Abstract
The costs and benefits of soil compaction mitigation are reviewed and analysed based on UK examples and soil types in this article. The review focusses first on operational costs, where the most definitive data are available. This includes the costs associated with remediation/alleviation strategies such as subsoiling. Next it considers the costs of limiting the occurrence of compaction by the adoption of new technologies. The environmental costs of soil compaction, through direct impacts at the farm gate on yields and inputs, and indirectly on ecosystem services provided by soil are also considered to assess the value of different approaches. Factors considered are the influence of soil, farm management practice and novel approaches that are either in use or being developed. Although data were limited and often context specific, the significance of soil compaction to farm gate gross margins was apparent. We examined subsoiling, targeted subsoiling and ploughing as soil compaction mitigation options, as well as low ground pressure tyres, tracked tractors and controlled traffic farming (CTF) as soil compaction avoidance technologies. For mitigation options, only targeted subsoiling resulted in a positive change to gross margin, between 0 pound/ha for sandy soil and 22 pound/ha for clay soil. All soil compaction avoidance technologies increased gross margins significantly, ranging from 26 pound/ha for tracked tractors on sandy soil to 118 pound/ha for CTF on clay soil. Avoidance technologies also decrease leaching and emissions of nitrogen, and require less fuel, providing a win-win situation for farmers and the environment. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 10-25 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Soil & Tillage Research |
| Volume | 146 |
| Issue number | Part A. |
| Early online date | 26 Sep 2014 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2015 |
Keywords
- nitrous-oxide emission
- filled pore-space
- high axle loads
- subsoil compaction
- crop responses
- physical-properties
- traffic systems
- clay soil
- mechanical-behavior
- inflation pressure
Cite this
Mitigating arable soil compaction : A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. / Chamen, W. C. Tim; Moxey, Andrew P.; Towers, Willie; Balana, Bedru; Hallett, Paul D.
In: Soil & Tillage Research, Vol. 146, No. Part A., 03.2015, p. 10-25.Research output: Contribution to journal › Literature review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Mitigating arable soil compaction
T2 - A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data
AU - Chamen, W. C. Tim
AU - Moxey, Andrew P.
AU - Towers, Willie
AU - Balana, Bedru
AU - Hallett, Paul D.
N1 - We thank Defra for funding of the project “Studies to inform policy development with regard to soil degradation: Subproject A: Cost curve for mitigation of soil compaction” (Project SP1305). The James Hutton Institute receives funding from the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) of the Scottish Government. We thank the anonymous reviewers and Prof. Rainer Horn for providing insightful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.
PY - 2015/3
Y1 - 2015/3
N2 - The costs and benefits of soil compaction mitigation are reviewed and analysed based on UK examples and soil types in this article. The review focusses first on operational costs, where the most definitive data are available. This includes the costs associated with remediation/alleviation strategies such as subsoiling. Next it considers the costs of limiting the occurrence of compaction by the adoption of new technologies. The environmental costs of soil compaction, through direct impacts at the farm gate on yields and inputs, and indirectly on ecosystem services provided by soil are also considered to assess the value of different approaches. Factors considered are the influence of soil, farm management practice and novel approaches that are either in use or being developed. Although data were limited and often context specific, the significance of soil compaction to farm gate gross margins was apparent. We examined subsoiling, targeted subsoiling and ploughing as soil compaction mitigation options, as well as low ground pressure tyres, tracked tractors and controlled traffic farming (CTF) as soil compaction avoidance technologies. For mitigation options, only targeted subsoiling resulted in a positive change to gross margin, between 0 pound/ha for sandy soil and 22 pound/ha for clay soil. All soil compaction avoidance technologies increased gross margins significantly, ranging from 26 pound/ha for tracked tractors on sandy soil to 118 pound/ha for CTF on clay soil. Avoidance technologies also decrease leaching and emissions of nitrogen, and require less fuel, providing a win-win situation for farmers and the environment. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
AB - The costs and benefits of soil compaction mitigation are reviewed and analysed based on UK examples and soil types in this article. The review focusses first on operational costs, where the most definitive data are available. This includes the costs associated with remediation/alleviation strategies such as subsoiling. Next it considers the costs of limiting the occurrence of compaction by the adoption of new technologies. The environmental costs of soil compaction, through direct impacts at the farm gate on yields and inputs, and indirectly on ecosystem services provided by soil are also considered to assess the value of different approaches. Factors considered are the influence of soil, farm management practice and novel approaches that are either in use or being developed. Although data were limited and often context specific, the significance of soil compaction to farm gate gross margins was apparent. We examined subsoiling, targeted subsoiling and ploughing as soil compaction mitigation options, as well as low ground pressure tyres, tracked tractors and controlled traffic farming (CTF) as soil compaction avoidance technologies. For mitigation options, only targeted subsoiling resulted in a positive change to gross margin, between 0 pound/ha for sandy soil and 22 pound/ha for clay soil. All soil compaction avoidance technologies increased gross margins significantly, ranging from 26 pound/ha for tracked tractors on sandy soil to 118 pound/ha for CTF on clay soil. Avoidance technologies also decrease leaching and emissions of nitrogen, and require less fuel, providing a win-win situation for farmers and the environment. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
KW - nitrous-oxide emission
KW - filled pore-space
KW - high axle loads
KW - subsoil compaction
KW - crop responses
KW - physical-properties
KW - traffic systems
KW - clay soil
KW - mechanical-behavior
KW - inflation pressure
U2 - 10.1016/j.still.2014.09.011
DO - 10.1016/j.still.2014.09.011
M3 - Literature review
VL - 146
SP - 10
EP - 25
JO - Soil & Tillage Research
JF - Soil & Tillage Research
SN - 0167-1987
IS - Part A.
ER -