compared ments Ϫ The SAS. in procedure Mixed the using obtained was depths K eedcae infcn tthe at significant differences declared Statistical were analyses. statistical for log-transformed Ͼ sat olwtrpesr,kPa pressure, water Soil 0ka ifrne nttlsi ooiy(ihrpo- (higher porosity soil total in Differences kPa. 20 treat- buffer two the for (3%) higher were kPa 0.4 F olwtrrtnina ucino olwtrpres- water soil of function a as retention water Soil hr eedfeecsi olwtrrtnindeto due retention water soil in differences were There Ͻ Ϫ Ϫ aawr on ob o-omlydsrbtdadwere and distributed log-normally be to found were data rs ufrv.arfrsr buffer agroforestry vs. buffer grass 0.010 0kasi ae rsuewe oprdwt a with compared when pressure water soil kPa 10 2.5 Ϫ 3ka o h o rp rs ufr n agroforestry and buffer, grass crop, row the for kPa) 33 m EUT N DISCUSSION AND RESULTS 3 m Ϫ 3 Ͻ Ϫ olWtrRetention Water Soil 0.010 5.0 Ϫ Ͻ Ϫ . P,wietegasbuf- grass the while kPa, 0.4 0.010 10.0 ␣ϭ .5level. 0.05 es infcn differ- significant Least . o rpv.others vs. crop row Ͻ Ϫ 0.010 20.0 Ͻ Ϫ 0.010 33.0 895 Ͼ Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. oprdwt h o rptetetfrte00 and 0.0- the for treatment soil crop Ϫ higher row treatments the depth, buffer with soil two the compared first for the present was For content 2. water Fig. in shown are for content subsequent clay a in treatment. increase and higher this treatment a more to crop of depth row because shallower the was water This for higher treatments. erosion compared treatment buffer but this the treatment for with depths crop deeper row at contents the shallow for at contents 0.82 water depths soil lower the to due interac- were These tions pressures. water soil lower at interactions There for because pressures probably depth 1). was water soil This (Table 2D). and soil (Fig. treatment depth horizons con- fourth between the clay interactions subsoil at in were these increase the through of tent because pressures. probably 0.015 water soil was all result. This for second depth the this soil from fourth for content the water reason through in possible level. increase probability an a 0.05 was were There the at 3) different Table significantly are depth, class pore a within letters different with Means † Treatment mean Depth mean Treatment depth 40-cm to 30- depth 30-cm to 20- depth 20-cm to 10- depth 10-cm to 0- agroforestry and buffer grass crop, row the for micropores and mesopores, fine mesopores, coarse macropores, pores, Total 3. Table 896 rpteteti h -t 0c et Fg 2A–C). from (Fig. content water depth higher 30-cm Ϫ had to treatment crop 0- row row the The the in with treatment the compared for crop higher treatment was buffer pressure 0-kPa agroforestry the treatment. at crop content row Water the subsequent with with compared porosity treatments root higher buffer more to the due in possibly row development were results the These 2A). with (Fig. the compared for higher treatment crop was treatment buffer ramn oe ( pores Treatment Depth Treatment 04 m05 .2 .7 .5 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.056 0.36 0.35 0.050 0.053 0.081 0.34 0.45a 0.41a 0.40a 0.073 0.34a 0.058 0.064 0.086 0.33a 0.079 0.35a 0.095 0.059 0.32a 0.070a 0.052a 0.33a 0.31a 0.047a 0.31a 0.039a 0.31a 0.023 0.063a 0.068 0.085 0.32a 0.024 0.049a 0.027 0.096 0.030 0.045a 0.050a 0.076ab 0.051a 0.063a 0.092b 0.089a 0.076a 0.076a 0.082ab 0.57 0.079a 0.50 0.025 0.099b 0.025 0.48 0.52 0.070a 0.028 0.022a 0.022a 0.076ab 0.091b 0.024a 0.11b 0.076a 0.024a 0.024a 0.10b 0.51 0.52 0.024a 0.59b 0.53 0.55a 0.024a 0.026a cm 30–40 0.57ab 0.030a cm 20–30 cm 10–20 0.48a 0.50ab 0.029a cm 0.029a 0–10 0.52b (Ag) 0.032a buffer Agroforestry (GB) buffer Grass 0.46a 0.48ab (RC) crop Row 0.49b buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass 0.49a† 0.54b crop Row 0.53b buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass crop Row buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass crop Row buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass crop Row Cv.others vs. RC Bv.A .405 .3 .80.93 0.58 0.034 0.54 0.24 Ag vs. GB .-P rsue Fg A.Wtrcnetfrtegrass the for content Water 2A). (Fig. pressures 0.4-kPa . to 1.0 ifrne mn ramnsfrseii oldepths soil specific for treatments among Differences ufrtetet n oldph,adteANOVA. the and depths, soil and treatments buffer Ϫ ϫ 0kacmae ihtebfe ramnspeiu tde ntrso rae nrae nporosity in increases greater of terms in studies previous treatments buffer the with compared kPa 20 depth ϾϪ Ϫ .-P rsuea hsdepth this at pressure 1.0-kPa . P,wieteewr no were there while kPa, 5.0 Ͻ Ͻ Ͻ .1 0.92 0.010 .1 0.30 0.010 .1 .002 .30.81 0.63 0.20 0.90 0.010 oa arprsmsprsmsprsMicropores mesopores mesopores Macropores Total OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL Ͼ 1000 ANOVA ␮ )(60–1000 m) P hsincrease. caused probably this volume treatment. pore on buffer effect subsequent and their treatments grass buffer the under the development root More with compared agroforestry the treatment. in treatment greater crop also coarse row was mesoporosity and the Coarse porosity with the total compared that more indicated mesoporosity had contrast others treatments vs. buffer crop row microporos- and The mesoporosity ity. fine depth on Soil effect an 3). had (Table also mesoporosity coarse and porosity these at contents water soil a horizon,higher and pressures. claypan in treatment the crop resulted to row which the depth in shallower erosion subsequently soil more of eut bandfo h urn td r iia to similar are study porosity. current increased the to from obtained differences Results these under and attributed management, infiltration crop he greater row with times compared cover six forest to (1973) three Gray maple. decay observed silver under Root develop- macropores the more 2002). for of ment responsible al., were activity et fauna num- soil (Bharati larger and a macropores to of attributed was ber increase this site; with crop compared a buffers riparian multispecies under soils Ͼ nIw,fv ie rae nitainwsfudin found was infiltration greater times five Iowa, In total on effects had depth soil and treatments Buffer F Ͻ Ͻ Ͻ oreFine Coarse m .1 .00.57 0.70 0.010 .1 .30.30 0.53 0.010 .1 0.022 0.010 3 m Ϫ ␮ oeSz Distributions Pore-Size 3 )(10–60 m) ␮ )( m) Ͻ Ͻ 10 0.010 ␮ m) Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. irprst.tegasbfe ramn o h orhsi depth. soil fourth the for treatment buffer grass the how- depths; soil from three decreased first Porosity the 3). for (Table treat- treatment macropores buffer crop for row agroforestry the in and porosity mesoporosity, fine Total microporosity. macroporosity, depth. for treatments among found differences were No cm, replicates. 10 variabil- among to to due ity 0 probably in (A) found of increases not depths were significant at macroporosity however, treatments treatments; (Ag) buffer buffer agroforestry for and (GB), buffer grass (RC), crop row for curves retention water Soil 2. Fig. hnprst nterwco ramn o h is esn ta.(97 xmndmcoooiyfrtwo for macroporosity examined (1997) al. et Messing to unable were we first since the findings our for than treatment different are crop row the in higher 9% porosity was treatments than buffer To- two depths. the four for porosity all porosity tal Total for treatments 3. among Table different was in presented are combinations treatments. buffer the with compared treatment this n et nyfrttlprst.Ti neato a a oprdwt w alfsu ( fescue tall two with compared var was interaction This porosity. total for treatment only between interaction depth an and was There 1). (Table rptetetbthge ooiya eprdph o yOi(99,5y-l rs ramnsicesdmac- increased treatments grass 5-yr-old (1999), Obi by for depths row deeper the at for porosity depths higher shallow but at treatment porosity crop lower the to due xetfrmcoooiy hswsbcueof because was This classes microporosity. pore-size all for for except depth second the to depth surface Tbe4.Teewsa nraei porosity in increase an was There depths second 4). the to (Table first the from density bulk in increase xetfrmcoooiyadcas eoooiy i ooiy iemsprst,admcoooiyfrall for microporosity and for mesoporosity, depth fine with porosity, probably content depth clay of increasing function to classes a due size as all Mi- increased for mesoporosity. depths croporosity coarse and fourth macroporosity the for to except third the from oldphhda feto l oesz lse except classes pore-size all on effect an had depth significant Soil when pressures at presented are and values (0.05) LSD indicate Bars cm. 40 to 30 (D) and cm, 30 to 20 treatments. (C) among cm, occurred 20 differences to 10 (B) ooiyvle o h ufrtetetadsi et etdcesdmcoooiyb 36,cmae with compared 13.6%, by microporosity decreased ment depth soil and treatment buffer the for values Porosity EB TA. GOOETYIFUNEO YRUI PROPERTIES HYDRAULIC ON INFLUENCE AGROFORESTRY AL.: ET SEOBI ihdphprdwt h o rptetetfralsi depths. soil all for treatment crop row the with pared depth with hssoil this n1%co ramn o h is oldph h agroforestry The depth. soil first the for treatment crop 11% an h also the ifrne mn ramnsfrcas mesoporosity coarse for treatments among Differences than higher was treatment crop the row with the in compared porosity ever, greater be to found also was ment idicessi arprst o h ufrtreatments. buffer the for macroporosity in increases find results These soil. Paleustult a with treatment soil bare a im)o n rhr rs ( grass orchard one on diam.) utvr nCalteonfn ad om ntestudy the In loam. sandy fine Charlottetown in cultivars oooiy( roporosity rae ntebfe ramnscmae ihterow the with compared treatments buffer the in greater ufrtetethdgetrcas eoooiycom- mesoporosity coarse greater had treatment buffer odfeecseitdaogtetet o macro- for treatments among existed differences No ordph Tbe3 i.3,3,3) atre l (1994) al. et Carter 3D). 3C, 3A, Fig. 3; (Table depths four bevdlwrfn eooe n irprs( micropores and mesopores fine lower observed xse Tbe3 i.3) oremsprst was mesoporosity Coarse 3B). Fig. 3, (Table existed Ն 50- ␮ im)b 11,wieti treat- this while 21.1%, by diam.) m atlsglomerata Dactylis etc arundinacea Festuca . culti- L.) Յ 50- 897 ␮ m ) Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. oe o h ufrtetet oprdwt h o l ets b 19)maue erysxtmsgreater times six nearly measured (1999) Obi depths. all row the with compared treatments was buffer density the Bulk for 4). lower (Table occurred also treatments depth between soil and Interactions depths. soil and ments ocue htwr-esngassicesdmacro- increased grasses (2004) warm-season al. et that Rachman concluded hedges, grass 10-yr-old studying rse u oterro itiuinpten.Study- and Udawatta patterns. Missouri, in distribution oaks of root distributions root their ing to with compared have due depths may soil grasses deeper Trees at Hapludoll). porosity on (Typic effect cm soil an 20 loess top deep the in a areas of crop row with compared porosity al. et Dierolf (2004), al. et Cadisch soils. sandy-textured different significantly are property soil a for letters different with Means † Treatment Depth Treatment mean Depth mean Treatment depth 40-cm to 30- depth 30-cm to 20- depth 20-cm to 10- depth 10-cm to 0- Treatment conductivity hydraulic saturated of means Geometric 4. Table 898 ncnrs,gasroshv hloe et distribu- depth shallower have patterns. profile. tion roots the 150-cm grass a of within contrast, depth 150-cm In 22% to 50- approximately the in roots found (2003) Henderson 19) n a orwj ta.(91 niae that indicated (1991) al. et Noordwijk van and (1997), ot bevtosi u td.Te i idincreases three sup- find the for did result management forest They This under study. macroporosity in pasture. our in grass observations with ports compared under as soils found clay trees high They the site. for macroporosity pasture in grass increase no a and trees 30-yr-old under soils high-sand-content three and soils high-clay-content oetymngmn ytm.I otatt u results, our to contrast agro- In under systems. af- management mobility forestry an nutrient influences macroporosity, also increase which to fect found often are trees tte00 rbblt level. probability 0.05 the at Bv.A .2 0.20 1.22 1.35 1.41 1.27 0.020 0.70 1.33 1.31 14 9.8 1.29 25 1.24a 1.20a 1.23a Ag 1.36a vs. 1.37a GB others vs. RC 1.8 7.5 1.33a 0.0074a 1.9a 26 1.44b 1.44b cm 30–40 cm 1.35a 20–30 28b cm 10–20 6.2a cm 1.21a 0–10 13a 1.32b (Ag) buffer 1.27a Agroforestry 32b (GB) buffer Grass (RC) 9.9ab 6.0a crop Row buffer Agroforestry 16b buffer Grass crop 23a† Row 21a buffer Agroforestry 31b buffer Grass crop Row buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass crop Row buffer Agroforestry buffer Grass crop Row n h ANOVA. depths, the soil and and treatments buffer agroforestry and buffer, grass ( ifrne nbl est curdaogtreat- among occurred density bulk in Differences K sat n rtmtcmaso ukdniyfrterwcrop, row the for density bulk of means arithmetic and ) ϫ depth ukDensity Bulk ANOVA P Ͻ Ͻ Ͻ Ͻ mh mm Ͼ .1 0.020 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.010 .1 0.030 0.010 K F sat Ϫ 1 OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL ukdensity Bulk Ͻ gcm 0.010 Ϫ 3 etwsntdfeetfo h o rptetetfor treatment crop row the from different not was ment ihrcmae ihterwco ramn.The treatment. crop row times the 14 with and compared treatment, higher buffer grass the with compared ocnrto fsettcca nti horizon. this in values clay lowest smectitic higher the of The of because concentration depth 4). an fourth to the (Table in due measured density were second bulk the to in depth increase first the from decreased i.4) h ag ifrnein difference it large 4, The where (Table 4B). treatment depth, Fig. buffer grass second the than the higher except only was depths all treat- crop for row and ments buffer grass the with compared ment ets n treatment and depths, rae hne nprst ilocrbt nshallow in both horizons. occur soil will volume, deeper soil porosity and more in occupy changes roots greater their and mature trees Petro- Aquatic an for cm 150 and in 0 found between ( layers than soil tree eucalyptus depths 9-yr-old soil to tereticornis 3- lower A at study. the density bulk soil the to due values only density bulk where lower treatment. results had agroforestry clay our cm low 20 with and top high agrees the across this This cm but soils. 15 top pasture; content the grass within with only compared was trees two under ues lower the for treatments depths. soil among were differences There treatment. treatments no agroforestry crop density row the bulk and with depth depth, buffer compared grass second first the the for the higher For for was 4). treatment Table crop 4A, row (Fig. the with pared swelling. associated clays expected their smectitic as of and concentrations depth higher lowest fourth to The the due in depth. probably found first second was the the density to bulk in relative depths increased third density and Bulk treatment. crop n ihntecapnhrznfrti ramn o the for treatment this for horizon claypan sampl- the subsequent within and area ing crop row the for erosion soil as that, anticipated is It expressed. horizons soil been deeper yet on effects not the have old), yr (6 young are cm dens- g bulk (1.52 cm lower g had (1.40 treatments ity legume and Five-year- treatment grass 1995). pasture (Fisher, old soil a Tropohumults Typic with a litter compared for heavy when and was rooting, species density deep tree bulk N-fixing, the Soil compared by treatment. when lowered control 2003) barren al., a et with (Mishra Natrustalf calcic 0 o4-mdph The depth. 40-cm to 30- oprdwt h o rptetet(al ) The 4). (Table treatment crop K row treatments buffer the grass with and compared agroforestry the for higher mn ramnsi rbbydet h ifrne in differences the to due probably is treatments among sat The in differences were There ieauespot h atta auetesreduce trees mature that fact the supports Literature val- density bulk smaller found (1997) al. et Messing com- treatments buffer the for lower was density Bulk o h gooetytetetwstretmshigher times three was treatment agroforestry the for K sat auae yrui Conductivity Hydraulic Saturated Ϫ a ihrfrtearfrsr ufrtreat- buffer agroforestry the for higher was 3 m)patto eue ukdniyi the in density bulk reduced plantation Sm.) b,19) ic re ntecretstudy current the in trees Since 1999). Obi, ; Ϫ 3 oprdwt aesi treatment soil bare a with compared ) ϫ et neatos The interactions. depth K sat K o h rs ufrtreat- buffer grass the for sat K mn ramns soil treatments, among sat o h orhdepth fourth the for Eucalyptus K sat was K sat Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. nda. hnterwco ramn 05,008m 0.068 (0.51, treatment crop row the than diam.) in gooetybfe 05,006m The 0.096 treatments. (0.53, buffer en- buffer the the agroforestry by to created attributed porosity were hanced differences These pressure. ooiyadcas eoooiy(oe 60–1000 (pores mesoporosity coarse and porosity au 13 cm g (1.30 value h w ufrtetet t0and 0 at treatments buffer two the depths. soil K influenced as treatments (Ag) buffer agroforestry and (GB), buffer grass (RC), crop row for classes pore-size selected for values Porosity 3. Fig. m ae eeto,pr-iedsrbto,bl est,and K density, Soil bulk treatment. distribution, crop pore-size retention, row water a with compared hydrau- properties soil lic improve strips buffer grass and agroforestry s 41m h mm 54.1 vs. nrae nmeasured in increases ufr(.2 .8 m 0.085 (0.52, buffer sat sat Ϫ infcn ifrne mn treatments. among differences significant 1-t 60- to (10- h o rptetethdlwrwtrcnetthan content water lower had treatment crop row The ysi et.Pr-iecassicue()mcooe ( macropores (A) include classes Pore-size depth. soil by hssuywscnutdt ettehptei that hypothesis the test to conducted was study This 3 .Frbl est,bfe ramnshdalower a had treatments buffer density, bulk For ). o -rodgascmae ihbr ol(1. cosdph)cmae ihterwco treatment crop row the with compared depths) across (316.7 soil bare with compared grass 5-yr-old a for eecmae o h he ramnsa four at treatments three the for compared were ␮ im) n D irprs( micropores (D) and diam.), m Ϫ 1 .Rslsfo hssuyso similar show study this from Results ). Ϫ CONCLUSIONS 3 ohbfe ramnsaeae etrcmae ihterwco ramn.I this If treatment. crop row the with compared better averaged treatments buffer both , 3 m K Ϫ sat 3 ramnshdgetrtotal greater had treatments ) et xse o h is w apigdph,btnot but depths, sampling two first the for existed ments . EB TA. GOOETYIFUNEO YRUI PROPERTIES HYDRAULIC ON INFLUENCE AGROFORESTRY AL.: ET SEOBI 3 Ϫ m . P olwater soil kPa 0.4 Ϫ Ͻ 3 n h grass the and ) 10- ␮ im) asidct S 00)vle n r rsne o oesz lse with classes pore-size for presented are and values (0.05) LSD indicate Bars diam.). m Ͼ 1000- ␮ m ␮ 3 im) B oremsprs(0 o1000- to (60- mesopores coarse (B) diam.), m rui rprisi lya ol.I spsil that possible is It soils. claypan in properties draulic rbbyocr u oicesdtasiainlwater transpirational increased to due occurs probably s ytebfe lnsepcal uigflo periods included). fallow not during especially (data plants buffer the by use n rs ufrtetet oifunesm olhy- soil some influence do treatments buffer grass and uofrdcin h anavnaeo hs buffers of these terms of In advantage system. main buffer the a reduction, in runoff plants ad- these the indicate of do they vantage large, not are values these While h oe w ets The depths. two lower the 13 cm g (1.33 ae a nitaetearfrsr ufrtreatment buffer agroforestry the infiltrate may water sam- fourth and third, first, the depths. pling for treatments two 0c fsi oprdwt h o rptreatment. crop row the with upper compared the soil in respectively) of cm, cm 1.1 30 store and can (0.9 years water six more after buffers agroforestry and buffer r ufrtetetwr ihrta hs fteother the of those than higher were treatment buffer try oa ooiydt rmti td hwta grass that show study this from data porosity Total rmteersls ti paetta h agroforestry the that apparent is it results, these From Ϫ 3 .Dfeecsi ukdniyaogtreat- among density bulk in Differences ). K sat ␮ ausfrteagrofores- the for values im) C iemesopores fine (C) diam.), m 899 Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. nesn .. ..Gnzr n ..Bon 90 olphysical Soil 1990. Brown. J.R. and Gantzer, C.J. S.H., Anderson, site. watershed the of Research maintenance Greenley the continual at for Smoot Center Appreci- Randall USDA. to the extended authors of is view the ation the of reflect those necessarily not are do publication and this in recommen- of expressed or positions conclusions dations or findings, policies opinions, the Any USEPA. represent the not University may the and and/or presented Missouri authors the results of of The responsibility USEPA. sole the the with are 826704-01-2 USDA-ARS R C the and with under 58-6227-1-004 Agroforestry for agreements Center cooperative Missouri of University the International Ag- and MO-NRSL0117 number Missouri of project the Station Institute Partial through Experiment the funded ricultural USA. was from the Work was in (IIE). study study Education the to of opportunity an support author first allowing the for Agriculture of Department Provincial West North with and treatment. managed nutrient, watersheds buffer in sediment, this occur less will losses and herbicide runoff lower occurs, conductivity hydraulic saturated (B) and density Bulk (A) 4. Fig. 900 h S 00)vlefrbl est,ad()teLS(0.05) LDS the (B) and density, bulk for indicates for value bar value The (0.05) (A) LSD depth. soil the by influenced as treatments (Ag) osr.4:1–2.Sn,NwYork. New Sons, Water Soil J. cultivation. continuous 45:117–121. of Conserv. years 100 after properties ( prcaini xeddt ubih ot fiaadthe and Africa South Fulbright to extended is Appreciation K sat o o rp(C,gasbfe G) n gooetybuffer agroforestry and (GB), buffer grass (RC), crop row for ) K sat slse ntegahdet h o scale. log the to due graph the on listed is ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL lt,A 96 ae eeto:Lbrtr ehd.p 635–662. p. methods. Laboratory retention: Water 1986. A. Klute, ry ..(d)17.Hnbo ntepicpe fhydrology. of principles the on Handbook Wiley, 1973. ed. (ed.) 6th D.M. physics. Gray, Soil 1987. Tripathi. R.P. and B.P., Ghildyal, planta- by soils rainforest degraded of Amelioration 1995. R.F. move- Fisher, cation and Water 1997. Yost. R.S. and Arya, L.M. T.S., Dierolf, in quality soil of study Case 1997. Olsson. K.A. and B., of Crockroft, analysis Economic 2000. Murrow. J.C. and D.W., Countryman, structural Soil 1994. Kunelius. H.T. and Angers, D.A. M.R., Carter, el,BP,adML oe.19.Peeeta lwadtransport and flow Preferential 1998. Pomes. M.L. and B.P., Kelly, Noord- van M. Mobbs, D.C. Suprayogo, D. Willigen, de P. G., Cadisch, of Effects 1995. Chanasyk. D.S. and Robertson, J.H. K., Broersma, Move- 1996. Silva. S.R. and Kelly, B.P. Wilkison, D.H. D.W., Blevins, and Alberts, E.E. Anderson, S.H. Gantzer, C.J. H., Blanco-Canqui, contamination Herbicide 1997. Donald. W.W. and Soil- P.E., 2002. Blanchard, Schultz. R.C. and Isenhart, T.M. Lee, K.H. L., Bharati, cwb .. ..Fnmir ..Elo,adKK rvr.1993. Frevert. K.K. and Elliot, W.J. Fangmeier, D.D. G.O., strip Schwab, Filter 1999. Hoagland. K.D. NC. Cary, and Inst., Dosskey, SAS M.G. guide. T.J., user’s Schmitt, SAS/STAT 1999. Institute. SAS 2004. Alberts. E.E. and Gantzer, C.J. Anderson, S.H. A., Rachman, degraded a of responses chemical and physical The 1999. M.E. Obi, Surface 2003. Pengthamkeerati. P. and Anderson, S.H. P.P., Motavalli, in Improvement 2003. Khan. G.H. and Sharma, S.D. A., prop- Mishra, physical Soil 1997. Johansson. W. and Alriksson, A. I., field Messing, of Principles 1976. Stamp. D.L. and Leonard, W.H. J.H., Martin, lt,A,adC ike.18.Hdalccnutvt n diffusivity: and conductivity Hydraulic 1986. Dirksen. C. and A., Klute, .Kue(d)Mtoso olaayi.Pr .2de.Agron. ed. 2nd 1. Part analysis. soil of Methods (ed.) Klute 36:484–494. Water A. Ground soil. claypan in bromide and nitrate of in fntv re.Si c.Sc m .59:544–549. J. NJ. Am. Hoboken, Soc. Sci. Soil trees. native of 89:572–579. tions J. Agron. Ultisol. Indonesian an in ment Elsevier, health. ecosystem and Netherlands. production the crop Amsterdam, for quality 339–350. Soil du- in p. roots soils. for structure plex of Water Management Australia: Soil south-eastern J. value. net present using 55(2):152–160. strips Conserv. buffer tree contour 58:1194–1199. J. Am. Soc. perennial Sci. cool-season Soil under matter grasses. organic and stability, and form Walling- CABI, agroecosystems. UK. tropical ford, in interactions ground oladwtrcnevto niern.4he.Jh ie & Wiley John ed. 4th engineering. conservation water and Soil mobile for competing and Catching 171–191. p. 2004. soils. in Rowe. nutrients E.C. and Boralf wijk, a 26:1795–1811. of Anal. properties Plant Sci. water Soil soils Commun. on soil. systems claypan cropping a different from runoff and 25:584–593. till Qual. Environ. glacial 66: J. to J. soil. fertilizer Am. nitrate of Soc. ment Sci. Soil soils. impact claypan its for 1596–1602. and runoff conductivity simulated hydraulic on Saturated 2002. Ghidey. F. Missouri. North-Central 26:1612–1621. Qual. in Environ. soils J. claypan beneath groundwater of 56:249–257. riparian Syst. established Agrofor. and USA. Midwest pasture, in crops, buffer under infiltration water efrac n rcse o ifrn eeain its and widths, 28:1479–1489. Qual. vegetation, Environ. different J. for contaminants. processes and performance 68:1386–1393. J. Am. hedge Soc. grass Sci. stiff-stemmed Soil Plant by systems. influenced Nigeria. properties southern hydraulic Soil in crops cover to 211:165–172. soil Soil loam clay sandy Crops Field nitrogen soil. growth, claypan corn of 84:303–318. on properties Res. physical effects and litter availability, poultry and compaction year 9 and 184:115–124. 6 Manage. 3, Ecol. For. by soil. soil sodic of plantation of old properties chemical and 13:209–217. physical Manage. Use Soil land. arable and afforested of erties York. New Macmillan, ed. 3rd SSSA, production. and crop ASA 9. Monogr. Agron. ed. WI. 2nd Madison, 1. Part analysis. 687–734. soil p. methods. Laboratory NY. Washington, Port Center, Information Water oor .AAadSS,Mdsn WI. Madison, SSSA, and ASA 9. Monogr. uuytstereticornis Euculyptus In ..GeoihadMR atr(ed.) Carter M.R. and Gregorich E.G. In .vnNowj ta.(d)Below- (ed.) al. et Noodwijk van M. In .Kue(d)Mtosof Methods (ed.) Klute A. irjvnto fsodic of biorejuvenation In Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. dwta .. ..Ksasy ..Hnesn n ..Gret lya ol.Arc yt 76:985–1005. Syst. Agric. soils. claypan tree Garrett. Old H.E. 1991. and Hairiah. Henderson, K. G.S. and Krstansky, Widianto, J.J. H.M. M., R.P., Noordwijk, Udawatta, van relation- distribution Root 2003. Henderson. G.S. and R.P., the Udawatta, on production crop of Impact 1989. Wood. L.S. and H.D., Scott, 8912.co otpntain ae nitainadntoe management. nitrogen and infiltration water penetration, root crop 41:132–136. J. Am. Soc. Sci. Soil Hawaii. in spoils agricultural and Site- 2003. Sudduth. K.A. and paired Kitchen, N.R. 31:1214–1225. A Fraisse, Qual. loss: C.W. Environ. nutrient F., J. Wang, and comparison. runoff, watershed practices, Agroforestry 2002. 67:1869–1878. J. Am. Soc. index 53: productivity Sci. A J. Soil stands: oak approach. Am. Missouri in properties Soc. soil to Sci. ships Soil Albaqualf. Typic a 1819–1825. of status physical EB TA. GOOETYIFUNEO YRUI PROPERTIES HYDRAULIC ON INFLUENCE AGROFORESTRY AL.: ET SEOBI od ..17.Hdooia ifrne ewe eetdforested selected between differences Hydrological 1977. H.B. Wood, pcfceauto fteCOGOsyenmdlo Missouri on model CROPGRO-soybean the of evaluation for specific Important tropics: humid 134:37–44. the Soil in Plant soils acid in channels root 901