See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359508315

Long term effect of different crop rotations on soil physical properties in a

Mollisol

Article · February 2022

DOI: 10.31254/phyto.2022.11102

CITATIONS READS

0 43

5 authors, including:

Ajeet Pratap Singh Veer Singh

G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
17 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Navneet Pareek
G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
75 PUBLICATIONS 450 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AICRP on Maize View project

AICRP on maize View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Veer Singh on 06 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Journal of Phytopharmacology 2022; 11(1):7-11
Online at: www.phytopharmajournal.com

Research Article Long term effect of different crop rotations on soil physical
ISSN 2320-480X properties in a Mollisol
JPHYTO 2022; 11(1): 7-11
January- February
Basta Ram*, Ajeet Pratap Singh, Veer Singh, Navneet Pareek, Poonam Gautam
Received: 23-12-2021
Accepted: 03-02-2022
ABSTRACT
©2022, All rights reserved
doi: 10.31254/phyto.2022.11102 The present study was conducted for the study about the effect of different rotations on physical
properties in a Mollisol. The study area was located at Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research Centre, G. B.
Basta Ram
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, which lies at 290N latitude, 790 3’ E
University of Agriculture and longitude and 243.84 m above the mean sea level altitude. The crop rotation selected for study were T 1
Technology, Pantnagar-263145,
Uttarakhand, India (Rice- Wheat-Fallow) T2 (Rice- Vegetable pea- Summer Rice) T3 (Maize- Wheat- Cowpea) T4 (Rice-
Wheat- Sesbania) T5 (Maize- Toria- Urd) T6 (Rice- Yellow Sarson- Grain Cowpea) T7 (Multi-Cut
Ajeet Pratap Singh
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant Sorghum- Barseem + Oat- Maize + Cowpea) T8 (Napier + Fodder cowpea- Barseem- Fodder cowpea) T9
University of Agriculture and (Basmati rice- Potato- Maize Cob) T10 (Maize- Broccoli- Okra) T11 (fallow (uncultivated land)). The soil
Technology, Pantnagar-263145,
Uttarakhand, India sample was collected from 20cm depth for the study of soil physical properties (soil color, soil texture,
bulk density, particle density, porosity, and water holding capacity). Among the different crop rotations,
Veer Singh
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant
T4 treatment was obtained a significantly high value (except bulk density) of soil texture, particle
University of Agriculture and density, porosity, and water holding capacity. T11 (except bulk density) treatment was obtained a
Technology, Pantnagar-263145,
Uttarakhand, India
significantly lowest value of soil texture, particle density, porosity and water holding capacity Results
indicated that soil under Sesbania rotation was found superior with respect to soil physical properties
Navneet Pareek
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant
followed by other crop rotation and the uncultivated land. By taking a crop for a long time on same and
University of Agriculture and using chemical fertilizers that are decrease of soil physical properties. Therefore, in this experiment
Technology, Pantnagar-263145, taking different crop rotations. under the different crop rotations, soil physical properties influenced
Uttarakhand, India
positively and especially the green manure cycle has had the greatest positive impact. According to
Poonam Gautam experimental data concluded that incorporation of green manure crop rotations was effect more positive
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant
University of Agriculture and an effect on soil physical properties. Crop rotations and green manure crops are improved soil physical
Technology, Pantnagar-263145, properties and soil health.
Uttarakhand, India

Keywords: Crop Rotation, Physical Properties, Mollisol.

INTRODUCTION
Soil is a fundamental resource that is directly related to humankind in terms of goods and services. Soil
is the basic unit for the production of fuel, fiber, food, and provides many services to humankind. Soil
has our production function, protects ecosystems, and enhances ecosystems efficiency by the biological
nitrogen fixation, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharging, and biodiversity conservation. Soil
matrix is very a diverse and complex system consisting of mineral, organic matter, water, and microbial
biomass. The mineral contains mineral nutrients, which are slowly available in the process of
weathering; organic matter and humus vary in quantities, resulting from the decomposition of biomass
and minute pores are filled with air or water [1] Soils are composed of a high degree of variability due to
the interplay of physical, chemical, and biological that operate with different intensities at different
scales [2]. These processes in turn affect the nature and properties of soil hence, knowledge of soil
properties is important [3]. Intensive cropping at a particular place decreases organic matter and soil
physical properties by land degradation [4,5,6]. Due to mismanagement of soil deterioration in physical
properties is often associated to decline in OM contend by a decline in aggregate stability of the soil.
Appropriate management of crop residues retards degradation of soil physical properties and sometimes
improves soil health[7]. Management of crop residue and incorporation in soil that reduces degradation of
soil. crop-rotation increase crop residue to the soil and crop residue decreases the bulk density, increases
Correspondence: soil aggregate size, and improves water retention. To meet the growing demand for food, Agricultural
Basta Ram
Department of Soil Science, GB Pant communities and food demand increasing continues with rising with the increasing population.
University of Agriculture and However, at present time land become a limiting factor, therefore crop rotation is more important for the
Technology, Pantnagar-263145, production of food and conservation of soil health [8].
Uttarakhand, India
Email- [email protected]
Morphological, physical properties, and biological of soil are important parameters for soil

7
The Journal of Phytopharmacology

fertility assessment. Soil physical properties provide features related Particle density
to water and air movement in the soil, as well as various conditions
affecting crop growth, root growth, erosion processes, and land Particle density was calculated by using the method given by [12]. 20 g
degradation[9]. Since, many soils physical properties, form the basis of oven-dried soil was added in 100 mL of the graduated cylinder and
that cylinder water fill before the soil adds at the 50 ml mark. Soil and
for other chemical and biological processes, which may be further
content keep for 10 minutes. The difference between the initial
governed by variation by different crop rotations. A highly populous volume of water and the volume of soil plus water mixture was
country like India facing the serious problem of man to land ratio recorded which represents the volume of water displaced or volume
because India has a limited geographical area and the population occupied by the soil particles.
growth rate is high. On the earth pressure of the population is day by
Oven dry weight of soil (g)
day increases and food demand also increase. It is necessary to Particle density (g cm−3 ) =
Volume of soil solids (cm3 )
increase the production of crops with high amounts. On the other side
soil health and quality, are decreased with high production. Therefore, Porosity
conservation of soil health and soil quality is more essential. Crop
rotations and green manure are a way of conserving soil health and Porosity in the soil was determined by the [12] method by using the
quality. Therefore, the present study was conducted for the following formula.
measurement of the physical properties of soil under different crop
Bulk density of soil
rotations. Total porosity (%) = 1 − × 100
Particle density of soil
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Water holding capacity
Physiographic description of the study area Hilgard apparatus used for determining water holding capacity of soil
that procedure was given by [13]. The air-dry soil was transferred by
The study was conducted at Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research
spatula in the Hilgard apparatus. The Hilgard apparatus was placed in
Centre of Govind Ballabh Pant University, Pantnagar, and District a water-filled petri-dish and the level of water maintain half-length of
U.S. Nagar of Uttarakhand. The soil order was Mollisol. Pantnagar Hilgard apparatus submerged in it. Hilgard apparatus keep for
falls under sub-humid and sub-tropical climates [10]. Soil samples were
overnight for saturation. The next day the apparatus was removed
collected from the 0-20 cm depth representing all areas randomly
from the pertri-dish, take weight Hilgard apparatus and soil. Dry
from the study area.
weight of soil also was recorded.
Treatment details Gain in weight at saturation point
Water holding capacity (%) = × 100
Dry weight of the soil
Ten crop rotation and one fallow land have been taken as a treatment
with three replications. The treatment selected for study were T1 Statistical analysis
(Rice- Wheat-Fallow), T2 (Rice- Vegetable pea- Summer Rice), T3
(Maize- Wheat- Cowpea) T4 (Rice- Wheat- Sesbania) T5 (Maize- The experiment was conducted according to the complete randomized
Toria- Urd) T6 (Rice- Yellow Sarson- Grain Cowpea) T7 (Multi Cut block design (CRBD). The data of this experimental data were
Sorghum- Barseem + Oat- Maize + Cowpea) T8 (Napier + Fodder statistically analyzed using analysis of variance of the technique [14].
cowpea- Barseem- Fodder cowpea) T9 (Basmati rice- Potato- Maize The difference between treatments was measured by applying the “F”
Cob) T10 (Maize- Broccoli- Okra) T11 (Fallow plots). test at a 5 percent level of significance (0.05 LSD).

Soil color
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soil color was recorded both in dry and moist conditions by Munsell
Soil Color Chart. Soil color
Soil color depends mainly on the amount and state of organic matter
Soil texture and mechanical composition (OM) iron oxide (Fe and Al) and microbial product (Humus) as well
The texture of soil was assessed by the relative distribution of sand, as the amount of air and water in soil pores.
silt, and clay in the sample by the Hydrometer method [11]. The
textural classification was done by USDA textural triangle. Dry soil - Variation in soil color was obtained under different crop
rotations (Table-1)
Bulk density
Moist soil - Dark grey color of soils indicated high organic matter
The bulk density of soil was measured by the core sampler method [3]. (OM) and microbial biomass content. Grey and dark grey soils are
The core sampler was put into the soil to 0-20 cm depth. Weight of medium to high organic carbon content and brown soils are well-
core sampler keep in moisture box and that moisture box keep in the drained and aerated condition. The studies were confirmed with [15,16]
oven at 105 ℃ for 24hrs till constant Wight.

Bulk density (g cm-3) was calculated by following formula.

Oven dry weight of soil (g)

Bulk density (g cm−3 ) =
Volume of soil (cm3 )

8
The Journal of Phytopharmacology

Table 1: Moist and dry soil color under different crop rotation at 20cm depth.

Symbol Treatment Soil Color

Dry soil Moist soil
T1 Rice- Wheat-Fallow 10YR4/2(Light grey) 10YR3/2(Dark olive)
T2 Rice- Vegetable pea- Summer Rice 5Y2/2(Grey) 5Y2/1(Dark olive)
T3 Maize- Wheat- Cowpea 10YR5/2(Dark greyish brown) 10YR3/1(very dark grey)
T4 Rice- Wheat- Sesbania 8YR5/2(Light grey) 10YR3/2(Dark grey)
T5 Maize- Toria- Urd 10YR5/2(Dark grey) 10YR3/2(Dark olive)
T6 Rice- Yellow Sarson- Grain Cowpea 10YR5/3(Grey) 10YR3/1(Very dark grey)
T7 Multi-Cut Sorghum- Barseem + Oat- Maize + 10YR5/2(Dark grey) 10YR3/2(Dark Grey)
Cowpea
T8 Napier + Fodder cowpea- Barseem- Fodder 10YR5/2(Dark greyish brown) 10YR3/2(Dark grey)
cowpea
T9 Basmati rice- Potato- Maize Cob 5YR4/1(Dark grey) 10YR3/2(Dark grey)
T10 Maize- Broccoli- Okra 5YR4/2(Dark grey) 10YR3/1(dark grey)
T11 Fallow plot 10YR5/2(Light grey) 10YR4/2(Greyish brown)

Variation in soil color under different crop rotations was obtained recorded for T4 (31.26%) treatment among different treatments and
8YR5/2(Light grey), 10YR5/2(Dark grey), 5Y2/2(Grey), and minimum value of clay content was obtained for T11 (26.16%)
10YR5/2(Light grey) (Dry soil) for T4, T5, T2, T11 treatments treatment among all other different treatments. Silt content varied
respectively. Soil color variations in moist soil were obtained from 25.89 to 19.68 present among all other treatments. The
10YR3/2(Dark grey), 10YR3/2(Dark olive) 5Y2/1(Dark olive) maximum value of silt content was obtained for T11 (25.89%)
10YR4/2(Dark greyish brown) for T4, T5, T2, T11 treatments treatment among all other treatments. The lowest value of silt content
respectively. was recorded for T4 (19.68%) treatment among all other treatments.
Value of sand content was obtained least variable is present. that
Soil texture and mechanical composition research finding supported by [16].
The variation in the sand, silt, and clay content in soil were obtained
under different crop rotations. The value of clay content was varied
from 25.16 to 31.36 percent. Value of clay content was highest

Table 2: Soil mechanical composition under different crop rotations at 20cm depth

Symbol Treatments Sand Silt Clay

(%) (%) (%)
T1 Rice- Wheat-Fallow 49.12 25.87 25.18

T2 Rice- Vegetable pea- Summer Rice 49.15 22.81 28.24

T3 Maize- Wheat- Cowpea 49.16 22.79 28.26

T4 Rice- Wheat- Sesbania 49.24 19.68 31.36

T5 Maize- Toria- Urd 49.19 21.75 29.30

T6 Rice- Yellow Sarson- Grain Cowpea 49.18 21.77 29.28

T7 Multi-Cut Sorghum- Barseem + Oat- Maize + Cowpea 49.21 20.73 30.32

T8 Napier + Fodder cowpea- Barseem- Fodder cowpea 49.22 20.70 30.34

T9 Basmati rice- Potato- Maize Cob 49.13 24.85 27.20

T10 Maize- Broccoli- Okra 49.14 24.83 27.22

T11 Fallow plot 49.11 25.89 25.16

9
The Journal of Phytopharmacology

Table 4: Bulk density, Particle Density, Porosity and water holding capacity under different crop rotations at 20 cm depth

Symbol Treatment Bulk density Particle density Porosity (%) Water holding
(g cm-3) (g cm-3) capacity (%)
T1 Rice- Wheat - Fallow 1.43 2.65 45.78 42.37
T2 Rice- Vegetable pea- Summer Rice 1.38 2.66 48.11 45.01
T3 Maize- Wheat- Cowpea 1.36 2.63 48.61 46.31
T4 Rice- Wheat- Sesbania 1.30 2.57 49.84 52.54
T5 Maize- Toria- Urd 1.33 2.61 48.78 48.11
T6 Rice- Yellow Sarson- Grain Cowpea 1.34 2.62 48.59 46.71
T7 Multi-Cut Sorghum- Barseem + Oat- Maize + 1.33 2.60 48.71 50.44
Cowpea
T8 Napier + Fodder cowpea- Barseem- Fodder 1.32 2.58 48.76 51.21
cowpea
T9 Basmati rice- Potato- Maize 1.42 2.61 45.72 43.44
T10 Maize- Broccoli- Okra 1.40 2.67 47.10 44.64
T11 Fallow plots 1.46 2.68 45.45 41.27
SEM ± 0.005 0.009 0.293 0.334
CD at 5% 0.016 0.027 0.871 0.992

Bulk density rotation. The lowest particle density under fallow plots because of
high organic carbon content. The same result was found by [8, 16].
The bulk density data are tabulated in table 4. On the basis of bulk
density data BD was differ significantly with different treatments. The Porosity
treatments have a significant effect on bulk density in soil. The
highest bulk density was obtained in control T11 (1.46 g cm-3) The porosity was influenced significantly under different treatments.
treatment than that T1 (1.43 g cm-3) T2 (1.38 g cm-3) T3 (1.36 g cm-3), The maximum porosity was reported with T4 (49.84 %) treatment than
T4 (1.30 g cm-3), T5 (1.33 g cm-3), T6 (1.34 g cm-3), T7 (1.33 g cm-3), that of T1 (45.78%) T2 (48.11%) T3 (48.61%), T11 (45.45%), T5
T8 (1.32 g cm-3), T9 (1.42 g cm-3) and T10 (1.40 g cm-3) treatments. (48.78%), T6 (48.59%), T7 (48.71%), T8 (48.76%), T9 (45.72%) and
The lowest bulk density was recorded with T4 (1.30g cm-3) than that T10 (47.10%) treatments. The lowest value of porosity was recorded
T1, T2, T11, T3, T8, T5, T6, T7, T9, and T10 treatments. Bulk density value with T11 (45.45 %) treatments than that of T1, T2, T4, T3, T8, T5, T6, T7,
for T8 (1.32 g cm-3) treatment was obtained significantly at par with T9, and T10 treatments. Porosity influence significantly differed under
T4 (1.30 g cm-3) treatment. different treatments (T1 to T11) Same results were also reported by
[16,21].

The lowest value of bulk density was obtained in T4 treatment i.e.

(Rice- Wheat- Sesbania) because of high soil organic carbon content Water holding capacity
which leads to a decline in soil bulk density of soil. A similar result
The water holding capacity was influenced significantly by different
(different land use) was also reported by [8,16,17]. Generally, the highest
treatments. The highest water holding capacity was obtained with T4
bulk density was obtained under uncultivated land (fellow plot) and
(52.54%) treatment than that of T1 (42.37%) T2 (45.02%) T3
this is due to low organic carbon and low clay content in the soil.
(46.31%), T11 (44.64%), T5 (48.11%), T6 (46.71%), T7 (50.44%), T8
Tillage practice increases soil bulk density is generally high due to
(51.21%), T9 (43.44%) and T10 (44.64%) treatments. The lowest water
less surface soil disruption caused by cultivation practice [18]. A
holding capacity was recorded with T11 (41.27%) treatment then of T1,
similar finding was also noted by [16].
T2, T4, T3, T8, T5, T6, T7, T9, and T10 treatments. This was due to the low
organic carbon content in the soil. The same result was also reported
The highest bulk density in the fallow land (fellow plot) due to
by [8]. The highest water holding capacity was recorded under Rice-
compaction in soil, high decomposition rate, and organic matter (OM)
Wheat- Sesbania crop rotation. This was due to more organic matter
degradation was also reported [16,19,20]
(OM) containing and the highest percentage of clay which increase
Particle density the available water. These results are in similarity with those of [16,22].
The lowest water holding capacity was reported under fellow plots
The data on particle density is illustrated in table 4. The highest that have low organic matter.
particle density was reported with T11 (2.68 g cm-3) treatments then
that T1 (2.65g cm-3) T2 (2.66g cm-3) T3 (2.63g cm-3), T4 (2.57g cm-3), CONCLUSION
T5 (2.61g cm-3), T6 (2.62g cm-3), T7 (2.60g cm-3), T8 (2.58g cm-3), T9
Soil color indicator about organic matter content and mineralogical
(2.61g cm-3) and T10 (2.67g cm-3) treatments. The lowest particle
composition of the soil. Under this study, soil color was found more
density was reported with T4 (2.61g cm-3) treatment than that of T1, T2,
darker with more organic matter content in the soil where organic
T11, T3, T8, T5, T6, T7, T9, and T10 treatments. Particle density influenced
matter was found low in soil that soil has light color. The Bulk density
significantly under different treatments (T1 to T11). The lowest value
and particle density of soil differed significantly under different
of particle density was observed under Rice- Wheat- Sesbania crop
treatments. The highest bulk density and particle density were

10
The Journal of Phytopharmacology

reported under T11 (fallow land) while the lowest was obtained under 14. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers.
T4 (Rice- Wheat- Sesbania) treatments. Porosity and water holding Statistical methods for agricultural workers.1954.
capacity were recorded highest with T4 (Rice- Wheat- Sesbania) 15. Sarkar D, Gangopadhyay SK, Velayutham M. Soil topo sequence
relationship and classification in lower outlier of Chhota Nagpur plateau.
treatment. the lowest values of PD and BD were obtained under T11
Agropedology. 2001;11:29-36.
(fallow land) treatments. The highest clay and the lowest silt are better 16. Pandey B, Mukherjee A, Agrawal M, Singh S. Assessment of seasonal
for plant growth and that type composition found in T4 (Rice- Wheat- and site-specific variations in soil physical, chemical and biological
Sesbania) treatment. Among all treatments T4 (Rice- Wheat- properties around opencast coal mines. Pedosphere. 2019;29(5):642-55.
Sesbania) treatment was obtained superiors in terms of soil properties 17. Gupta RD, Arora S, Gupta GD, Sumberia NM. Soil physical variability
because sesbania contribute more nitrogen and organic matter in the in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses in foothills of
soil. On the basis of these results, concluded that among different Siwaliks in NW India. Tropical ecology. 2010;51(2):183.
treatments better bulk density, particle density, soil color, porosity, 18. Karamanos AJ, Bilalis D, Sidiras N. Effects of reduced tillage and
fertilization practices on soil characteristics, plant water status, growth
water holding capacity, and clay content were found under green
and yield of upland cotton. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science.
manuring base treatment (T4). So, soil researchers should have been 2004;190(4):262-76.
promoted green manuring in crop rotation. 19. Ekka AA, Kumar D, Singh AP, Singh A. Variation in physico-chemical
properties of soil under different agri-horti system in Vindhyan region.
Acknowledgements Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2017 Jun 1;9(2):1187-93.
20. Wakene N, Heluf G. Influence of land management on morphological,
Authors are grateful to the Head, Department of Soil Science, G.B. physical and chemical properties of some soils of Bako, Western
Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, for Ethiopia. Agropedology. 2003;13(2):1-9.
providing the necessary facilities and the researchers associated with 21. Yadda TA. Effects of fruit based land use systems on soil
the ICAR–AICRP on Integrated Farming System. physicochemical properties: the case of smallholders farming systems in
Gamo Gofa, Souther Ethiopia. School of Graduate Studies of Hawassa
Conflict of Interest University, Awasa, Ethiopia. 2007:52-93.
22. Khongjee S. Runoff and nutrient losses under different land uses in Ga3a
None declared. micro-watershed of Giri River in Solan district of Himachal Pradesh.
M.Sc. Thesis, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry,
Financial Support Nauni, Solan, 2012, 1-79.

None declared.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
REFERENCES Ram B, Singh AP, Singh V, Pareek N, Gautam P. Long term effect of
different crop rotations on soil physical properties in a Mollisol. J
1. Scialabba N, Hattam C, editors. Organic agriculture, environment and Phytopharmacol 2022; 11(1):7-11. doi: 10.31254/phyto.2022.11102
food security. Food & Agriculture Org.; 2002.
2. Goovaerts P. Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability
Creative Commons (CC) License-
of microbiological and physico-chemical soil properties. Biology and This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Fertility of soils. 1998 Sep;27(4):315-34. Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. This license permits unrestricted
3. Amusan AA, Shitu AK, Makinde WO, Orewole O. Assessment of use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
changes in selected soil properties under different land use in Obafemi source are credited. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Awolowo University Community, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Electron J Environ
Agric Food Chem. 2006;5:1178-84.
4. Dormaar JF, Willms WD. Decomposition of blue grama and rough
fescue roots in prairie soils. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal
of Range Management Archives. 1993;46(3):207-13.
5. Hobbs JA, Brown PL. Nitrogen and organic carbon changes in cultivated
western Kansas soils. Technical Bulletin 89. Agricultural Experiment
Station, Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. 1957.
6. Kumar D, Upadhyay GP, Dutt A, Bhutia KG. Assessment of soil
chemical Properties under different land uses in Barog-Dhillon watershed
in Solan district of Himachal Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal
2017;6(7):33-36.
7. Arun Kumar V, Natarajan S, Sivasamy R. Characterization and
classification of soils of lower Palar-Manimuthar watershed of Tamil
Nadu. Agropedology. 2002;12:97-103.
8. Kumar S, Singh R. Erodibility studies under different land uses in North-
West Himalayas. Journal of Agricultural Physics. 2007;7:31-7.
9. Negassa W, Gebrekidan H. The impact of different land use systems on
soil quality of western Ethiopian Alfisols. 2004:1-7.
10. Puri GS, Indian Forest Ecology Oxford Book and Stationery Co., New
Delhi, 1960.5(1):1178-84.
11. Bouyoucos GJ. The hydrometer as a new method for the mechanical
analysis of soils. Soil science. 1927;23(5):343-54.
12. Baver LD. Practical values from physical analyses of soils. Soil science.
1949;68(1):1-4.
13. Piper CS. Soil and plant analysis. The University of Adelaide Press,
Adelaide, Australia, 1950;4: 368.

11
View publication stats