The effects of low and controlled traffic systems on soil physical properties, yields and the profitability of cereal crops on a range of soil types

Soil compaction is an inevitable consequence of mechanised farming systems whose machines are degrading soils to the extent that some are considered uneconomic to repair. A number of mitigating actions have been proposed but their ability to reduce or avoid damage has not been well tested. The aim of this research was to determine whether actions to reduce damage have been, or are likely to be effective and to assess whether the practice of controlled traffic farming (confining all field vehicles to the least possible area of permanent traffic lanes) has the potential to be a practical and cost effective means of avoidance. The literature confirmed that soil compaction from field vehicles had negative consequences for practically every aspect of crop production. It increases the energy needed to establish crops, compromises seedbed quality and crop yield, and leads to accelerated water run-off, erosion and soil loss. It is also implicated in enhanced emissions of nitrous oxide and reduced water and nutrient use efficiency. Replicated field trials showed that compaction is created by a combination of loading and contact pressure. Trafficking increased soil penetration resistance by 47% and bulk density by 15% while reducing wheat yield by up to 16%, soil porosity by 10% and infiltration by a factor of four. Low ground pressure systems were a reasonable means of compaction mitigation but were constrained due to their negative impact on topsoils and gradual degradation of subsoils whose repair by deep soil loosening is expensive and short lived. Controlled traffic farming (CTF) was found to be practical and had fundamental advantages in maintaining all aspects of good soil structure with lowered inputs of energy and time. On a farm in central England, machinery investment with CTF fell by over 20% and farm gross margin increased in the range 8-17%

The effects of low and controlled traffic systems on soil physical properties, yields and the profitability of cereal crops on a range of soil types

Soil compaction is an inevitable consequence of mechanised farming systems whose machines are degrading soils to the extent that some are considered uneconomic to repair. A number of mitigating actions have been proposed but their ability to reduce or avoid damage has not been well tested. The aim of this research was to determine whether actions to reduce damage have been, or are likely to be effective and to assess whether the practice of controlled traffic farming (confining all field vehicles to the least possible area of permanent traffic lanes) has the potential to be a practical and cost effective means of avoidance. The literature confirmed that soil compaction from field vehicles had negative consequences for practically every aspect of crop production. It increases the energy needed to establish crops, compromises seedbed quality and crop yield, and leads to accelerated water run-off, erosion and soil loss. It is also implicated in enhanced emissions of nitrous oxide and reduced water and nutrient use efficiency. Replicated field trials showed that compaction is created by a combination of loading and contact pressure. Trafficking increased soil penetration resistance by 47% and bulk density by 15% while reducing wheat yield by up to 16%, soil porosity by 10% and infiltration by a factor of four. Low ground pressure systems were a reasonable means of compaction mitigation but were constrained due to their negative impact on topsoils and gradual degradation of subsoils whose repair by deep soil loosening is expensive and short lived. Controlled traffic farming (CTF) was found to be practical and had fundamental advantages in maintaining all aspects of good soil structure with lowered inputs of energy and time. On a farm in central England, machinery investment with CTF fell by over 20% and farm gross margin increased in the range 8-17%.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Field evaluation of controlled traffic farming in central Europe using commercially available machinery

The progressive increase in the size and weight of farm machinery causes concerns due to the increased risk of soil compaction that arises from non-organized vehicle traffic. Controlled traffic farming (CTF) offers an effective means to manage compaction by confining all load-bearing wheels to the least possible area of permanent traffic lanes. Although CTF is relatively well-established in Australia and in some countries in Northern Europe, its benefits and suitability for Central European conditions have not been demonstrated. A long-term experimental site was established in 2010 in Nitra, Slovakia, using a 6 m 'OutTrac-CTF' system with shallow non-inversion tillage practices. The 16 ha experimental field of loam soil is representative of land used for arable cropping in Central Europe. Four traffic intensities (non-trafficked, one traffic event per year with a single pass, multiple passes with permanent traffic lanes, and random traffic) were evaluated using two traffic systems: controlled (CTF) and non-controlled traffic farming (referred to as random traffic farming or RTF). This article reports the findings derived from the first four years of the project and focuses on the effects of traffic systems on yields observed in cereal crops (winter wheat, spring barley, and maize) grown at the site in a rotation cycle. Significant differences (p < 0.1) in yield are reported due to the heterogeneity of the field and the seasonal effect of weather. The results of this investigation suggest that CTF systems have potential to increase production sustainably in arable farming systems in Central Europe. Well-designed CTF systems using commercially available machinery allow for reductions in the area affected by traffic of up to 50% compared with random, non-organized traffic systems. Results also show that in years when soil moisture was not limiting, the yield penalty from a single (annual) machine pass was relatively small (~5%). However, in dry years, compaction caused by multiple machinery passes may lead to yield losses of up to 33%. When considering the ratio of non-trafficked to trafficked area within the different CTF systems evaluated in this study, yield improvements of up to 0.5 t ha-1 for cereals are possible when converting from RTF to CTF. Given the assumptions made in the analyses, such yield increases translate into increased revenues of up to 117 USD ha-1 (1 Euro= 1.1 USD). For Central European farming systems, the main benefit of CTF appears to be improved efficiency and enhanced agronomic stability, especially in dry seasons, where the significant yield penalty from machinery passes is likely

Soil disturbance under small harvester traffic in paddy‐based smallholder farms in China

Machine‐induced soil disturbance may negatively impact the sustainability of a smallholder farming system. On‐farm studies at 143 fields were conducted over three crop seasons with the goal of quantifying the effect of soil disturbance on rice (Oryza sativa L.) paddy productivity induced by small harvesters (i.e., power <75 kW, weight < 3.5 Mg, and working width <2200 mm). A field survey toolbox containing fine‐layered cone penetration test, soil micro‐relief measurement, soil physics test (water content, bulk density, and porosity), documentation of field attributes, harvesters’ technical specifications, cropping systems, and farmers’ practices was used for field observation. Results showed that harvester traffic increased soil bulk density and decreased soil porosity. However, harvester‐induced soil changes in statistics were not detected. In addition, trafficked lanes had great soil strength (P = .05) than non‐trafficked lanes, and equipment induced compaction was limited to the surface 150 mm. Therefore, small harvesters minimized subsurface soil damage. However, regardless of the model and specification, all harvesters caused ruts. Small field sizes, irregular field shapes, inconsistent field management practices, lacking soil protection awareness, excessive soil water content during rice harvesting and random field traffic were identified as major factors aggravating soil disturbance. Above these, several well‐established approaches to alleviate machine‐induced soil damage were also observed during the field survey, including pre‐harvesting drainage, floating chassis, ultra‐narrow wheels, and puddling

Controlled traffic farming in Argentina: challenges and opportunities

CTF is the quiet revolution in crop production systems. Successful CTF systems are being developed and used in Australian grain, sugar, cotton and vegetable industries, European grain and vegetable industries, Canadian and USA grain industries and in southern Africa and South America. Despite the challenges of machine incompatibility, farm layout and technology integration, farmer-­driven CTF adoption, and industry and publicly funded research and development, has occurred on every continent. Substantial improvements in productivity and sustainability are being consistently achieved

The potential of controlled traffic farming to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in arable land: a critical review

The drive toward adoption of conservation agriculture to reduce costs and increase production sustainably causes concern due to the potentially negative effects of increased soil compaction. Soil compaction reduces aeration, water infiltration, and saturated hydraulic conductivity and increases the risk of waterlogging. Controlled traffic farming (CTF) is a system in which: (1) all machinery has the same or modular working and track width so that field traffic can be confined to the least possible area of permanent traffic lanes, (2) all machinery is capable of precise guidance along those permanent traffic lanes, and (3) the layout of the permanent traffic lanes is designed to optimize surface drainage and logistics. Without CTF, varying equipment operating and track widths translate into random traffic patterns, which can cover up to 85% of the cultivated field area each time a crop is produced. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the greatest contributor to agriculture's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cropping, and research suggests that its production increases significantly under conditions of high (>60%) water-filled porosity when nitrate (mainly from fertilizer N) and carbon (usually from crop residues) are available. Self-amelioration of soils affected by compaction occurs slowly from the surface downward; however, the rate of amelioration decreases with increase in depth. Consequently, all soils in non-CTF systems in mechanized agriculture are prone to some degree of compaction, which compromises water infiltration, increases the frequency and duration of waterlogged conditions, reduces gaseous exchange between soil and the atmosphere, inhibits root penetration and exploitation of nutrients and water in the subsoil, and enhances N2O emissions. Adoption of CTF increases soil porosity in the range of 5% to 70%, water infiltration by a factor of 4, and saturated hydraulic conductivity by a factor of 2. The greater cropping opportunity and enhanced crop growth for given fertilizer and rainfall inputs offered by CTF, coupled with no-tillage, provide potential for enhanced soil carbon sequestration. Reduced need and intensity of tillage, where compaction is avoided, also helps protect soil organic matter in stable aggregates, which may otherwise be exposed and oxidized. There is both circumstantial and direct evidence to suggest that improved soil structural conditions and aeration offered by CTF can reduce N2O emissions by 20% to 50% compared with non-CTF. It is not compaction per se that increases the risk of N2O emissions but rather the increased risk of waterlogging and increase in water-filled pore space. There may be an elevated risk of GHG emissions from the relatively small area of permanent traffic lanes (typically <20% of total cultivated area) if these are not managed appropriately. Quantification of the benefits of compaction avoidance in terms of GHG emissions may be possible through the use of well-developed models