Gmdw!eSchmlFam9
PURDUE UNIVERSIN
(lwwised m4)
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis prepared
BY.
Mateugue Diack
Entitled
Relationships Between Soi1 Biological and Chemical
Characteristics and Surface Soi1 Structural Properties
for Use in Soi1 Quality
.
Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for
originality and quality
.
For the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Signed by the final examining commit-tee:
0 ii
.A----.
lhis thesis ?? is not to be regarded as confidential.
<”
. I
Format Approved by:
/-
LJ.-(-$L E Q&f-
--
or
Chair, Final Examining Committee
Thesis Format Adviser

---

RELATIQNSHIP$ .BETW~EN SOIL BIOLOGICA,L AND CH!
1 ,:MICAL
CHARACTERlSTIC$ AND SURFACE SOIL STRUCTURAL PFjOPERTiES
<
.
.
.
FOR &E IN SOIL QUALITY
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
,.JZ
,,Purdue University
.s.
*
.a
.
:.:.
bY
-.‘.. ;-.fl. I
,,$&ateugue D i a c k
:?
j
.
:
In Partial Fulfillment of the
:
‘>‘.
:.
Reqoirements for the Degree
-’
:
of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 1997

---

ii
.,
Dedicated TO My Family

---

. . .
1 1 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to tHank Dr. Diane E. Stott, my major professor, f& her
guidan& and research funds throughout the course of my graduate btudies.
I also wish to extend nly gratitude to the members of my advisory cotnmittee:
Dr. Eileen J. Kladivko, Dr. Rlon F. Turco, Dr. Cliff. T. Johnston and Dr. Michael V.
Hickman for valuable discussions and information provided in lectur4r; and
informa1 meetings.
Thankfulness to the ARS-National Soil Erosion Research Lab,.! USDA, for
the excellent research facilitiies. Thanks to Barbara S. Condra, Mojica
Matheson and Alexis Heldt for their technical assistance in the labor@tory.
I am indebted ta Dr. McFee, the Head of the Department of Aoronomy, Dr.
Georges van Scoyoc, Dr. Jim Ahlrichs, Dr. Darrell Schulze, Dr. Davy IMengel for
their support in many &ays throughout my stay at Purdue University.
Special thanks aàre extended to my Iab group and officemates/: Samson
Angima, Steve Greene, Tom Cohrane, Eusebio Ventura, Dimitri Bul$alov and
Viktor Polykov.

---

iv
Live at Purdue Will be memorable with the friendships, laboratory
assistance, incentive and understanding that I have had with everybody.
. - _ _ . .
, _ P . I .
----I1.u*
- - -

---

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF TABLES.................................................................................
.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................
.
X
ABSTRACT .......................................... .............i ...................................
xii
l
CHAPTER 1 LITERAtURE REVIEW ..................................... “..........l
1
1 .l . Defining Soi1
‘uality ..............................................
..a...............:.
2
9
1.2. Soil Quality Eff cts .......................... *......................................., .
3
1.2.1” Management F’ractices .....................................
..“........... .
3
1.2.2. Soit Struc@ture ......................................
.......................... ..i.
6
1.2.3. Water Infiltration and Retention......................................
.
7
1.2.4. Bulk Denbity ......................................
..*..........................i.
9
1.25. Soi1 Erodibility ..................................................................
10
1.2.6. Soit Orgapic Matter ...........................................
..“..........i.
12
1.2.6.1. Rotation Lenlgth ............................................................
12
1.2.6.2. Tillage ‘ osses .............................................................
.
13
1.2.6.3. Minera11 zation E%fects ................................................
..i
14
1.2.6.4. Fertilizer and Manure Interactions .............................. .
16
1.2.7. Soi1 Orgajnic Matter Attributes ................... ..%..................i
16
1.2.7.1. Soi1 Organic Carbon and Nitrogen ............................... .
16
1.2.7.2. Light Fr/action and Macroorganic Matter.. ................... ~
19
1.2.7.3. Soi1 Carbohydrates.. ...................................................
22
1.2.7.4. MicrobibI Biomass .......................................................
24
1.2.7.5. Soi1 Enzymes...............................................................
26
1.3. References ..................................................................................
31
I
CHAPTER 2 OPTIMI TIQN OF FLUORESCEIN DIACETATE
~
Y
HYDRO. YSIS ASSAY IN SOILS
l
................................. .
45
2.1. Abstract ...................................................................................
45
2.2. Introduction
..... .......................................................................
.
46

---

vi
2.3. Materials and Methods ...........................................................
47
2.4. Method for Assay .of FDA hydrolysis .......................................
50
2.5. Results and Discussion...........................................................
5 1
25.1. Time of Incubation..........................................................
52
2.5.2. Temperature of Incubation.............................................
52
2.5.3. Effect of Buffer pH ..........................................................
53
2.5.4. Substrate Concentration................................................
54
2.5.5. Amount of Buffer Solution and Vesse1 Type.. ................
54
2.5.6. Amount of Soil’................................................................
55
2.5.7. Soil Aggregate Size ............................................................
55
2.5.8. Adsorption Capacity.. .....................................................
56
2.6. Conclusions .................... . .......................................................
56
2.7. References .............................................................................
68
CHIAPTER 3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOIL BIOLOGICAL AND
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SURFACE SOIL
STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES FOR USE IN SOIL QUALITY. 70
3.1. Abstract ......................................................................................
70
3.2. Introduction..................................................................................
7 1
3.3. Materials and Methods.. ............................................................
75
3.3.1. General Field Plan and Cultural Practices of the IPM Plots
75
3.3.1 .l. Tillage Systems .............................................................
75
3.3.1.2. Crop Rotations ..............................................................
75
3.3.1.3. Weed Management Systems.. ......................................
77
3.3.2. Soil Sampling and Preparation.. .......................................
77
3.3.3. Physical Properties.. .........................................................
78
3.3.3.1. Infiltration Rate ..............................................................
78
3.3.3.2. Soil Penetrability...........................................................
78
3.3.3.3. Bulk Density...................................................................
79
3.3.3.4 Soil Aggregate Stability as Measured by Sealing Index.
80
3.3.3.4.1. Wet Aggregate Measurement.. ...................................
8 1
3.3.3.4.2. Dry Aggregate Measurement.....................................
8 1
3.3.4. Chemical Properties.. ......................................................
8 1
3.3.4.1. Total C, H and N ..........................................................
8 1
3.3.4.2. Dissolved Qrganic Carbon ............................................
82
3.3.4.3. Soil Carbohydrates ......................................................
82
3.3.5. Biochemical Properties...................................................
83
3.3.5.1. Microbial Biomass.. ......................................................
83
3.3.5.2. Enzyme Activity.. .........................................................
85
3.4. Statistical Analysis.. ................................................................
86
3.4.1. Experimental Design.. ....................................................
86
3.4.2. Data Analysis ..................................................................
86
. - .
,__.-

- .
-p-e”,

---

vii
3.5. Results.......... Id.. ..... .<m.. . .............................................................
87
.................................................
87
................................................................
07
trability.. .......................................................
87
.................................................
87
88
...............................................
88
anic: Carbon.. ...............................................
88
.............................................................
89
89
...........................................
90
..................................
90
vities.. .....................................................
90
fdrates.. ...................................................
9 1
3.6. Discussion.. ... ................. ........................................................
9 1
3.7. Soi1 Quality Iri icators .............................................................
104
i!
3.7.1. Concept al Soil Quality Mode1......................................
105
3.7.2. Concept al Approach for Rating a Quality of Soil.........
107
3.7.3.
6
Evaluatio Mechanics ....................................................
108
3.7.4 . Proceduré for Convetting the Soil Data in a 0 to 1 Sca
109
3.75 Soi1 Quality Assessment for Three IPM Tillage System
111
3.8. Conclusions.................................................................
,I .........
112
3.9. Referekes ............................................................................
132
VITA. ............................. ..>......................” ...........................................
201

---

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1. Properties of the soi1 used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
3.1. Comparison of soit properties mean values among tillages..........
115
3.2. Comparison of soil properties mean values among trop rotations
116
3.3. Soil quality functions, indicators and ratings as related to soil erosion 117
Ap/pendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table
A. IMoisture content on the IPM plots.. ................................................
139
B. Bulk density on the IPM plots .........................................................
145
C. Soil resistance to penetration on the IPM plots.. ............................
151
D. Water infiltration rate on the IPM plots...........................................
160
E. Total organic carbon in the IPM plots.. ...........................................
172
F. Total nitrogen in the IPM plots ........................................................
174
G. Dissolved organic car-bon in the IPM plots .....................................
176
H. Microbial biomass in the IPM plos.. ................................................
182
1. C:arbohydrates in the IPM plots .......................................................
188
J. FDA hydrolysis in the IPM plots ......................................................
190
K. B-glucosidase activity in the IPM plots...........................................
193
-__.
-- ..-----
_-_.--_ -----,-

---

ix
L. Arylsulfatase activij in the IPM plots.............................................
196
M. Analysis of varianc$ of thie soil physical properties.. ......................
199
N. Analysis of varianc$ of the soi1 chemical properties . . .._..................’
200
0. Analysis of varianc4 of th,e soit biological propetties... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
200

---

X
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1. Calibration graph plotted from the results obtained with standards of
fluorescein solution ,.................................................................
B
. . . . . . .
59
2.2. Effect of incubation time on release of fluorescein during FDA
hydrolysis assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*...
60
\\
2.3. Effect of incubation temperature on release of fluorescein during
FDA hydrolysis assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 1
2.4. Effect of pH of buffer on release of fluorescein during FDA hydrolysis
assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.........
62
2.5. Effect of substrate concentration on release of fluorescein during
FDA hydrolysis assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . .
63
2.6. Effect of volume of buffer solution on release of fluorescein during
FDA hydrolysis assay in soils, as substrate concentration was
constant. Erlenmeyers were used as the reaction vessels.........
64
2.7. Effect of volume of buffer solution on release of fluorescein during
FDA hydrqlysis assay in soils, as substrate concentration was
constant. Polypropylene were used as the reaction vessels.......
65
2.8. Effect of amount of soil on release of fluorescein in FDA hydrolysis
assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..........................*.
66
2.9. Effect of soil particle size on release of fluorescein during FDA
hydrolysis assay in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..-.....
67
3.1. Effect of management practices on soil resistance to penetration....
118
3.2. Effect of management practices on soil bulk density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
, _ _ . _ ---.---..-
.
._..
--..l..T~lr.-~__l---
-.--

---

x i
3.3. Effect of management practices on final infiltration rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. ,.... 120
3.4. Effect of management practices on sealing index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.........
121
3.5. Effect of management practices on soit organic carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.... 122
3.6. Effect of management practices on soi1 total nitrogen.. ......................
123
3.7. Effect of management practices on dissolved organic carbon......., ..... 124
3.8. Effect of management practices on soil microbial biomass.. ....... . ........ 125
/
3.9. Effect of management practices on soil carbohydrates ............... :. ...... 126
3.10. Effect of management practices on fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis 127
3.11. Effect of management practices on P-glucosidase activity in S~IS...
128
3.12. Effect of management practices on arylsulfatase activity in soilb....
129
/
3.13. Relationship be een soi1 bulk density and fluorescein diacetate
a
hydrolysis as s !il management changes. . ..“...............“...........r....
130
3.14. General shapes for standard scoring functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
131
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph
Page
3.1. Griffith tube for measuring soil aggregate stability . . . . . . . . ..,........ e ..,..
114
3.2. Pan Assembly colfitaining trays for collecting soil ag!gregates . ...‘.
114

---

xii
ABSTRACT
Diack, Mateugue. Ph.D., Purdue University, May 1997. Relationships Between
Soi1 Biological and Chemical Characteristics and Surface Soil Structural
Properties for Use in ‘Soi1 Quality. Major Professor: Diane E. Stott.
While there are many long-term management studies on soi1 productivity
and pest management, few have looked at the long-term effects on surface soil
structure and how changes’are related to the soi1 biology and biochemistry.
This study was conducted on a 16-year integrated pest management field where
several tillage and trop rotation combinations were available. Sealing index, as
a measure of soi1 aggregate stability, decreased with decreasing tillage intensity.
Mowever, final infiltration rate was highest in chisel plow system. Total organic
C and N, microbial biomass C, soi1 carbohydrates and soi1 enzyme activities
were significantly greater in conservation systems as compared to conventional
practices.
A simple and sensitive method of optimizing fluorescein diacetate
hyclrolysis was developed and used in these soils. This enzymatic activity is
involved in lipid metabolism which is ubiquitous to all living cells.
Bulk density
was negatively correlated with soi1 enzyme activity.
Tillage appeared to play a
ma,jor role in the soi1 property changes with trop rotation system differences

---

. . .
x111
being minor. Using soi1 erodibility as the baseline, a set of soi1 qualité indicators
was developed. For doil quality rating, a standard scoring function &as
’
developed, and the thrbe management systems were rated from theilowest to
the highest : moldboard plow -1 no-till < chisel plow due to the unsuai nature of
this no-till field. Resuhs suggest that soi1 biochemical and biologica( properties
are potential indicators of soi1 quality with regard to soi1 erodibility.
:

---

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
The progressive degradation of agricultural soils is a worldwide problem
which manifests itself with on-site and off-site consequences.
The three
principal forms of soi1 degradation are physical, chemical and biological.
Physical degradation leads to a deterioration of soi1 properties that cari have a
serious impact on water infiltration and plant growth. Chemical degradation
prclcesses cari lead to a rapid decline in soi1 quality, resulting in nutrient
depletion, acidification, and salinization, leading to physical and biological
degradation. Biological degradation includes reductions in organic matter
content, declines in the amount of carbon from biomass, and decreases in the
activity and diversity of soi1 fauna which in turn, cari lead to physical degradation.
The resulting outcome of soi1 degradation is a decline in soil quality that
consequently, Will affect soi1 and water conservation, soi1 productivity,
sustainable agriculture and land use. Therefore, it is imperative to sustain the
.
soiil resource base by maintaining or enhancing soi1 quality.
.__._“.
-..--_-

1111-.-11111----
---.--_----

---

1.1. Defining Soi1 Quality
Soi1 quality cari be defined’as the degree of suitability to the spebific
functions that soils pe&orm in a given ecosystem. The terms soil qjality and soil
health are currently usbd interchangeably in the scientific Iiterature arrd popular
press.
Scientists prefer soill quality and farmers prefer soil health (darris et al.,
1994). While the term ‘soi1 quality’ is relatively new, it is well known/that soils
,
vary in quality and that! soil cluality changes in response to use and management
(Larson et al., 1994). The National Research Council (USA) recommends a
definition of soil quality as the capacity of the soil to promote the growth of
.
/
plants; protect watershbds by regulating infiltration and partitioning of
precipitation; and prevent water and air pollution by buffering potenti I pollutants.
This definition of soil qhality is so far the most complete for it associates soil
‘.
productivity, water storbge and environmental quality.
Although the qualitb of a soi1 cari be defined, it still cannot be seen or
measured directly fromi the soil alone, but is inferred frorn soil charackristics and
I
soi1 behavior under.defined conditions. As Stewart (1992) mentione/dl, there is
no single measurement that cari quantify soil quality. However, ther/s are certain
I
characteristics, particul~rly when considered together, that may be good
indicators.
With the increasing concern about the declining in soil productivity, the issue
of how healthy a soil cari remain with long term intensive use is also being

---

raised.
This is because in general, the quality of a soi1 cari be maintained or
enhanced by good management practices; and also seriously degraded,
sometimes irreversibly, wïth poor practices.
1.2. Soit Quality Effects
For years, soi1 degradation and management problems, causing loss of soil
productivity, were only considered for agricultural soils. The capability of the soi1
to partition water and regulate infiltration rates were not considered in the search
for soil quality indices.
Scattered information exist on the impact of trop and tillage management on
soil organic matter transformations and the subsequent effects on soil structure.
However, when put together, we do not know how soil biological and biochemical
characteristics change as soil management changes, nor, what impact soil
management practices have on soil organic matter quality and the subsequent
effects on soil structure and erodibility.
1.2.1. Management Practices
Management practices include trop rotations, fertilizer application, residue
management and tillage operations. Residue management is interrelated with
tillage practices’, and it is difficult to separate soil property effects of the residues
per se from the effects of tillage operations (Kladivko, 1994). Conservation
_
--_.
---
. - - -
..”
,_I___.
- . _ - . _

-_II

---

4
tillage systems in,volve khe combined effects of different Mage intens ties
i
and
different residue placements, both affecting the magnitude and locati,cin of soil
l
physical property chan$es. In addition, many long-term field studies/ on residue
management also utilide different trop rotations, SO that changes in joil physical
1
properties are the combined result of residues, tillage, and trop rotations (Black
et al., 1979).
Crop rotations, tillabe operations and fertilizer applications cari a ter the soil
/
structure through their Impacts on soil disturbance and m,ixing, and o lIsoil
r
organic matter accumukation and mineralization. Increased yield may be one of
the most practical justifkations for reintroducing trop rotations (Wkner, 1990).
However, increased emphasis on trop residue management to reduce soil
erosion may also encourage trop rotations because they cari largelyl eliminate
,
the trop yield decreases observed between no-tillage and conventio al tillage
n
production practices (K.arlen et al., 1991). Currently, the need to devlelop trop
management practices’with Ibetter water-use efficiency may be one 1’ the
4
strongest incentives for adopting trop rotations. Crops should be mbt,naged in a
rotation sequence SO that complementary root systems fully exploit a vailable
water and nutrients (Karlen and Sharpley, 1994).
As far as soil qualify effects are concerned, the need to reduce riIegative on-
and off-site impacts of ‘agricultural practices Will probably provide one of t.he
major incentives for reihtroducing trop rotations into fan-n management plans.

---

Kay (1990) reached a similar conclusion in stating that a major goal for
agricultural research Will be to identify and promote cropping systems which
sustain soil productivity and minimize deterioration of the environment. TO
assess the effects of soil and trop management practices such as trop rotation
on both factors, several projects focus on the concept of soil quality as an
assessment tool (Karlen et al., 1992; Karlen and Doran, 1993; Doran and Parkin,
1994; Karlen and Stott, 1994). Using different trop rotations may improve soil
quality by more closely mimicking natural ecosystems than mono-culture (Karlen
et al., 1992). This would occur because temporal and spatial diversity across
the landscape would increase. Furthermore, management strategies that
maintain or add soi1 carbon are likely to improve the quality of the soil resources,
through improvement of soil structure and infiltration rates, and increases in
biodiversity, biological activity, nutrient cycling and water retention.
Critical factors being included in most soil quality assessments with regard to
Walter partitioning involve measurements of soil structure, aggregation, bulk
density, water infiltration, water retention, soil erosivity, and organic matter
(Karlen and Stott, 1994). AH of these. factors are influenced by management
practices.
Therefore, it is logical to examine the effects of management
practices on the various soil quality indicators.

---

. .-:: .
.<;
. . 1 . 2 . 2 . Soi1 S t r u c t u r e
::
.:,
Soi1 strticture is th$ arrangement of Sand, silt, and clay particles mn soil,
. :-
.s
bound together. into ag!grega&es of various sizes by organic and inor!
i<
lanic:
‘_.
.materials (Tisdall, 1996). Soil aggregates, the primary utnits of soil ! tructure, are
formed through the aghregation process whereby organic matter is rbtained in
‘soil.;’ Such retention c&n be characterized by both relatively short-tejrn storage
in macroaggregates ori long-term sequestration in microa,ggregates (liarter and
Stewart, 1996). Soil shuctural stability is the ability of aggregates a& pores to
remain intact when sudjected to stress, e.g. when aggregates are w$tted quickly,
mechanical fracturing ftom tillage, and chemical rupture . In the fie@:, the
stability of these aggrebates and the pores between them affect the bravement
/
and storage of water, deration, erosion, biological activity and trop g~owth.
It has been observkd that a field’s soil structure differs due to crc/p type (Kay,
1990). This differenciei is not solely due to absolute amount of plant iresidues
returned to the soil, noi to tillage practices. The characteristics of .pla,nt species
being grown, the sequ$nce of different species, and the frequency of harvest are
all aspects of cropping ‘systems that affect soi1 structure by influencir@ the
formation of biopores dy plant roots and soil fauna. According to Bdllock (1992),
abandonment of multiybar rotations in favor of short rotations has geherally
resulted in a degradatibn of soi1 structure as measured by soil aggrehate
stability, bulk density, $ater infiltration rate, and soi1 erosion. Much of the blame

---

7
for this degradation is attributed to decreases in soi1 organic matter content, but
Bruce et al. (1990) found the relationships to be complex and easily erased or
modified by tillage. LangclaIe et al. (1992) reported that trop rotations did not
affect soil physical properties on selected Ultisois, but these frndings are not
predominant in the literature.
1.2.3. Water Infiltration and Retention
Infiltration is of particular interest, for it is one of the determining factors of
water partitioning and soil .erodibility.
If water is to be conserved in the soil and
made available to plants, Ht must first pass through the soil surface. The
movement of water into the soil by infiltration may be Iimited by any restriction to
the flow of water through the soil profile. Although such restriction often occurs
at the soil surface, it may ;also occur at some point in the Iower ranges of the soi1
profile.
The most important factors influencing the rate of infiltration have to do
with the physical characteristics of the soil and the caver on the soil surface.
Soi1 organic matter content, water infiltration rate, and aggregate stability all
increased as proportion of sod in the rotation increased (Adams et al., 1964).
Wischmeier and Mannering (1965) also reported a positive correlation between
water infiltration rate and soil organic matter content for several midwestern soils
with organic matter concentrations from 1 to 14%. Allison (1973) attributed
increased water infiltration to improved soil structure and higher soil organic

---

matter content. Recebt farrning systems studies in Iowa support thib conclusion,
i.e., steady-state infiltr&ion rneasurements were somewhat higher fdr longer
rotations where soi1 ordanic matter concentrations were slightly high$r than those
for shorter rotations (L$gsdon et al., 1993; Jordhal and Klarlen, 19935.I
The importance of bail a.s a medium for water storage is well estbiblished due
I
to the benefit of water-holding capacity to trop production and soil er/cnsion.
Management practices’impact soil organic matter and ultimately affebt the
capacity of the soil to store water. However, Bullock (1992) concludbnd that trop
rotation did not benefit br-oduction by increasing water-holding capac/ty, even in
/
situations such as longiterm pastures which resulted in substantial idcreases in
1
soi1 organic matter conient. This conclusion is based on several stu ies.
b
Among these are resulis frorn Jamison (1953) who stated that organ ic matter
has a large water-holding capacity and that most of the water is heldiat
l
potentials far less than -1.5 MPa, the potential at which water is not s@iciently
/
available for survival of’most plants. Other studies show that increa&ed soi1
aggregation results in decreased plant available water (Jamison, 19&; Hillel,
1980).
Bulloc’k (1992) Istated that this occurred because a larger fra btion of the
water is held at potenti& less than -1.5 MPa and because of an inc&ase in
macropore volume and’a decrease in the micropore volume. Hudso/n (1994)
used a critical review oi Iiterature on soil organic matter effects on pl@ available
water capacity to argud against this position. He found that for Sand, silt loam,

---

and silt clay loam soils, the volume of water held at field capacity increased at
muçh faster rate than that held at the permanent wilting point. Hudson (1994)
conicluded that on a volumetric basis, soil organic matter is an important
determinant of available water-holding capacity, thus indicating a re-evaluation of
trop rotational effects on plant available water might be warranted.
1.2.4. Bulk Density
Management practices that return greater amounts of residue to the soil
usually result in the lower soil bulk density. Therefore, continuous corn Will
frequently result in lower bulk densities than corn-soybean rotations, even
though trop rotation genèrally results in greater grain yield (Bullock, 1992).
Hageman and Shrader (1!379) found that after 20 years, soil bulk density
following continuous corn was slightly lower than after a 4-year corn, oats,
meadow, and meadow rotation (1.13 vs. 1.17 g cm-‘, respectively). They
concluded that as soil organic matter increases, soil bulk density decreases.
Loigsdon et al. (1993) reported that bulk densities were sometimes lower and the
volume of large pores was slightly higher in fields where a 5-year corn, soybean,
corn, oats, and meadow rotation was being used compared to that for a 2-year
corn and soybean rotation.
However, reduced tillage does not always result in lower bulk density as
compared to conventional systems. Researchers and farmers have become
.-.“--.
---*..mw-.
_-_---__

-._

^
-

---

10
concerned that continuous conservation tiliage, especially no-till, rn; cause soi1
compaction, and there! have been recommendations to plow or cuItil rte no-till
fields every few years in order to alleviate any surface compaction (1 30 cm) that
may occur (Larney and Kladivko, 1989). Also, trop rotaition, somet les, does
not reduce bulk density as expected. Hammel (1989) rneasured bl : density
and soil inipedance aftbr 10 years of continuous management in a II rg-term
tillage-rotation experimbnt OII Palouse (fine-silty, mixed, imesic Ultic aploxeroll)
and Naff (fine-silty, mix/ed, rnesic Ultic Argixeroll) silt loann soils,
H E :oncluded
that trop rotation did t-rot significantly influence either soi1 property.
1.2.5. Soil Erodibility
Soil erosion requit-es two pirocesses: (1) detachment of soi1 part les, and (2)
transportation of the sdil material by erosive agents such as water c rdvind. S o i l
detachment associated with water erosion cari be initiated by raindr 3s or
overland water flow du$ing a rainfall event. Detachment by wind in’ h/e!;
skipping, or saltation of isoil particles across the soil surface. Soil m nagement
practices such as trop i-esidue placement, application of animal ma -Ire, or using
trop rotation cari have bath direct and indirect effects on soil physic I properties
which subsequently affect the detachment process (Bullock, “1992).
Reganold (1988) foundi a 16-cm difference in topsoil depth betweer 3djaçent
organic and conventional farms in the palouse region of morthwestern US. This

---

1 1
difference was attributed to significantly greater erosion on the conventional fan-n
between 1948 and 1985: He concluded that the difference in erosion rates was
du’e to trop rotation sinoe the organic farm included green manure crops within
the rotation, while the conventional farm did not. Contrat-y to the benefit of
rotations which include forages or other surface caver during the spring, Z-year
corn and soybean rotations cari result in greater soil erosion than continuous
corn (Bullock, 1992). For example, over an l8-year period, soi1 loss from a 2-
year corn and soybean rotation was 45% higher than that from continuous corn
(van Doren et al., 1984). This often occurs because the amount of residue
following soybean is very low (Stewart et al., 1976; Laflen and Moldenhauer,
1979; Papendick and Elliott, 1984). Alberts et al. (1985) reported that soybean
production results in an annual soil loss 3.4 times greater than that seen with
corn production but noted that differences in erosion were not simply a function
of less biomass. They concluded that corn residue is better at preventing soil
erosion than soybean residue, even when they are present in similar amour&.
Laflen and Moldenhauer (1979) , in a 7-year study, found that average annual
soil losses were about 40?/o,greater when corn followed soybean than when corn
followed corn. They concluded the difference was caused by a “soi1 effect”
because major differences in soi1 loss occurred during the period 30 to 60 days
after planting, a point at which canopy development and residue caver were
almost identical.

---

12
1.2..6. Soi1 Organic Matter
Soi1 organic matter couldi be the soi1 quality indicator for which th
most
information relative to tianagernent practices exists, but it could be ail:;0 the
indicator for which the inost unanswered questions remain. Soil ma Ilagement
affects soi1 organic matier quantitatively and qualitatively. While the~quantity of
soi1 organic matter can’be related to the amount of plant and animal 1tssidues
presemt in the soil, the quality of soi1 organic matter is represented
chemical and biochemikai composition of these residues.
organic matter include i-otation length, losses caused by tillage
mineralization, and int&action with fertilization application.
1.2.6.1. Rotation Lengqh
Crop rotations that inuolve several different crops generally
organic matter content. This increase is presumably a major
benefïcially affects subsequent crops and contributes to the rotation (affect
l
(Bullock, 1992). Hussain et al. (1988) reported increased soi1 orga ic matter
i
content with a 2-year corn amd soybean rotation, but such findings a, te the
~
exception. Generally, this short rotation results in lower soil organid rnatter
l
levels’ than continuaus corn, even though it provides a rotation effet (Dick et al.,
l
1986a,b).
The prima* cause for this response appears to be that sloybean
produces less biomas$ than corn. Results from Havlin et at. (1990)

---

1 3
demonstrated that including grain, sorghum in a rotation, rather than growing
continuous soybean, increased organic carbon and nitrogen in the soit.
They
concluded that increasing the quantity of residue returned to the soi1 through
higher yields or through greater use of high residue crops in the rotation,
combined with reduced tillage, could improve soil productivity. Jurna et al.
(1993) concluded that after 50 years of research on Gray Luvisolic soils at the
Breton Plots in Alberta, Canada, soil organic matter content is about 20% higher
where a fi-year rotation has been used than where a 2-year, wheat and fallow
rotation was followed: Similarly, Unger (1968) found that when tillage
treatments were kept constant, continuous cropping resulted in a significant
increase in soi1 organic matter concentrations compared to a trop-fallow system.
1.2.6.2. Tillaae Losses
Tillage, which inverts or mixes the soil, introduces large amounts of oxygen
into the soil and stimulates aerobic microbial consumption of organic matter as a
food source. When virgini eastern Oregon soils were cultivated, some lost over
25% of their organic matter in 20 years, with 35 to 40% being lost in 60 years
(Rasmussen et al., 1989). Tillage for weed control during fallow period was the
primat-y cause for the loss of soil organic matter. Ridley and Hedlin (1968)
found that afier 37 years, rsoils which had initial organic matter contents of nearly
10% had 7.2% organic matter if cropped every year, compared to 3.7% in those

---

14
fallowed every other ydar. Soils fallowed after every two or three crdps had
intermediate soi1 organlc matter concentrations.
Use of no-till systek cari reduce the rate of soil organic matter lbss, bt..it not
i
completely stop it. Coilins et al. (1992) reported that after 58 years &tal soil and
microbial biomass carqon and mitrogen were significantly greater in a/nnual-
/
cropping treatments thkn for wheat-fallow rotations. They concludec/I that
re&due management (k., reduced tillage) significantly affected the lkvel of
microbial biomass cardon and that annual cropping significantly redu/ced
declines in both soil or$anic matter and soil microbial bioimass.
Sim/larly, Havlin
et al. (1990) found thad &mpared to native grassland, a ?2-year whf/at and
fallow rotation resulted’in total soil organic matter concenitrations thai were 4, 14,
and 16% lower with noCfill, s,tubble mulch, and conventional tillage , &spectively.
1.2.6.3. Mineralization !&Feck
8
Frequently, trop rdtation benefits derived from organic matter a& attributed
to the release of nitrogbn through mineralization. However, Doran &d Smith
:
(1987) reported that rebationships among soil organic matter contenti
management practiced.inclu:ding trop rotations, and nitrogen availa d!ility were not
always predictable, cohstarrt, or direct.
It is generally accepted thati soi1 organic
matter affects many pdrameters that could be indicators of soil quality influencing
minera1 availability. These effects include increased water infiltration

---

.<
15
(Wischmeier and Mannering, 1965; Adams et al., 1970; Allison, 1973; MacRae
and Mehuys, 1985), improved aggregate formation and stability (Fahad et al.,
*
1982; MacRae and Mehuys, 1985), lower bulk density (De Kimpe et al., 1982),
higher water retention capacity (Hudson, 1994), improved soif aeration, and
reduced soil erosion’ (USDA, 1980; Bezdicek, 1984; Reganold, 1988).
Commercial agriculture has altered both the quafity and quantity of soil’
<~
organic matter in many soils (Robinson et al., 1994). Often, these soils may
have taken hundreds or-even thousands of years to reach stable soil organic
matter conditions (Rasmussen et al., 1989). Destruction of soi1 organic matter
by short rotations does not continue unabated until the soil is devoid of organic
matter, but rather the soi1 organic matter reaches an equilibrium level (Allison,
1973; MacRae and Mehuys, 1985). When alternative tillage or trop rotations
are! used, a new equilibriutn point is established.. For instance, Larson et al.
(1972) indicated that the addition of 5 Mg/ha of maize and alfalfa residue applied
annualty could maintain organic carbon at a level of 1.8%.
However, this soil
or9anic matter level is considerably lower than that found in its precultivation
state. No-till and reduced tillage (Karlen et al., 1989, 1991) cropping systems
have shown gradua1 increases in soil organic matter content when compared to
more intensive tillage management practices. Different trop rotations seem to
result in different soi1 orgamic matter equilibrium levels, but Miller and tarson

---

%-.$ .i
d
16
‘II
/
(1990) predict that s&l ‘5rQanic matter concentrations Will never returh to leve!s
_. .
/.
observed in their undi&rbed state.
., 126.4. Fertilizer a$d $anur&!nteractions
Application of nitro/gen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur fertili et- and
2
animal manure to Gra$ iuvisolic soits increased soi1 organic matter 4y iricreasing
/
crop,yields (Juma et at!., 1993),. They also reported that application blf manure
increased sbil organib batter even more than fertilizer. This presu n-iI;sblp
/
occurred because in abdition’to its nutrient value, the 9 Mg ha-’ of mbi,nure added
each year represented an additional source of organic mat-ter. The teport by
Juma. et al. (1993) S~$ports conclusions by Boyle et al. (1989) who fuggested
,
’
that returning carbon tb the soit is “a necessary expense that insure cl! 5
sustainable harvest.” ‘Both support suggestions by Karlen et al. (191912) that trop
rotation, caver crops, ciind conservation tillage are the practices mosi likely to
improve soi1 quality. .’
‘.1.2.7. Soil Organic Matter Attributes
1.2.7.1. Soil Oraanic /arbon and Nitroaen
,
Organic C and N dontents in soi1 are a result of a co:mplex bioch/emical
interaction between sdbstrate additions of C and N in feltilizers and ‘in plant and
animal residues, and Ibsses of C and N through microbial decomposlition,

---

1 7
mineralization, and erosion. Water soluble organic carbon is a very active soil
organic component, and flow of C through soluble C pool supplies substrate for
biomass turnover (McGill et al., 1986). Changes in inputs, such as fertilizers
ancl residues (Janzen 1987a,b; Campbell et al. 199la), which regulate soil
3
microbial activity and mineralization rates Will ultimately be reflected in the total
organic C and N content of soil. Moisture, and probably to a greater degree,
temperature are the factors most strongly influencing mineralization rates in soi1
(Stanford et a . 1973; Stanford and Epstein 1974; Campbell et al. 1981). The
relative impact of managernent practices on soil organic C and N levels Will
change with soi1 climate.
Changes in soi1 quality cari be assessed by comparing the organic matter
parameters between fields subjected to specific agricultural practices as
referenced to defined objectives. The assessment of organic C and N as
indicators of soi1 quality should include consideration of inherent soit propetties
ancl site-specific processes (Gregorich et al., 1994). For instance, texture plays
an important rote in determining the amount of organic matter that may be
stabilized in soil.
Soils wit.h relatively high clay contents tend to stabilize and
retain more organic matter than those with low clay contents (Jenkinson, 1977;
Ladd et al., 1990). Removal of organic-rich topsoil by erosion is a process that
influences the level of organic matter in soi1 (Voroney et al., 1981; Gregorich and
Anderson, 1985). Soil redistribution by tillage and water and /or wind erosion
. _ ..I-.
.-.-.._.
.I._._._l___s_ll_
“ ,
- - -
Y--l.m,---.-,--s-W^.

---

18
cari have a major imbact on the total amount of soi1 organic C and bl (de Jong
and Kachanoski, 1948). Therefore, estimates of soi1 erosion and beposition
may be required wheh assessing changes in :soil organic matter qulality,
particularly when comparing land use and management practices that affect the
percentage of surface areai of soil covered by residues.
The C:N ratio rnab also provide information on the capacity of the soi1 to
store and recycle en$rgy amd nutrients. In agricultural soils, the C:bI ratio is
I
relatively constant anb is usually within a narrow range, from 40 to 12.
Agricultural practices buch as cultivation, fertilïzation and residue mblnacjement
influence the soil C:N!ratio. Several studies t-lave shown that the C:N ratio
becomes narrower wifh cultivation (Voroney et al., 1981; Campbell @d Souster,
/
1
1982; Bowman et al., .1990>.
After six years of corn production, Lidng and
b-
MacKenzie (1992) redorted that the C:N ratio increased withln 3 ye+rs in soils
I
under continuous cor-n receiving high levels of N fertilizer. Rasmusben et al.
(1980) found that long~term changes in soil C:N ratios were proportibnal to the
‘_
rate of N loss; C:N rati/os were highest in soils receiving manure or &a vines.
.’ -..
They suggested that thb residue treatments influenced the C:N ratio because the
turnover of C was del$yed by a deficiency of available N for rnicrobi+l
decomposition.

---

1.2.7.2. Liaht Fraction and Macroorganic Matter
The light fraction and macroorganic portions of soi1 organic matter are mainly
plant residues; however, residues derived from animals and microorganisms may
also be present in various stages of decomposition. The light fraction, also
called free or noncomplexed soil organic matter, is considered to be
decomposing plant and aniimal residues with a relatively high C:N ratio, a rapid
turnover, and a specific density considerably lower than that of soils minerals
(Christensen, 1992). The macroorganic matter includes the organomineral
complexed soil organic matter which is taken to be the comparatively more
processed decomposition product “true humus” with a narrow C:N ratio, a slower
turnover rate, and a higher specific density due to its intimate association with
soil minerals (Monnier et al., 1962; Greenland and Ford, 1964; Greenland,
1965a, ?971).
These pools are significant to soil organic matter turnover in
agricultural soils because they serve as a readily decomposable substrate for
soil microorganisms and as a short-term reset-voir of plant nutrients. A large
portion of the microbial population and enzyme activity in soil is associated with
the light fraction (Kanazawa and Filip, 1986). Soil respiration rates are also
correlated with the light fraction content (Janzen et al., 1992).
The light fraction usually represents 0.1 to 4% of the total weight of cultivated
topsoils but has up to 15 times more C and 10 times more N than the whole soi1
(Dalal and Mayer, 1986, 1987; Janzen et al., 1992). Chemical characterization

---

20
of the light fraction das indicated that it is in an intermediate state /zIf
decomposition betwken fresh plant tissue and soil organic matter.: Compared to
plant tissue, the lighk fract.ion has a relatively narrow C:N ratio (Mdlloy et al.,
1983) and high ash kontent (Spycher et al., *1983), suggesting tha/t it has
undergone some d&omposition and/or humification.
The light fractioh and macroorganic matter provide informatioh on the extent
to which plant resid$es bave been processed by the decomposerjcommunity in
soifs. These fractio!& are generally free of minera1 particles and therefore, lack
/
the protection from &ecomposition that such particles impart (Sollihs et al., 1984).
Thus, the light fractibn (Bonde et al., 1992) and macroorganic matter
(Christensen, 1987; &egorich et al., 1989) have been shown to dkrcompose
/
,
/
quickly compared wfth organic matter in whole soil or associated $ith minera1
particle fractions, d$s$te having a wide C:N ratia.
Macroorganic datter is rapidly depleted when a soil is broughf under
cultivation. A Cherhozemic soil cultivated for 4 years had a light traction 40%
less than a native ehuivalent, with a 76% smaller light fraction aft& 90 years of
cultivation (Tiessen land Stewart, 1983). Sirnilarly, it is increasedirapidly when a
’
degraded soi! is put iint& a1 continuous forage trop such as alfalfa (Angers et al.,
1990). The rate of ioss of organic C from the light fraction was 2 /to 1.1 times
greater than from thb macroorganic matter fraction in five Australian soils (Dalal
and Mayer, 1986). ‘Gregorich et al. (1996) reported that more than 70% of the C

---

21
in the light fraction had tumed over whereas only 16% of the C associated with
the coarse silt fraction had turned over since the start of maize cropping in an
Ontario soil. Janzen et al.. (1992) found that the range of light fraction C in soils
from different cropping rotations was twice as great as the range of total organic
C content.
The dominant influence of plant-derived materials in the light fraction is
reflected in its response to inputs of residue to the soil; its utility as an indicator of
organic matter quality in agricultural soils is linked to this factor.
The light fraction and macroorganic matter cari be a valid indicator of soil
quality in several respects. _.As a nonhumified fraction of organic matter, the siz t
.
of the light fraction is a balance between residue inputs and persistence, and
!
decomposition as determined by the soil environment (Gregorich and Janzen,
j
/ !
1996). The light fraction and macroorganic matter constitute a relatively large ’
amount of C and N contained in a small mass of soil and may contain a large
portion of the total C in soil. It has been repot-ted that light fractions are
enriched in carbohydrates relative to whole soils and macroorganic matter
fractions (Oades, 1972; Whitehead et al., 1975; Molloy et al., 1977; Murayama et
al., 1979; Dalal and Henry, 1988). Most of this labile material is unprotected by
soil minera1 particles and has a short turnover time, which gives the Eight fraction
a prominent role as a C substrate and source of nutrients.
From 3 to 26% of the
light-fraction carbon may be present in carbohydrates (Cambardella and Elliott,

---

22
1993). Also, in contrabt to rnacroroorganic matter fractions, the ligh{ fractions
~
may show considerablb variation in sugar composition in the soi1 org/anic matter.
These pools are respohsive to management practices and may provide ;an
earlier indication of thel effec.ts of soil management and c,ropping sysitrms than
the total amount of orgbnic rnatter in soils.
127.3. Soil Carbohydtates
Carbohydrates haSe;been estimated to constitute between 5 to 25% the total
soil organic C and the+by they are the second most abondant component of
humus (Chesire, 19791. Soil carbohydrates originate from plants, animais, and
microorganisms, their 4omposition varying accordingly. Most of the’
/
carbohydrate fraction i$.present as a mixture oi: complex polysacchabides, which
in turn are composed df monosaccharides. Five monosaccharides @uallly
represent more than 96% of the total hydrolyzable carbohydrates: gllcose
dominates, followed by galactose, mannose, arabinose, and xylose. ~
Galactose
and mannose are beli$ved tlo be produced mainly by microbes, whedeas
arabinose and xylose &-iginate mostly from plants (Cheshire, 1977).
Carbohydrates mak contribute to soil quality primarily through thbir role in the
formation and stabilizakion of soil structure. Of all the organic mattek fractions in
soil, the polysaccharid$s, because of their chemical structures, are I$ely
.i
to be
the most readily available source of energy for microorganisrns (Chesire, 1979).

---

23
Physical protection of these polysaccharides may, however, reduce this
avaifability.
Soi1 carbohydrates have been primarily studied in relation to soit
aggregation.
Several studies have found good correlations between
carbohydrate content and soil macroaggregate stability (Haynes and Swift, 1990;
Angers et al., 1993b); however, others have not (Carter et al., 1994).
Other
components of the soi1 organic matter such as the hydrophobie aliphatic fraction
(Capriel et al., 1990), fungal hyphae and actinomycetes (Tisdall and Oades,
1979) are probably involved in macroaggregate stability.
Angers et al. (1993a) found that the ratio of both mild-acid and hot water
soluble carbohydrates to total organic C was greater under no-till than under
moldboard plowed soil after three cropping seasons, suggesting an enrichment
of labile carbohydrates in the organic matter under reduced tillage. Similar
results have been obtained previously by Angers and Mehuys (1989), when
comparing the effects of cropping to alfalfa , barley, and corn on dilute-acid
hydrolyzable carbohydrates. Haynes et al. (1991) also found that hot-water
soluble and dilute-acid hydrolyzable carbohydrates changed more rapidly than
total organic C when management practices were changed from arable to
pasture.
These results suggest that these labile fractions of the carbohydrate
pool could be sensitive indicators of changes in organic matter quality, especially
~._
_-
” .--F--...-“U.I_-
u-w-
--
-w-111--
“_--.-,.1.-.-.-.--.“3

---

24
in comparisons of cropbing systems. The involvement o4 labile car :bhydrates in
the short-term change4 in aggregate stability should reinforce this s ilgestion.
1.2.7.4. Microbial Biorr/ass
Microbial biomass iis a critical attribute of soil organic matter qu ty and soil
quality as it provides ah indication of a soils’ ability or capacity to st’
t? and
recycle nutrients and &ergy. As a measure of organic matter qua f, it also
serves as a sensitive ihdicator of change and of future trends in ors
vlic matter
levels and equilibria (Cjregorich et al., 1994). Microbial biomass is
variable of soi1 organic’matter, functioning both as an agent for the
transformation and cybling of organic matter and plant nutrients wit ‘I the soil
and as a sink (during itinmobilization) or source (during rnineralizat I) of labile
nutrients. The microbial coimponent açcounts for l-3% and 2-6% (
:soil organic
C and N, respectively (Jenkinson, 1988). Thus, it serves within thf ;#oil as a
store of labile organic batter.
Due to its dynamiá natuire, microbiai biomass quickly responds
I changes in
soil management and ioil perturbations (Carter, 1986) a’nd to soil E Jironment
(Insam et al., 1989; Sldopp et ai., 1990; Duxbury and Nkambule, 15 4). T h e
utility of the soil microdial biomass measurement is illustrated in its
i;e as an
independent paramet& to validate organic matter models (Jenkins 1, 1990;

---

25
Paustian et al., 1992). Microbial biomass is also related to various soil structure
indices (Carter, 1992; Angers et al., 1993b).
The determination of microbial biomass does not by itself provide information
on microbial activity (Jenkinson, 1988). Some rneasure of soil microbial
biomass turnover, such as respired COS or enzyme activity, is required to assess
microbial activity (Brookes., 1985; Anderson and Domsch, 1986; Anderson and
Domsch, 1993; Sparling and Ross, 1993). Long-term studies of microbial
biomass cari provide inforrnation on changes in the amount and nutrient content
of biomass over time, which cari be associated with differences in microbial
activity and organic matter quality (Carter, 1986; Duxbury and Nkambule, 1994).
The absolute amount of biomass at any one time cannot indicate whether soil
organic matter quality is increasing or decreasing (Gregorich et al., 1994) but,
the microbial biomass cari be compared to a related soil parameter. For
example, the ratio of microbial biomass C to total organic C (Anderson and
Domsch, 1986, 1989; Wu and Brookes, 1988; Carter, 1991) or the.ratio of
respired CO,-C to microbial C (Anderson and Domsch, 1986, 1990) provides a
measure of organic matter dynamics.
Studies using the ratio of microbial biomass C to total organic C have
demonstrated the utility of this index to monitor organic matter changes in
agricultural systems (Carter and Rennie, 1982; Anderson and Domsch, 1989;
Carter, 1991; Sparling, 1992). In most cases, the ratio must be assessed
.----me-.“.-,
------
-1111-a
“,--.-,m-.-
-I-m

---

26
against a local referenee or baseline (e.g., grassland) in the same SC
type
(Carter, 1991). A higQ ratio is more likely desirable as compared to )w ratio.
Differences in soil clay content, mineralogy, and vegetation cari influl nce the
propartion of microbial’biornass C in total organGc C (Sparling, 1992)
T~US, the
application of the ratio ‘index is mainly confined within similar soil typj s and
cropping systems.
1.2.7.5. Soil Enzymes
Soil enzymes are Ibrgely of microbial origin and cari be used as Idicators of
soil quality if their actidities are affected by environmenta.1 variables z Id farming
practices. Soi1 enzymbs are proteins that are synthesized by plants and soil
organisms during metdbolism and are found in living organisms (bio z enzymes),
in dead cells of microbial and plant tissues (abiotic enzymes), or con 3lexed with
organic and minera1 cdlloids (Dick, 1994). The total enzyme activitb 3f a soil
depends on the amour% of extra- and intra-cellular enzyrnes (Skujin: 1967). A
system of heterogeneous soif enzymes operating in a Ca[scade mani 3 controls
the decomposition of soi1 organic matter and human-added amendn tnts. Plant
residue components rr!ust be depolymerized and transformed befort becoming
the backbone of soil htimus.
P-glucosidase depolymerizes cellulose into
subunits of glucose th&t cari be used by soil heterotrophs as carbon ind energy
sources.
Other impohant enzymes are a-glucosidases and P-galac Dsidases

---

27
(Tabatabai, 1988). Mineralization of soi1 organic-N to NH,’ is accomplished by a
series of enzymatic reactions involving proteases, deaminases, amidases and
ureases.
Arylsulfatases. and acid and alkaline phosphomonoesterases control
/
the S and P dynamics ih tèrrestrial ecosystems. The hydrolysis of fluorescein
diacetate, suggested as a general measurement of microbial activity, involves a
group of enzymes such as lipases, proteases, and esterases (Schnürer et al.,
1982; Diack et al., 1996).
:
Enzyme activities are critical indicators of soil organic matter quality because
enzymes control nutrient release for plant and microbial growth (Skujins, 1978;
Burns, 1978), gas exchange between soils and atmosphere (Conrad et al.,
1983), and soil physical properties (Martens et al., 1992). It has been
suggested that soil enzyme activities be used as biochemicaE/biological
indicators of soil quality (Dick, 1994). The sensitivity of soil enzymes to
environmental and management practices cari be quantified using two
approaches: measuring enzyme-related activities and determining kinetic
parameters as defined by the Michaelis-Menten model.
In general, soil enzyme activities are directly proportional to the content of
soil organic matter (Skujins, 1967; Frankenberger and Dick, 1983; Baligar and
Wright, 1991; Baligar et al., 1991). Soil enzyme activities are higher in surface
than in subsurface horizons and follow the distribution of organic C in the soil
profile (Baligar and Wright, 1991; Baligar et al., 1991; Frankenberger and
.I

--
--“--m--.._I.-
------
- -
1-1111-m.---

---

28
Tabatabai, 1991). Ero$ion a,nd excessive tillage, whicti decrease s(
organic
I
matter content and the thickness of the A horizon, may therefore ind ::e losses
in total amount and actibity’of e’nzymes by diluting the concentration f organic: C
in cultivated Ap horizons withl soil from the B horizon.
Overgrazing ; lld erosion
resulted in decreased enzyme activities in semi-arid soils (Sarkisyan Ind Shur,-
Bagdasaryan, 1967). femp’oral fluctuat,ions of enzyme alctivities arc related
mainly to differences in soi1 moisture and are alhost independent of mal1
variations in soil organie C and N (Ross, 1984).
Soil enzyme activitibs respond to cultivation, additions of fettilizc ‘and
organic amendments. Adeniosine deaminase activity has been sho A7 to
contribute signifïcantly to mineralization and was higher in an Andef: under
forest than under cultiv8tion I(Sato et ai., 1986). Cultivation of nativ grasslands
and forest ecosystems decreased soil organic C and the activities o
dehydrogenases, ureades, phosphomonoesterases and arylsulfatas S in a soi1
climosequence of the canadian prairies, and the activity of these er ymes
decreased even further’ in trop rotation systems that include summc
‘allow
(Dormaar, 1983; Gupta and (Germida, 1986). Fields cropped to gre n manure
for 27 years showed si$nificantly higher activities of ureases, phosp :)monoes-
terases and dehydrogdnases than those receiving inorga,nic fertilize ; (Bolton et
al., 1985), which is conkistent with results reported for a i3elgian soi
‘Verstraete
and Voets, 1977). Adbition of plant materials signifïcantly increase P-

---

29
glucosidase activity relative to that measured with additions of poultry manure
and sewage sludge (Martens et al., 1992). Different cropping systems produced
a significant effect on P-glucosidase activity within 2 years, even though there
was no measurable difference in total C content (Dick, 1994).
VVhile many studies have looked at the effects of long-term management on
soil productivity, little has been done to understand how long-term management
affects the development of surface soil structure. This is especially critical for
the processes involved in crusting, surface seal development and water
infiltration rates. Microbial activity affects the development of surface soil
structure throiugh the transformations and accumulation of organic matter
whereby organo-inineral complexes, polysaccharides and root exudates are
formed and act as binding agents for the stabilization of the soil structure.
With
the increasing interest in the soil microbial activity and its importance in
integrated ecosystems studies, it is necessary to find good methods of
measuring microbial activity in the soil. One promising method is fluorescein
diacetate hydrolysis. This enzymatic activity is involved in lipid metabolism
which is ubiquitous among all living cells. The çurrent method determines the
level of activity of enzymes present outside of the celEs, by measuring the
hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate. It was developed for use with pure microbial
cultures, and has not been optimized for the soi1 environment.

---

30
The objectives of t$s research were to determine: 1) how variati
1s in soil
surface structure, affecfed by long-term management, are related to
le changes
in soi1 biological and bidchemical properties; 2) how fluorescein disc
ate
hydrolytic activity respdnds to long-term management as a biologica ndicator of
soil quality; 3) and final(y to clevelop a simple and rapid method to a:
fluorescein diacetate h$drolysis, specifically optimized for soil.
HYPOTHESES
1). Soil managed with no-till has the best soil quality while soil mar
ged with
moldboard plow bals the worst quality.
2). E.nzyme activity, n%crobiial biomass, total organic carbon, total r ?? ogen, and
soil carbohydrate dontents increase with no-till systern.
3). Eulk density decreiases whereas infiltration rate and soi1 resista 1C:e to
penetration increa$e as induced by increase in soil biological ar
biochemical proper/ties with no-till system.
4). Sealing index, a new method of measuring aggregate stability,
xreases
with no-till system.
A S S U M P T I O N S
Basing the definiticbn of soi1 quality on its ca.pacity to partition waic ?r and
regulate infiltration thu$ decrealsing soil erodibility, the criteria of a hi h quality
b
soi1 are: high aggregatb stability, high infiltration rate, Iow crusting a rl(,1 surface
sealing and good trop iproductivity.

---

67
10
8
6
4
2
- e Fincastie
- Tifton
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SOIL PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Figure 2.9. Effect of soi1 particle size on release of fluorescein during FDA
hydrolysis assay in soiis. Means of three replicates are shown.
Bars represent standard deviations at given particle size.

---

2.7. References
Browman, M.G. and M.A. Talbatabai. 1978. Phosphodiesterase activlty of soils.
Soit Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42284-290.
Deng, S.P. and M.A. Tabatabai. 1994. Colorimetric determination of teducing
sugars in soils. Soif Biol. Biochem. 26:473-477.
Diack, M., D.E. Stott and R.P. Dick. 1996. Optimization of the fluoresc.ein
diacetate hydrolysis assay in soils. Agron. Abs. pp.237.
Dick, W.A. and M.A. Tabatabai. 1978. Inorganic pyrophosphatase aativity of
soils. Soi1 Biol. Biochem. 10:59-65.
Frankenberger, W.T., Jr. and M.A. Tabatabai. 1980. Amidase actvity in soils: 1.
method of assay. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:282-287.
Lundgren, B. 1981. Fluorescein diacetate as a stain of metabolically active
bacteria in soil. Oikos 36:1’7-22.
Brunius, G. 1980. Technical aspects of the use of 3’,6’-diacetyl fluorescein for
vital fluorescent staining of bacteria. Current microbiology, 4:321-t323.
SchnOrer, J. and T. Rosswall. 1982. Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as a
measure of total microbial activity in soi1 and litter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
6:1256-1261.
Heal, O.W. and S.F., Jr. McLean. 1975. Comparative productivity in elcosystems-
secondary productivity. In: W.H. van Dobben and R.H. Lowe-McConnell
[eds.], Unifying concepts in ecology, pp. 89-108. W. ,Junk B. V. Publishers,
The Hague, Holland.
Skujins, J. 1967. Enzymes in soil. In: A.D. McLaren and G.H. Petersom, [eds.].
pp. 371-407. Soil Biochemistry. Marc Dekker Publ. New York, NY.
Swisher, R. and G.C. Carroll. 1980. Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as an
estimator of microbial biomass on coniferous needle surfaces. Microb. Ecol.
6:217-226.
Tabatabai, M.A., and J’M. Brernner. 1970. Arylsulfatase activity of SC3ils. !>oil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 44
, :225-229.

---

31
1.3. References
Adams, W.E. and R.N. Dawson. 1964. Cropping systems studies on Cecil soils,
Watkinsville, GA. pp. 1943-1962. USDA-ARS, 41-83. South Piedmont
Conserv. Res. Cent., Watkinsville, GA.
Adams, W-E., H.D., Morris and R.N., Dawson. 1970. Effect of cropping systems
and nitrogen levels on corn (Zea mays) yields in the northern Piedmont
region. Agron. J. 62:655-659.
Allison, F.E. 1973. Soil organic matter and its role in trop production. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Anderson, D.W.. and D.C. Coleman. 1985. The dynamics of organic matter in
grassland soils. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 40:214-216.
Anderson, J.P.E. and K.H. Domsch. 1986. Carbon assimilation and microbial
activity in ,soil. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernahung und Bodenkunde. 149:459-
468.
Anderson, J.P.E. and K.H. Domsch. 1989. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon
to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21:471-479.
Anderson, T.H. and K.H. Domsch. 1990. Application of eco-physiological
quotients (qC02 and qD) on microbial biomass from soils of different
cropping histories. Soif Biol. Biochem. 22:251-255.
Anderson, T.H. and K.H. Domsch. 1993. The metabolic quotient for CO* (qC02)
as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental
conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 25393-395.
Angers, D.A. and G.R. Mehuys. 1989. Effects of cropping on carbohydrate
content and water-stable aggregation of a clay soil. Can. J. Soi1 Sci. 69:373-
380.
Angers, D.A., N. Bissonnette, A. Légère and N. Samson. 1993a. Microbial and
biochemical changes induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley
production. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73:39-50.
Angers, D.A., N. Samson and A. Légère. 1993b. Early changes in water-stable
aggregation induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 7351-59.

---

32
Angers, D.A. and G.R. Mehuys. 1990. Barley and alfalfa cropping e
carbohydrate contents of a clay soi1 and its size fractions. Soil
Biochem. 22:285-288.
Baligar, V.C. and R.J. Wright. 1991. Enzyme activities in Appalachiah soils. 1.
Arylsulfatase. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:305-315.
Baligar, V.C., T.E. Staley anid ,J.R. Wright. 1991. Enzyme activities in
Appalachian soils. II. Urease. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:315-322.
Bezdicek, D.F. 1984. Qrganic :Farming: current technology and its role in a
sustainable agriculture. A~I. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ., no. 46 ASA-CSSA-
SSSA, Madison, WI
Bezdicek D.F. and D. Groatstein. 1989. Crop rotation effrciencies a&
biological diversity’in farming systems. Amer. J. Altern. Agric. Vol,. 4 nos. :3,
4.
Black:, A.L. and Siddoway, F.H. 1979. Influence of tillage and wheat /straw
residue management on soi1 properties in the Great Plains. J. Soi1 Water
Conserv. 34,220.
Bolton, H. Jr., L.F. Elliott, R.I. Papendick, and D.F. Bezdicek. 1985. Soil
microbial biomass and selected soil enzyme activities: Effect of fertilization
and cropping practices. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17:297-302.
Bonde, T.A., B.T. Chri$tensen and C.C. Cerri. 1992. Dynamics of SO~I organic
matter as reflected by natural 13C abundance in particle size fractions of
forested and cultivated oxisols. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24:275-277.
Bowman, R.A., J.D. Reeder and R.W. Lober. 1990. Changes in soil properties
in a Central Plains rangeland soil after 3, 20 and 60 years of cultivation. Soil
Sci. 150:851-857.
Boyle, M., W.T. Jr. Frainkenberger and L.H. Stolzy. 1989. The influence of
organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. J. Prod. Agric.
2:290-299.
Brookes, P.C. 1985. Microbiial biomass and activity measurements in soil. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 36:26$-281 I

---

33
Bruce, R.R., G. W. Langdale and A. L. Dillard. 1990. Tillage and trop rotation
effect on characteristics of a sandy surface soii. Soi1 Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54: 1744-1’747.
Bullock, D.G. l992. Crop r&&ion. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 11:309-326.
Cambardella, C.A. and E:T. Elliott. 1993. Methods for physical separation and
characterization of sOil Organic matter fracticins. Geoderma 56:443-457.
Campbell, C.A.., R.J.K. Myers and K. Weier. 19811. Potentially mineralizable
nitrogen, decomposition rates and their relationship to temperature for five
Queensland soils. Aust. J. Soil. Res. 19:32%332.
Campbell, C.A.. and W. Souster. 1982. Loss of organic matter and potentially
mineralizable nitrogen from Saskatchewan soils due to cropping. Can. J.
Soil. Sci. 62:651-656.
Campbell, C.A,., V.O. Biederbeck, R.P. Zeutner and G.P. Lafond. 199la. Effect
of trop rotations and cultural practices on soit microbial biomass and
respiration in a thin black Chernozem. Can. J. Soi1 Sci. 71:363-376.
Campbell, C.A., A.P. Moulin, K.E. Bowren, H.H. Janzen, L. Townley-Smith and
V.O. Biederbeck. 1992. Effect of trop rotations on microbial biomass,
specifïc respiratory activity and mineralizable nitrogen in a Black
Chernozemic soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 72:417-427.
Capriel, P., T. Beck, H. Borchert and P. Harter. 1990. Relationship between soil
aliphatic fraction extracted with supercritical hexane, soil microb’ial biomass
and soil aggregate stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:415-420.
Carter, M.R. and D.A. Rennie. 1982. Changes in soil quality under zero tillage
farming systems: distribution of microbial biomass and mineralizable C and
N potentials. Can. J. Soil Sci. 62:587-597.
Carter, M.R. 1986. Microbial biomass as an index for tillage-induced changes
in soil biological properties. Soil Tillage Res. 7:29-40.
Carter, M.R. and R.P. White. 1986. Determination of variability in soil physical
properties and microbial biomass under continuous direct-planted corn.
Can. J. Soil. Sci. 66:747-750.

---

34
Carter, M.R. 1991. The influence of tillage on the proportion of organ/ic carbon
and nitrogen in the’microbial biomass of medium-textured soils in a humid
climate. Biol. Fertil.! Soils. II :135-l 39.
Carter, M.R. 1992. Influence of reduced tillage systems on organic matter,
microbial biomass, macro-aggregate distribution and structural stability of
the surface SO~I in a humlid climate. Soil Tillage Res. 23:361-372.’
Carter, M.R.? D.A. Angers and H.T. Kunelius. 1994. Soil structural fo(rn and
stability and organic matter under cool-season perennial grasses. Soil Sci..
Soc. Am. J. 58: 1194-I 199.
Carter, M.R. and B.A. Stewa.tt. 1996. Structure and organic matter St@age in
agricultural soils. In: Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publ., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Chesire, M.V. 1977, Odigins and stability of soil polysaccharides. J. Soi1 Sci.
28:1-10.
Christensen, B.T. 1987. Dec:omposibility of organic matter in particle~size
fractions from field soils with straw incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochbm. 19:429-
435.
Christensen, BT. 1992. Physical fractionation of soil organic matter iin primat-y
particle size and density separates. In: Advances in Soil Science :20:1-90.
Springer-Verlag, New York:, NY
Collins, H.P., P.E. Rasmussen and C.L. Jr. Douglas. 1992. Crop rotation and
residue management effects on soi1 carbon and microbial dynamics. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56783-788.
Conrad, R., M. Weber and VV. ‘Seiler. 1983. Kinetics and electron transport of
soil hydrogenases catalyzing the oxidation of atmospheric hydroben. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 15: il 67-376.
Dalal, R.C. and R.J. Mbyer. 1986. Long-term trends in fertility of soil$ under
continuous cultivat)on and cereal cropping in Southern Queensland. IV.
Loss of total nitrogen fralm different particle-size and density fractions.
Aust. J. Soil Res. 24:301-309.

---

35
Dalal, R.C. and R.J. Mayer. 1987. Long-term trends in fertility of soils under
continuous cultivation and cereal cropping in southern Queensland. VI.
LO~S of organic carbon from different density fractions. Aust. J. Soi1 Res.
25:83-93.
Dalal, R.C., and R.J. Henry. 1988. Cultivation effects on carbohydrate contents
of soi1 and soi1 fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 52:1361-1365.
de Jong, E and R.G. Kachanoski. 1988. The importance of erosion in the
carbon balance of prairie soirs. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:ll l-l 19.
De Kimpe, C.R+, M. Bernier-Cardon and P. Jolicoeur. 1982. Compacting and
settting of Quebec soils in relation to their soil-water properties. Can. J. Soil
Sci. 62:165-175.
Deng, S.P. and M.A. Tabatabai. 1994. Cellulase activity of soils. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 26:1347-l 354.
Diack, M., DE. Stott and R.P. Dick. 1996. Optimization of the fluorescein
diacetate hydrolysis assay in soils. Agron. Abs. pp. 237.
Dick, R.P. 1994. Soil enzyme activity as indicators of soi1 quality. In: Defining
soi1 quality for a sustainable environment. J. W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F.
Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 35.107-124, ASA-CSSA-
SSSA, Madison, WI.
Dick, W.A., D..M., Jr. Doren, G.B., Jr. Triplet and J.E. Henry. 1986a. Influence
of long-term tillage and rotation combinations on trop yields and selected
soi1 parameters. 1. Results obtained for a Mollit Ochraqualf soit. Res. Bull.
no. 1180. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent., Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH.
Dick, W.A., D..M., Jr. Doren, G.B., Jr., Triplet and J.E. Henry. t986b. Influence
of long-term tillage and rotation combinations on trop yields and selected
soi1 parameters. II. Results obtained for a Typic Fragiudalf soil. Res. Bull.
no. 1181. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent., Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH.
Doran, J.W. and M.S. Smith. 1987. Organic matter management and utilization
of soi1 and fertilizer nutrients. In: Soil fertility and organic matter as critical
components of production systems. R.F. Follet, J.W.B., Stewart and C.V.,
Cole [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 1953-72. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.

---

Doran, J.W. and T.B. Fbarkin. 1994. Defining and assessing soi1 quality. In:
Defining soi1 qualit for 21 sustainable environment. J.. W. Doran, D.C.
Coleman, D.F. Bek‘dicek and B.A. Stewart [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 35:3-2’1 ASA-
CSSA-SSSA, Madbson, Wll.
Dormaar, J.F. 1983. Chemical properties of soi1 and water-stable
after sixty seven yhars of cropping to spring wheat. Plant and
Duxbury, J.M. and S.W. Nkambule. 1994. Assessm#ent and significa$ce of
biologically active $oil orgamic nitrogen. In: Defining soi1 quality f@ a
sustainable envirohment. J. W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bez
B.A. Stewart 1eds.l. Sp,ec. Publ. 35:125-146 ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
WI.
Fahad, A.A.. L.N. Miellke, A.D. Flowerday and D. Swartzondruber. 1
physical properties as affelcted by soybean and other cropping
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. CI. 46:377-381.
Frankenberger, W.T. ,Jr. and W.A. Dick. i983. Relationships betwe&n enzyme
activities and micrdbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Shi. Soc. Am.
J. 47:945-951.
Frank.enberger, W:T., Jr. and M.A. Tabatabai. 2991. Factors affectins
L-glutaminase actibity in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 23:875-879.
Gardner, W.H. 1986. @ater content. pp. 493-544. In: Methods of soi)l analysis,
Part 1. Physical atjd mineralogical methods. Agronorny no. 9 (21& Ed.). Am.
I
Soc. Agron. Soil Sbi. Soc. .Am.
Greenland, D.J., and (cs.W. Ford. 1964. Separation of partially hum&d organic
materials from soi& by ultrasohic dispersion. Trans. 8th Int. Con$r. Soil
Sci., Bucharest, 3: 137-I 48.
i
Greenland, D.J. 19659. Interaction between clays and organic com Iounds in
soifs. Part 1. Mech;Bnisms of interaction between clays and defin kk d organic
compounds. Soils i‘ert. :28:415-425.
Greenland, D.J. 1971., Changes in the nitrogen and physical conditibn of soils
under pastures, wijth spechal reference to the maintenance of thq fertility of
Australian soils uséd for growing wheat. Soils Fert. 34237-351.

---

37
Gregorich, E.G. and D.W. Anderson. 1985. Effects of cultivation and erosion on
soils of four toposequences in the Canadian prairies. Geoderma. 36:343-
354.
Gregorich, E.G., R.G. Kachanoski and R.P. Voroney. 1989. Carbon
mineralization in soit size fractions after various amounts of aggregate
disruption. J. Soi1 Sci. 40:649-659.
Gregorich, E.G., M.R. Carter, D.A. Angers, C.M. Monreal, and B.H. Elle&
1994.. Towards a minimum data set to assess soil organic matter quality in
agricultural soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 74:367-385.
Gregorich, E.G. and H.H. Janzen. 1996. Storage of soil carbon in the light
fraction and macroorganic matter. In: Structure and organic matter storage
in agricultural soils. M.R. Carter and B.A. Stewart, [eds.]. Adv. Soil Sci.
Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gupta, V.V.S.R. and J.J. Germida. 1986. Effect of cultivation on the activity of
some soil enzymes. In: Research in agriculture. pp. 332-344. Proceedings
of the soil and crops workshop. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. SK.
Hageman, N.R. and W.D. Shrader. 1979. Effects of trop sequence and
nitrogen fertilizer levels on soil bulk density. Agron. J. 71:1005-1008.
Hammel, J.E. 1989. Long-term tillage and trop rotation effects on bulk density
and soil impedance in northern Idaho. Soi1 Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 1515-I 519.
Harris, R.F. and D.F. Bezdicek. 1994. Descriptive aspects of soil quality/health.
In: Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. J. W. Doran, D.C.
Cofeman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 35:23-35
ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.
Havlin, J.L., D.E. Kissel, L.E.-Maddus, M.M. Claessen and J.H. Long. 1990.
Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. ,J. 54:448-452.
Haynes, R.J. and R.S. Swift. 1990. Stability of soil aggregates in relation to
organic constituents and soil water content. J. Soi1 Sci. 41:73-83.
Haynes, R.J., R.S. Swift and R.C. Stephen. 1991. Influence of mixed cropping
rotations (pasture-arable) on organic matter content, water-stable
aggregation and clod porosity in a group of soils. Soil Tillage Res. 19:77-87.

---

l
38
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of soil physics. Academic Press. New York, NY..
Hudson, B.D. 1994. S&I organic matter and available water capacity~. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 4$189-l 93.
Hussain, S.K., L.N. Mi$lke and J. Skopp. 1988. Detachment af soi1 a
by fertility management and trop rotations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
1468.
l
,
i
Insam, H., D. Parkinsoh and K.H. Domsch. 1989. Influence of macroc:Iimate on
a soit microbial biokass. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21:211-221.
/
Jamison, V.C. 1953. C[hanges in air-water relationships due to structural
improvement of solils. Soil Sci. 76:143-l 51.
Janzen, H.H. 1987a. qffect of fertilizer on soi1 productivity in long-ter1‘1 spring
wheat rotations. Cbn. J. Soil Sci. 67:165-174.
l
Janzen, H.H. 1987b. doil organic matter characteristics after long-te
cropping to various spring wheat rotations. Can. J. Soi1 Sci.
Janzen, H.H., C.A. Campbell, !%A. Brandt, G.P. Lafond and L. Towntey-Smith.
1992. Light fraction organic matter in soils from long-term trop r dtations. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 5$:1799-1806.
Jenkinson, D.S. 1977. Studies on the decomposition of plant materi
The effects of plan1 caver and soil type on the loss of carbon
labeled ryegrass dbcomposing under field conditions. J. Soil
434.
i
Jenkinson, D.S. 1988. jDetermination of microbial carbon and nitrog n in soil.
pp. 368-386. In: J.B. Wil~son [ed.] Advances in nitrogen cycling. $.AB
International, Wallilngforld, England.
l
Jenkinson, D.S. 1990. ‘The turnover of organic carbon and nitrogen i soil. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. Lor/d., Series B, Biol. Sciences 329 (1255):361-3 ‘8.
Jordhal, J.L. and K.L. Karlen. ‘1993. Comparison of alternative farmi i g systems.
III. Soil aggregate btability. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:27-33.
;

---

39
Juma, N.G., R.C. Izaurralde, J.A. Robertson and W.B. McGill. 1993. Crop yield
and soil organic matter trends over 60 years in a Typic Cryoboraff at Breton,
Alberta. In: The Breton plots. pp. 31-46. Dep. Soil Sci., Univ. of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada.
Kanazawa, S.. and Z. Filip. 1986. Distribution of microorganisms, total biomass
and enzyme activities in different particles of brown soil. Microb. Ecol.
12:205-215.
Karlen, D.L, W.R. Berti, P.G. Hunt and T.A. Matheny. 1989. Soil-test values
after eight years of tillage research on a norfolk loamy Sand. Comm. Soil Sci
Plant Anal. 20: 1413-1426.
Karlen, D.L., E.C. Berry, T.S. Colvin and R.S. Kanwar. 1991. Twelve-year
tillage and trop rotation effects on yields and soil chemical properties in
northeast Iowa. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:1985-2003.
Karlen, D.L., N.S. Eash, and P.W. Unger. 1992. Soil and trop management
effects on soil quality indicators. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:48-55.
Karlen, D.L. and J.W. Doran. 1993. Agroecosystem responses to alternative
trop and soit management systems in the US com-soybean belt. In:
Internatiornal Crop Science 1. D.R. Buxton, R. Shibles, R.A. Forsberg, B.L.
Blad, K.H. Asay, G.M. Paulsen, and R.F. Wilson, [eds.]. pp. 55-62. Crop Sci.
Soc. Am. , Madison, WI.
Karlen, D.L., and A.N. Sharpley. 1994. Managernent strategies for sustainable
soi1 fer-tility. In: Sustainable agricultural systems. J.L. Hartfield and D.L.
Karlen, [eds.]. pp. 47-108. Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Karlen, L.D. and D.E. Stott. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and
chemical indicators of soil quality. In: Defining soi1 quality for a sustainable
environment. J. W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart
[eds.]. SSSA Special publication 35:53-72.
Kay, B.D. 1990. Rates of changes of soil structure under different cropping
systems. .Adv. Soil Sci. 12:1-52.
Keeny, D.R and D.W. Nelson. 1982. Nitrogen-inorganic forms. pp. 643-698. In:
Methods of soi1 analysis, Part 2. Chemical and microbiological methods.
Agronomy no. 9 (2nd Edition). Amer. Soc. Agron.

---

Kemper, W.D. and R.C. Roseneau. Aggregate stability and size distr bution.
/
pp. 425442. In: M thods of soi1 analysis, Part 1. Physical and
mineralogical
ds. Agronomy no. 9 (2nd Edition). Am. Soc. lhgron.
P
Kladivko, E.J. 1994. Residue effects on soi1 physical properties. In: qanaging
agricultural residues. pp,, 1123-141. P.W. Unger [ed.], Lewis Publ.; CRC
Press, Ann Arbor, til.
Ladd, J.N., M. Amato, 6. Joc:teur-Monrozier and M. van Gestal. 19901. Soi1
microhabitats and carbon and nitrogen metabolism. Trans. lnt. Ciong. Soi1
Sci. 3:82-87. Kyoto, Jap;an,
Laflen, J.M. and W.C.
oldenhauer. 1979. Soil and water losses fro I#
corn-
soybean
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43: 1213-I 215.
1
Langdale, G.,W., R.L., Jr., Wilson and R.R. Bruce. 1990. Cropping fr ’ quencies
to sustain long-te& conservation tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. ! 1,m. J.
54:193-198.
l
Larney, FJ. and E.J. Kl/divk#o. 1989. Soil strength properties under f ur tillage
systems at three lolng-term study sites in Indiana. Soil Sci Soc. tm. J.
53:1539-l 545.
I
Larson, W.E., C.E. Clabp, W.H. Pierre and Y.B. Morachan. 1972. Effects of
increasing amount$ of oirganic residues on continuous corn. II. Grganic
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur. Agron. J. 64:204-208. i
Larson, W.E. and F.J. Tierce. ‘1994. The dynamics of soil quality as
measure
of sustainable man~agement. In: Defining soil quality for a sustai able
environment. J. W.i Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.h . Stewart
[eds.]. Spec. Publ,. ‘35: 37-51. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI. ~
Liang, B.C. and A.F. MbcKenzlie. 1992. Changes in soil organic car on and
nitrogen after six ykars of corn production. Soil Sci. 153:307-31
.
3
Longsdon, S.D., J.K. Rladke and D.L. Karlen. 1993. Comparison of alternative
farming systems. X. Infiltration techniques. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:15-
20.
~
MacRae, R.J. and G.R; Mehuys. 1985. The effect of green manurin 4 on the
physical propertiesj of temperate-area soils. Adv. Soi1 Sci, 3:71-94.

---

4 1
Martens, D.A., J.B. Johansen and W.T. Frankenberger. 1992. Production and
persistence of soi1 enzymes with repeated addition of organic residues. Soi1
Sci. 153:53-61.
McGill, W.B., K.R. Cannon, J.A. Robertson and F.D. Cook. 1986. Dynamics of
soil microbial biomass &d water-soluble organic C in Breton L after 50
years of cropping to two rotations. Can. J. Soit Sci. 66:3-19.
Miller, F.P. and W.E. Larson. 1990. Lower input eflects on soil productivity and
nutrient cycling. In: Sustainable agricultural systems C.A. Edwards [ed.]. pp.
549-568. Soil Water Conserv. Soc. , Washington, DC.
Molloy, L.G., B.A. Bridger and A. Cairns. 1977. Studies on climosequence of
soils in tussock grasslands. XIII. Structural carbohydrates in tussock leaves,
roots &d litter and in the soil light and heavy fractions. N. Z. J. Sci. 20:443-
451.
Monnier, G., L. Turc, and Jeanson-Luusinang. 1962. Une méthode de
fractionnement densimétrique par centrifugation des matières organiqùes
du sol. Ann, Agron. 1355-63.
Murayama, S., M.V. Cheschire, C.M. Mundie, G.P. Sparling, and H. Shepherd.
1977. Comparison of the contribution to soil organic matter fractions,
particularly carbohydrates, made by plant residues and microbial
products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30:1025-l 034.
Oades, J.M. 1972. Studies on soil polysaccharides: III. Composition of
polysaccharides in some Australian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 10:113-126.
Parr, J.F., R.I. Papendick, S.B. Hormick, and R.E. Meyer. 1992. Soil quality:
attributes and relationships to alternative and sustainable agriculture. In:
Am. J. Alternative Agric. vol. 7 nos 1, 2 pp. 5-l 1.
Papendick, R.I. and L.F. Elliott. 1984. Tillage and cropping systems for erosion
control and effïcient nutrient utilization. In: Organic farming: current
technology and its role in sustainable agriculture. D.F. Bezdicek, [ed.]. Am.
Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 46:69-81. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.
Paustian, K., ‘W.J. Parton and J. Person. 1992. Modeling soil organic matter in
organic-amended and nitrogen fertilizer long-term plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 56:476-488.

---

42
Rasmussen, P.E., R.R: Allmaras, C.R. Rohde and N.C. Roager. 1 9 0. Crop
residue influences ‘on soi1 carbon and nitrogen
j
in a wheat-falfow system. Soi1
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44596-600.
!l
Rasmussen, P.E., H.P) Collins and R.W. Smiley. 1989. L.ong-term
effects on soil productivity and trop yield in semi-arid regions of
Oregon. Stn Bull. no. 675. USDA-ARS and Oregon State Univ.
Exp. Stn., Pendlethn, OR.
Reganold, J. P. 1988.
omparison of soil properties as influenced
matter and
ional farming systems. Am. J. Altern. Agric.
Ridley, A.O. and R.A. Hedlin. 1968. Soi1 organic matter and trop yie ds as
influenced by frequency of summetfallowing. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 4 :315-322.
Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble salts. pp. 167-197. In: Methods of soil i nalysis.
Part 2 Chemical and properties. 2nd edit. Amer. Soc. Agron., M dison, WI.
a
Rhoades, J.D. 1982.
ex:change capacity. pp. 149-I 57. In:
analysis, Part 2 -C emical and microbiological properties. 2nd e
Soc. Agron.,
/
Robinson, C.A., R.M., bruse aind K.A. Kohler. 1994. Soi1 managem ‘nt. In:
Sustainable agricu/tural sy’stems. J.L., Hartfield and D.L., Karlen! B; [eds.]. pp.
109-134. Lewis P$I., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
~
Ross, D.T., T.W. Speir’ J.C. Cowling and K.N. Whale. 1984. Tempo ai
fluctuations in bioc ‘hemical properties of soi1 under pasture. II. 1
N trogen
mineralization and /enzyme activities. Aust. J, Soi1 Res. 22:319-330.
Sarkisyan, S.S. and E.F. Shur-Bagdasaryan. 1967. Interaction of ve etation and
soils on various
pastures overgrazed and erod ‘d to
different
Sato, F., H. Omura an4 K. l+ayano. 1986. Adenosine deaminase
soils. Soi1 Sci. Plant Nutr. 32:107-l 12.
Schnürer, J., and T.
sswall. 1982. Fluorescein diacetate hydrolys s as a
measure of total
crobial activity in soi1 and litter. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 43:12

---

43
Skopp, J.,, MD. Lawson and J.W. Doran. 1990. Steady-state aerobic microbial
activity as a function.of soit water content. Soit Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1619-
1625.
Skujins, J. 1967. Enzymes in soif. In: A.D. McLaren and G.H. Peterson, [eds.].
pp. 371-407. Soi1 Biochemistry. Marc Dekker Publ. New York, NY.
Skujins, J. 19’78. History of abiontic soi1 enzyme research. En: R.G. Burns [ed.].
Soi1 enzyrnes. pp. 295-326. Academic Press Inc., London. UK
Sparling, G.P. 1992. Ratio of microbiai biomass carbon to soi1 organic carbon
as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic mat-ter. Aust. J. Soil Res.
30: 195207.
Sparling, G.P. and D.J. Ross. 1993. Biochemical methods to estimate soil
microbial :biomass: current developments and applications. pp. 21-37. In: K.
Mulongoy and R. Merckx, [eds.]. Soil organic matter dynamics and
sustainability of tropical agriculture. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Spycher, P., G. Sollins and S. Rose. 1983. Carbon and nitrogen in the light
fraction of a forest soil: vertical distribution and seasonal patterns. Soil Sci.
135179-87.
Sollins, P., G. Spycher and C.A. Glassman. 1984. Net nitrogen mineralization
from light-,and heavy-fraction forest soi1 organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem.
16:31-37.
Stanford, G., M.H. Frere and D.E. Schwaniger. 1973. Temperature-coefficients
of soi1 nitrfogen mineralization. Soil Sci. 115:321-323.
Stanford, G. and E. Epstein. 1974. Nitrogen mineralization-water relations in
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:103-107.
Stewart, B.A., D.A. Woolhieser, W.H. Wischmeier, J.H. Caro, and M.H. Frere.
1976. Control of water pollution from cropland. Vol. 2. US. Dep. Agric. and
Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
Stewart, B.A. 1992. Advances in Soil Science 20, 1 Spring-Verlag New York,
NY.
Tiessen, H. and J.W.B. Stewart. 1983. Particle-size fractions and their use in
studies of soil organic matter. II. Cultivation effects on organic matter
composition in size fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47509-514.

---

Tisdall, J.M. and J.M. oades. 1979. Stabilization of soi1 aggregates dy the root
systems of ryegrasls. Aust. J. Soi1 Res. 17:429-441.
Tisdall, J.M. 1996. ForrÎnation of soil aggregates and accumulation o( soil
carbon. In: Structuje and organic matter storage in agricultural s ils. In:
P
Advances in Soil dcience. Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Boca Raton; FL.
Unger, P.W., 1968. SO~I organic matter and nitrogen changes duringl24 years
of dryland wheat tiilage and cropping practices. Soil Sci. Soc. Arh Proc.
32:426-429.
/
USDA. 1980. Report ahd recornmendations on organic farming. US :Iep.
t
Agric., Washingtorf, DC.
I
I
van Doren, D.M., Jr., W.C. Moldenhauer and G.B., Jr., Triplet. 1984.1 Influence
of long-term tillage,and trop rotation on water erosion. Soil Sci. $OC. Am. J.
48:636-640.
Verstraete, W. and J.P’. Vo&s. 1977. Soi1 microbial and biochemical!
characteristics in r$lation to soil management and fertility. Soil B/ol.
Biochem. 9:253-248.
I
Voroney, R.P, J.A. vafi Veen and E.A. Paul. 1981. Organic C dynan$cs in
grassland soils. II. ‘Mode1 verification of cultivation effects and prbdictions
of long-term erosidn influences. Can. J. Soi1 Sci. 61:21 l-224.
Whitehead, D.C., H. B$chan aind R.D. Hartley. 1975. Components or soil
organic matter under grass and arable cropping. Soil Biol. Bio&m. 7:65-
71.
Wikner, 1. 1990. Crop hanagement research and groundwater quali y. Proc.
Best Mange. Pract:. Mainta.in Groundwater Qual. pp. 41-45. lowAi State
Univ., Ames and Hioneer Hi-Bred Inst., lnc., Johnston, IA.
I
Wischmeier, W.H. and J.V. Mannering. 1965. Effect of organic matt$r content
of the soil on infiltr&ion. J. Soil Water Conserv. 20:150-152.
Wu, 4. and P.C. Brookes. 1988. Microbial biomass and organic ma&!r
relationships in ardble sloils. J. Sci. Food Agric. 45:138-139.

---

45
CHAPTER 2
OPTIMIZATION OF FLDORESCEIN DIACETATE (FDA) HYDROLYSIS ASSAY
IN SOILS
2.1. Abstract
The hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate (3’,6’-diacetylfluorescein [FDA]) has
been suggested as a general measurement of microbial activity in soil.
This is
because lipase, protease and esterase are the enzyrnes involved in the
hydrolysis. Following hydrolysis, fluorescein is released and is measured
spectrophotoimetrically.
The objective of this study vvas to optimize the FDA
hydrolysis assay for soil. The method developed involves extraction and
determination of the fluorescein released when 2.5 g of soil are incubated with
50 mL of 60 rnM buffered, (pH 7.0) sodium phosphate solution at 35°C for 24
hours.
Results showed that FDA hydrolysis was optimum at buffer pH 7.0 and
the soil enzyrnes were denatured at temperatures above 50°C. The initial rates
of fluorescein release followed zero-order kinetics. Three soils were used in the
study: a silty clay loam, a silt loam and a Sand.
The FDA hydrolysis in three
soils studied ranged from 1.8 to 9.0 pg fluorescein released per g soil per 24
hour incubation, with more hydrolysis occurring in the silty clay loam.

---

46
2.2. Introduction
During the past few years, the interest in the size and activity of!the soi1
micrabial biomass has increased, partly because of the importance bf this
information in integrated ecosystems studies. Total microbial activily is a good
general measure of organic matter turnover in natural habitats as akut 90% of
the energy flows through- microbial decomposers (Heal and McLead, 1975).
Fluorescein diaceiiaté (3’,6’-diacetylfluorescein [FDA]) has beenl used to
measure microbial activity in soils (Brunius, 1980; Lundgren, 1981; kichnürer and
Rosswall, 1982). FDA is hydrolyzed by a number of different enzyles, such as
proteases, lipases and esterases. The equation of the reaction is:
3’,6’-Fluorescein diacetate + H*O + Fluorescein + 2(CH,$OOH)
The product of this enzymatic conversion is fluorescein, which cari ble visualized
within cells by fluorescence microscopy (Gustaf, 1980; Lundgren, lb81).
Fluorescein released in soi1 cari also be measured by spectrophotohietry
(Swisher and Caroll, 1’980; Schnürer and Rosswall, 1982). A searbh of the
scientific Iiterature revealed little information (Schnürer and ROSS~E/~~~, 1982) on
the factors affecting the FD,A hydrolysis in soils. Also, the current niethod for
measuring FDA hydrolysis was not developed for use in agricultura/ soils but for
pure microbial culture@.

---

47
The objective of the investigation was to develop a simple and rapid method
to assay fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis, specifically optimized for soi], that cari
be used as a biochemicalibiologitial
indicator of soil cluality.
2.3. Materials and Methods
Three surface soil samples, selected to obtain a $wide range in pH, organic C,
total N and texture (Table 2.1), were used. The samples were air-dried and
crushed to pass the appropriate size screen where needed. FDA hydrolysis
was determined by the method described by Diack et al., (1996).
Various properties of the FDA hydrolytic activity in soils were studied.
These factors included time of incubation, optimum pH buffer, temperature of
incubation, substrate concentration, extracting solution concentration, vesse1
type and capacity, amount of soil, soil particle size and adsorption capacity.
TO determine the incubation time, 2 g of air-dried soi1 (~2 mm) were placed In
a centrifuge tube. Simultaneously, 10 p.g mL-’ of FDA was added as lipase
substrate to 50 mt of 60 mM sodium phosphate buffered to pH 7.6.
The
mixture was incubated at 24°C on a rotary shaker for 1 to 72 h. The choice of 2
g of soil, 60 mM of sodium phosphate, buffered at pH 7.6 and 24°C incubation
was based on Schnürer and Rosswall, (1982). Their results showed that FDA
hydrolysis by pure cultures of Fusarium culmorum increased linearly with
mycelium addition in shaken cultures and after inoculation into sterile soil. Also,

---

48
the buffering capacity was sufficient to keep the pH at 7.6 for the duration of the
experiment.
TO determine the i’nfluence of pH, 2 g of air-dried soil, (~2 mm) $ere placed
in a centrifuge tube containing 50 mL of 60 mM, sodium phosphate /aidded with
FDA (10 pg mC’). The different pHs tested ranged from 4.0 to 10. The buffer
solution was adjusted to,each pH value using HCI IN. The sampleb were
shaken while incubated at 2,4”C for 24 hr.
In studies on the &fect lof ‘temperature, 2 g af air-dried soil, (~2 bm), were
,
placed in each centrifuge tube containing 50 mL of 60 mM, pH 7.0 tiodium
phosphate and FDA (10 pg ml_-‘) as substrate. The samples were incubated on
a rotary shaker at temperatures ranging from 22 to 70°C for 24 hr.
TO determine the optimum substrate concentration, 2 g of air-driit:!d soil (~2
mm) were placed in each centrifuge tube. 50 mL of 60 mM, pH 7.0 Na3P04 and
FDA substrate were added ;and the mixture was incubated at 35°C ( n a rotary
shaker for 24 hr. The FDA concentration tested ranged from 0 to 3 1 1.19 mC’.
TO study the influence of Na,PO, concentration, 2 g of air-dried 5,oil (<2 mm)
were placed in a centrifuge ,tube containing 50 mL (30 to 150 mM, p -4 7.0)
sodium phosphate and FDA (10 pg mC’). The samples were shak zn while
incubated at 35°C for 24 hr.
TO determine the effect of the amount of sodium phosphate on he FDA
hydrolysis, 2 g of air-diied soi1 (~2 mm) were placed in a centrifuge ube

---

49
containing X to 150 mL (60 mM, buffered at pH 7.0) sodium phosphate and with
FDA (10 Fg mC’).
Each mixture was incubated at 35°C on a rotary shaker for
24 hr.
The influence of vesse1 type and size was studied by placing 2 g of air-dried
soi1 (~2 rnm) in each erlenmeyer flask (Pyrex glass) or centrifuge tube
(Polypropylene) of different capacities (100 to 250 mil).
Each erlenmeyer and
centrifuge tube contained 50 mL (60 mM, buffered at pH 7.0) Na,PO, and FDA
(10 Fg mC’).
Each mixture was incubated at 35°C on a rotary shaker for 24 ht-.
TO deterrnine how much soil was needed for optimum FDA hydrolytic activity
a range of sample weights (1 to 5 g) of air-dried soil (~2 mm) was placed in a
centrifuge tube, containing 50 mL (60 mM, buffered at pH 7.0) sodium phosphate
added with FDA (10 I-19 mL-‘). Each mixture was incubated at 35°C on a rotary
shaker for 24 hr.
The influence of soil aggregate size range was studied by crushing to pass
soils through screen sizes ranging from 4.76 to 0.5 mm. For each sample, 2.5 g
of air-dried soil were placed in centrifuge tube, containing 50 mL (60 mM,
buffered at pH 7.0) sodium phosphate and FDA (10 )-lg mL-‘).
Each mixture was
incubated at 35°C on a rotary shaker for 24 hr.
TO determine the adsorption capacity of hydrolyzed FDA to soil, fluorescein
was used at 2 ,5 and 10 Fg mC’ and added to the soil sample in lieu of FDA
substrate lipase as usual. FDA was hydrolyzed by placing a 150-mL flask with

---

fluorescein at given cohcentration and sodium phosphate solution in
:.
‘I boiling
water bath for 30 min. The soi1 solutions were shaken on a rotary st aker while
incubated at 35°C for tJ0 min.
2.4. Method for Assay-of FDA hydrolysis
This method for assay of FDA hydrolysis was developed after all Iiihe factoss
involved in the assay tiere studied for optimization.
Reagents
Sodium phosphate Buffer (60 mM, pH 7.0). Dissolve 22.74 g 01ri/ Na,PO,, 12
HZ0 in deionized water, dilute the solution to 1 liter, and adjust the p 1 to 7.0 with
1 N hydrochloric acid. Add 10 mg of fluorescein diacetate, lipase SL xtrate
C,,H1607 (Sigma CherrQcal CO.), to the sodium phosphate buffer.
Fluorescein C20H,205r (Aldrich Chemical CO. Milwaukee, WI) for $landards.
Procedure:
Place 2.5 g of air-daied soil, sieved to pass 2 mm, in a IOO-mL cdntrifuge
tube, add 50 mL of 60 mM, pH 7.0, sodium phosphate buffer.
Stop&r the tube,
and incubate it on a rotary shaker at 35°C for 24 hours. Add 2 mL 01 acetone
(50% [vol/vol]) to terminate the FDA hydrolysis. Then centrifuge thej soi1
suspension at 3840 g f&r 5 min. Filter the supernatant through a W4! atman

---

51
no. 42 qualitative filter paper. Transfer the tïttrate to a colorimeter tube (Bausch
& Lomb Spectronic 21 DV, Arlington Heights, IL) and measure the yellow
fluorescein color intensity at 490 nm. TO perform control on each soil, follow the
procedure described abovê Without any addition of substrate. Calculate the
concentration1 of fluorescein released by reference to a calibration graph plotted
from the results obtained with standards containing 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0
mg of fluorescein solution. TO prepare the standard solution, dissolve 10 mg of
fluorescein in 10 mL hot 95% ethanol (65’C), add 40 mL of 60 mM, pH 7.0
Na3P04 buffer. The solution has a yellow fluorescein color and is very stable
over time. Pipette 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 mt of the standard FDA solution
in a 50-mL volumetric flask. Bring to volume using sodium phosphate buffer,
shake to homogenize the solution, and measure the absorbante at 490 nm.
2.5. Results and Discussion
The method developed for the assay of fluorescein diacetate (FDA)
hydrolysis in soils is based on colorimetric determination of fluorescein released
in soils extra&.
Studies of factors affecting the release of fluorescein during
incubation aided optimization of this assay. There is a linear relationship
between the iamount of fluorescein and color intensity at 490 nm (Figure 2.1).
The factors studied included time of incubation, pH buffer, temperature of
incubation, substrate concentration, concentration and volume of buffer solution,

---

52
reaction vesse1 type and capacity, amount of soil, soi1 particle size range and
adsorption capacity.
2.5.1. Time of Incubation ,
In the three soils, the release of fluorescein during FDA hydrolysis increased
linearly up to 24 hr (Fig. 2.2)t. Formation of fluorescein was proportional ta-the
incubation time for the frrst 214 hr. Schnürer and Rosswall (1982) al$o reported a
linear relationship between FDA hydrolysis in soils and incubation time. The
observed relationship indicates that the method developed measures enzymatic
hydrolysis of FDA and it is not complicated by microbial growth or assimilation of
enzymatic products by microorganisms. Enzyme-catalyzed reactions usually
show linear relationships between the amount of products formed and the time of
incubation (Deng and Tabatabai, 1994). Skujins (1967) suggested that an
assay for soi1 enzymes should not require incubation times longer than 24 ht-,
because the risk of errlor through microbial activity increases with increasing
incubation time.
2.52. Temperature of Incubation
A study of FDA hydrolysis in soils as a function of temperature showed
optimum activity at 35°C (Fig. 2.3) under the conditions of the described assay.
Schnürer and Rosswafl, (1982) and Lundgren (1981) used 24 or 22 ‘C as
incubation temperatures, respectively, in their studies of FDA hydro ysis.. This

---

53
increase in incubation temperature may be explained by the fact that the
temperature needed to inactivate enzymes in soi1 is about 10°C higher than that
needed to inactivate the.enzyme in the absence of soi1 (Tabatabai and Bremner,
1970; Browman and Tabatabai, 1978).
Denaturation of FDA hydrolytic enzyme occurred at 50°C and resulted in a
brownish coloration of the solution. This temperature is 15°C lower than the
temperature required (65°C) to denature amidase (Frankenberger and
Tabatabai, 1 Q80), arylsulfatase (Tabatabai and Brernner, 1970), and inorganic
pyrophosphatase (Dick and Tabatabai, 1978) in soils. The activity of enzymes
decreases with increasing temperature because of en.zyme inactivation at some
temperature above thjs range.
2.5.3. Effect of Buffer pH
Optimal activity of FDA hydrolytic soil enzymes was observed at pH 7.0
(Figure 2.4). This is close to the 7.6 pH buffer that Schnürer and Rosswall
(1982) used in their study. This optimal pH value is also within the 5.5 to 8.5 pH
range that Lundgren (1981) used in studying FDA as a stain for metabolically
active bacteria in soil. FDA has been reported to spontaneously degrade to
fluorescein in slightly alkaline (pH 2 8.0) solutions (Ziegler and al., 1975; Brunius,
1980). At low pH values (I 5.0) nonbiological hydrolysis of FDA may occur
(Schnürer and Rosswall, 1982). The effect of pH buffer on FDA hydrolysis is
critical because the H’ concentration in the reaction .solution affects the

---

54
ionization groups of the enzlyme protein and influences the substrat& ionization
state.
For effective interaction between the substrate and enzyme, the ionizable
groups of both the substrate atnd the active site of the enzyme must’be in their
proper states, to maintain thie correct conformations.
2.5.4. Substrate Conccntrat&-!
For valid assay of enzyrnatic activity, it is necessary to ensure that the
enzyme substrate concentration is not limiting the rate of the reactioin during the
assay procedure. A study of the effect of varying substrate concentration
showed that 10 pg mL-’ substrate concentration was satisfactory for the FDA
hydrolysis assay (Figure 2.5). Schnürer and Rosswall (1982) and tiundgren
(1981) used the same substrate concentration for measuring FDA hiydrolysis in
litter and pure cultures~, respectively. At this concentration, the soil ;E!nzymes
seemed to be saturated with the substrate, and the reaction rate e.&entially
followed zero-order kinetics.
2.5.5. Amount of Buffer Solution and Vesse1 Tvpe
Altering the amount of the buffer solution affects the amount of I’luorescein
released (Figure 2.6). Using the same concentration of sodium phosphate
buffer solution, as the volume increased, the amount of fluorescein released
increased linearly. This is Ibecause increasing the amount of buffe i solution

---

55
would increase the amount of substrate to the soi1 solution for the same amount
of soil thus, increasing the amount of fluorescein released during FDA hydrolysis.
The type of vessel, either the glass erlenmeyer flasks or the polypropylene
centrifuge tubes showed no significant difference in the amount of fluorescein
released (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). 60th the glass and polypropylene centrifuge
tubes were inert with respect to the FDA hydrolytic enzymes.
2.5.6. Amount of Soil
The relationship between the amount of fluorescein released and the amount
of soi1 is linear up to 5 g soil for all three soils (Figure 2.8). These results are
consistent with the observations of Schnürer and Rosswall (1982). This linear
relationship is further evi’dence that the procedure developed measures FDA
hydrolysis, and neither the substrate concentration nor the amount of fluorescein
formed influence the reaction rate of these soil enzymes. The data (Figure 2.8)
show that 2.5 g of air-dried soi1 seem more indicated than 2.0 g for an optimum
release of fluorescein during FDA hydrolysis.
2.5.7. Soil Aqaregate Size
Varying the soil aggregate size range showed that enzymatic activity is
affected by soil aggregate size in the reaction solution. As the size of soi1
aggregate increases, the amount of fluorescein released decreased (Figure 2.9).
Most of the changes in fluorescein release occur from 1 to 2 mm, with little drop
__ _.“-.“-.-
l__.---_-_-.--
-_---
- -
---.
M - - m . “ -

---

56
after 2 mm aggregate size. This is most likely because the larger a$gregate
have less total surface area per gram of soi1 in contact with the reacti/ng solution.
2.5.8. Adsorotion
caoacity
Adsorption capacity is defined as the ability of a soi1 to fix FDA ah’d thereby
reduce the amount of fluorescein released. The minera1 compositio(l of the soi1
and its structure most likely determine the adsorption capacity. Theiadsorption
of hydrolyzed FDA to soi1 wals calculated as the adsorbed fluoresceih (known
amount of fluorescein minus released fluorescein ) divided by the knbwn amount.
.~
Adsorption capacity was proportional to the amount of fluoresce;n released
by these soils during the FDA hydrolysis. The adsorption capacity ##as 67, 48
and 34% for the silty clay loam, silt loam and the sandy loam soils r$spectively.
Higher organic matter and clay contents, generating highly negative /C::harge at
the active site of the Drummer silty clay loam soil, probably result in higher
adsorption of the FDA during h,ydrolysis.
2.6. Conclusions
The method developed ,to determine FDA hydrolysis is certainly one of a
number of methods usIed for the assessment of microbial activity in ;amples from
natural habitats. All r$ethods have their limitations, and the develol brnerit of one
for a particular investidation is determined by a number of factors.
r’his method

---

57
differs from Schnürer and Rosswall (1982) at least in the pH buffer (7.0 vs. 7.6)
’ time of incubation (24 vs, l-3 hr), incubation temperature (35 vs. 22-24°C) and
the amount of soit (2.5 vs. l-Ii.7 g). This method of measuring FDA hydrolysis
has the advantage of being simple and sensitive, and it shoufd prove useful,
especially for studies of soil microbial activity and organic matter accumulation
and transformations.

---

58
I
Table 2.1. Properties ‘of the soils used.
/
Soil
PH
OrgaZ: C (%)
Total N (%)
Clay (%) I Sand (%) *
I
Drummer
5.72
2.;72
0.328
40
:
13
-
Finçastle
5.00
22
~
20
6.35
80

---

59
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 i
.
* , ,
I . ,
1
I , , , ,
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
CONCENTRATION (ug/mI)
Figure 2.1,,
Calibration graph plotted from the results obtained with standards of
fluorescein solution.
__-_-~
-,.,-1s-
---
II--,
I
-w-w-.-

---

60
8
6
4
I - Tifton î
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
INCUBATION TIME (ht-)
Figure 2.2. Effect of incbbation time on release of fluorescein durinc
:DA
hydrolysis a$say im soils.
Means of three replicates are
\\own.
Bars represdnt standard deviations at given time.

---

61
10 w
.
8 I,
.
6 .
.
4 .
.
2 .
.
0 I
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TEMPERATURE OF INCUBATION (OC)
Figure 2.3. Effe~t of incubation temperature on release of fluorescein during
FDA hydrolysis assay in soils. Means of three replicates are shown.
Bars represent standard deviations at given time.
_- ,“, - . .^ .,...-.-“-..T.,-IUU_
~.--..mm
--
---m
w
m--w-.-

---

62
12
8
6
4
2
0
3
4
fi
6 7 8
9
10 ! 11
BUFFER pH
Figure 2.4. Effect of pki of buffer on release of fluorescein during F$\\
hydrolysis hssay in soils. Means of three replicates are1 shown.
Bars reprekent standard deviations at given pH unit.

---

w
hr)

soW24
(ug/g
EIN RELEASED
ORESC
FLU

---

64
20
15
10
5
-Drumm
- AP=
Fincast
- Tifton
0
0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140 1 :l 180
ml BUFFER
Figure 2.6. Effect of volume of buffer solution on release of fluorescdi n during
the FDA hydrolysis assay in soils, as the substrate conc& 7tration
was constaht. Elrlenmeyer flasks were used as the reac it ion
vessels. deans of three replicates are shown. Bars reh Iresent
standard d&iatiotx at given volume.

---

hr)
0
8

soiM24
.
(ug/g
t:
m
.
s
8
I
ul
8
.
FLUORESCEIN RELEASED
0
c
0
;s 0
p: 0

---

66
---
Y
2
E
2
3
6
AMOUNT OF SOIL (g)
Figure 2.8. Effect of amount of soi1 on release of fiuorescein in FDA /hlydrolysis
assay in soiils.
Means of three replicates are shown. Bars
reprisent stiandaird Ideviations at given amount.

---

69
Ziegler, GB., Ziegler, E. and R. Witzenhausen. 1975. Nachweis der
stoffiuechselaktivitat von mikroorganismen durch vital-fluorochromierung mit
3’,6’-diacetylfluorescein. Zentralblatt fur bakteriologie. Parasitenkunde,
infektions-krankheiten und hygiene, Abt. 1 Orig., Reihe A 230:252-264.

---

70
CHAPTER 3
RELATIONSHIPS BETVVEEN SOIL BIOLOGICAL AND CHEkj’llCAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND SURFACE SOIL STRUCTURAL PROPORTIES FOR
USE IN SOIL QUALITY
3.1. Abstract
With the progressive degradation of agricultural soils, there is neb[J emphasis
/
on usiing the concept of soil Iqu8ality as a sensitive and dynamic way tC’1 document
1
the condition of soils, how they respond to management changes, at$ their
resilience to stress. This study relates soil structural characteristicsito soil
biological and biochemical properties under various management systems. Soi1
erodibility was used as the baseline to develop a set of soi1 quality in/dicators.
The study was conducted on a 16-year integrated pest management ,field where
several tillage and trop rotation combinations are available. Sealinb index, as a
measure of aggregate stability using a Griffith fall velocity tube, dec&ased with
decreasing tillage intensity.
However, infiltration rate was highest id the chisel
plow system. Total ofganic C and N, microbial biomass C, soi1 cart$hydrates
and soil enzyme actividies were significantly greater in conservation kystems as

---

71
compared to conventiona! tillage practices. Bulk density was negatively
correlated with soil enzyme activities.
Tillage appeared to be the major
contribut.or in the soi1 property changes with trop rotation system differences
being minor. Using a standard &oring function for developing a soil quality
rating, the three management systems were rated from the lowest to the highest:
moldboard plow - no-till < chisel plow. The results suggest that soil biochemical
and biological properties are potential indicators of soil quality with regard to
crusting and erodibility.
3.2. Introduction
.
The key to sustaining the soi1 resource base is to maintain, or enhance soil
quality. Soil quality cari be defined as the degree of suitability to the specific
functions that soils perform in a given ecosystem. The terms soil quality and soit
health are currently used interchangeably in the scientific Iiterature and popular
press. Scientists prefer soil quality while farmers prefer soil health (Harris et al.,
1994). Whiie the term ‘soit quality’ is relatively new, it is well known that soils
vary in quality and that soil quality changes in response to use and management
(Larson et al., 1994). The National Research Council (USA) recommends a
definition of soil quality as the capacity of the soil to promote the growth of
plants; protect watersheds by regulating infiltration and partitioning of
precipitation; and prevent water and air pollution by buffering potential pollutants.
1. “” /,.* ..-.-. ^... _ .-..--lll-l”lm--
---sa.-

---

72
Although we cari define soi1 quality as the degree of suitability toithe
functions that soils perfbrm in an ecosystem, soil quality cannot be s$en or
measured directly from the soi1 alone but is inferred from soil charactkristics and
soil behavior under defined conditions. As Stewart (1992) pointed oint, there is
no single measurement that tain quantify soil quality. However, therlf! are certain
characteristics, particularly wlhen considered together, that are good Indicators.
Over time, a soil may be sustained in its ability to function as a viable
component of an ecosystem,, it may be degraded, or it may be improbed or
aggraded.
The success of soi1 conservation efforts and management in
maintaining soil quality depe?ds on an understanding of how soil resbonds to
/
agricuitural use and practice over time (Gregorich et al., ‘1994).
Methods to
quantify soil quality must ass.ess changes in selected soil attributes Over time in
I
order to be useful for determining best management strategies. Prepient
approaches to quantify soil q~uallity are concerned with either charact$xization of
different facets or attributes of quality (descriptive approach), or are ( oncerned
with the identification of specific indicators or parameters that Will as: ess the
ability OF capacity of an attribute to function in a desired manner (indi ::ative
approach). Quantifying soii quality requires that a data set be defint ‘d,
comprising measures of various soil attributes or critical properties a: ; key
indicators (Larson and Pierce, ‘1991). TO characterize how soil qual ty changes

---

over relatïvely short time periods, these critical properties must be sensitive to
changes in soi1 management, soi1 disturbances and inputs into the soi1 system.
SO far, most work done on, or ideas about, soi1 quality assessment (Parr et
al., 1992; Doran et al., 1994; Harris et al., 1994; Karlen and Stott., 1994; Larson
et al., 1994) have mentioned the necessity of measuring almost all the soil
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics to determine soi1 quality
indicators.
Severat studies have.looked at the effects of long,-term management on soil
productivity, while the effects of long-term management on the susceptibility of
soils to trust formation, surface sealing and runoff production has received little
attention. A trust forms when surface aggregates disintegrate, filling pore space
with fine particles.
The surface seal that results from this aggregate breakdown
impedes water infiltration, leading to runoff and erosion. Such seals may also
interfere with seedling emergence, leading to poor trop stands. Generally,
organic matter is considered to be a cementing agent that should stabilize soil
structure and decrease soil susceptibility to trust formation and surface sealing.
As several studies have’focused on soil quality in terrns of soil productivity, very
few studies have explored soi1 quality as related to the capacity of the soif to
partition water and regulate infiltration.

---

74
The objectives of thisrese(arch were to determine: 1) how variatibns in soi1
surface structure, affected by long-term management, are related to Ithe changes
I/
in soit biological and biochernical properties, and 2) how fluorescein dliacetate
/
hydrolytic activity responds t.o long,-term management as a biologica indicator of
i
soil quality.
HYPOTHESES
1). Soil managed with no-till has the best soil quality while soil manalged with
moldboard plow has the worst quality.
2). Enzyme activity, microbial biomass, total organic carbon, total nit,rogen, and
soil carbohydrate contents increase with no-till system.
3). Bulk density decreases whereas infiltration rate and soil resistance to
penetration increase as induced by increase in soil biological and
biochemical properties with no-till system.
4). Sealing index, a new method of measuring aggregate stability, decreases
with no-till system.
ASSUMPTIONS
Basing the definition of soil quality on its capacity to partition water and
regulate infiltration thus decrleasing soil erodibility, the criteria of a high quality
soil are: high aggregate stability, high infiltration rate, low crusting and surface
sealing and good trop productivity.

---

75
3.3. Materials and Methods
3.3.1. General field plan and cultural practices of the IPM Plots
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plots, iocated at the Agronomy
Research Center at Pur-due University, West Lafayette IN, constitute a field of
16.2 ha of predominantly Drurnmer silty clay loam ( fine-loamy, mixed, mesic
Typic Haplaquoll). The site had an initial pH of 6.4 and an organic matter
content of 4.6%. A split-plot design with four replications was utilized..
The
whole plots were factorial combinations of trop rotation and tillage treatments
randomized in each replication. Tiilage treatment for each whole plot always
remained the same. Subplot units were weed management systems
randomized within each whole plot and atways remained the same (Schreiber,
1992). Plots had various widths (9 to 15 m) and 90 m long with 1.5 n-t grass
strips between each whole plot. Between each subplot, a 6-m-wide titled area
was maintained weed free as well as a 1.5-m strip at each end. This layout
reduced weed encroachment from any border area and permitted the use of
large field equipment for tillage, planting, and trop harvesting.
3.3.1.1. Tillaae Systems
Three primat-y tillage systems were selected for a wide range of soil
management. The most intensive was conventional moldboard plowing in the
fall with secondary spring tillage for final seedbed preparation. This tüllage

---

76
completely inverted the top 15 to 18 cm of soi1 and left little trop residue on the
surface. This system also included one cultivation in row crops. The
intermediate tillage level was a fall chisel plowing using a straight shank, with
secondary spring tillage for final seedbed preparation. This tool left
approximately 30% caver of the previous trop residue on the soil surface. The
third system was a no-till system in which the trop was seeded directly into the
previous trop residue with no soil preparation. This system left 90 to 95% caver
of the previous trop residue on the surface. Primary tillage was performed in
the fall. Final soil preparation in the spring for the conventional and chisel plow
systems utilized a field cultivator equipped with a rolling basket followed by a
shallow rototiller. Row crops were cultivated once each season except in no-till.
3.3.1.2. Crop Rotations
The four rotation systerns were continuous cor-n, continuous soybean, a two-
year rotation between corn and soybean with each trop grown each year, and a
three-year rotation among corn, soybean, and wheat, with each trop !grown each
year. The soil sampes were collected after corn for corn/soybean and after
wheat for corn/soybean/wheat rotations.

---

77
3.3.1.3. Weed Manaaement Systems.
Three levels of weed management were achieved by applying different
amounts of herbicides. A minimum level of weed control used herbicides at half
the recommended rates. A moderate level represented average farmer use of
herbicide concentrations. The maximum level was herbicide use at maximum
alfowed levels according to lalbel clearance. Only one weed management, the
intermediate tevel, was considered in this study because it is the most typically
used by farmers in the region:.
3.32. Soil Sampling and Preparation
The soi1 samples were collected during the early spring of 1995, prior to
seedbed preparation. From each plot, two opposite sampling points along one
diagonat were used for infiltration rate measurement. Each point was
equidistant between one corner and the center of a plot. Around each infiltration
sampling point, four soil cores (0 to 7.5cm depth) were taken using a soi1 probe
for biochemical analyses, as well as four soil cores using a brass ring for bulk
density measurement at the 01 to 75cm depth, and four soil samples at the soil
surface (0 to 5-cm depth) for aggregate stability. The soil samples collected
were rstored in an ice chest with ice and later prepared as appropriate for
analysis.

---

78
:3.3.3. Physical Proper-ties
3.3.3.1. .lnfiltration Rate
The infiltration rate was :measured by water ponding method, using a l-m2
galvanized box with a 15cm height. The source of the deionized water used for
water ponding was the Soil Erosion Research Lab, and the water was
transported to the site by truck in a 300-gallon tank. The truck was parked on
the roadways between replicates and the amount of water poured through a long
hose. The flow rate was controlled using a valve. A mechanical point gauge
(Mode1 R 81, EPIC, INC., New York, NY), placed on the edge of the infiltration
box and a stopwatch allowed the measurement (in mm) of the falling water head
over time (min). Measurements were taken over a two-hour period at
increments of 2.5 or 5 min for the first 50 min and 10 rnin thereafter.
Steady-
state infiltration rates were c,alculated by taking the average of the last few
readings’ and dividing by the elapsed time (10 min).
3.3.3.2. :Soi1 Penetrability
The soil penetrability was determined in the field by a static penetration
method using a cane penetrometer (Bradford, 1988). Like the soit sample
collection, the soil penetrability was measured at each of the four sides of the
infiltration points. The readings were done at 7.5, 15, 22.5 and 30-cm depths.

---

79
The targeted positions were the row axes and the Upper interrow shoulders, and
discernible wheel tracks were avoided.
3.3.3.3. Butk Density
The bulk density of the solil was measured by the tore method (Blake et al.,
1986). The tore sampler consists of two cylinders fitted one inside the other.
The outer one extends above and below the inner to accept a hammer
at the Upper end and to form a cutting edge at the lower end. The inside
cylinder is the sample holder. TO collect the soi1 samples, we pressed the
sampler on a cleared soi1 surface, and inserted it to 7.5 cm. Then, using a
shovel, we carefulfy removed the sampler and its contents SO as to preserve the
natural structure and packing of the soi1 as nearly as possible. We separated
the two cylinders, and retainead the undisturbed soi1 in the inner cylinder. Finally,
we trimmed the soi1 extendingl beyond each end of the sample holder (inner
cylinder) flush with each end with a straight-edge knife. TO measure *the bulk
density, we transferred the soi1 to a preweighed aluminum cari, placed it in an
oven at 105OC overnight, and weighed it. The bulk density is the oven-dry mass
of the sample divided by the sample volume.

---

SO
3.3.3.4. Soi1 Aaaregate Stability as Measured by thaealing Index
Soil aggregate stability was measured on wet and dry samples (see
photographs), using a Griffrth fall velocity tube (Hairsine and McTainsh, 1986) as
modified by Stott (1996). Using the following procedures, soil aggregate stability
was expressed by the sealing index of a soil. The sealing index of a soil (SI) is
defined as the ratio of the wet to dry fall velocity at 50% mass (V,,) of the soil
sample.
The closer to 1 the sealing index, the more stable the soil aggregates.
As the sealing index increases, (SI > 1), the susceptibility of the soi1 to undergo
surface sealin,g or slaking increases. This is because when measuring the fall
velocity for wet aggregates, ithe soil particles are slowly wetted first SO that they
cari maintain their structure and mass while falling along the Griffith tube
whereas for dry aggregates, the fall velocity is measured when the air-dried soit
particles are poured directly into the Griffith tube. IJsing the fall velocity for the
slowly wetted soi1 aggregates as a reference, the stability of the aggregates
thereby depends upon the fall velocity for dry aggregates. If the dry soil
aggregates have low stability, they tend to loose their structure and disintegrate
as soon as they hit the water column in the Griffith tube. As a result, these dry
aggregates fall rnuch slower than the larger wet aggregates and consequently,
the sealing index for the soil becomes greater than 1.

---

81
3.3.3.4.1. Wet Aggregate Measurement
Ten grams of soi1 were prewetted and pfaced into a tut-off syringe filled with
deionized water. We filled the Griffith tube with deionized water and removed
air bubbles. Then, we filled the pan assembly with deionized water and placed
numbered trays consecutively around the pan assembty to coflect samples. The
time intervals used were 10 sec, 20 sec, 30 sec, 1 min, 2 min, 5 min and 8 min.
When sampling was completed, we removed the trays. We transferred the soi1
from the trays into numbered preweighed crucibles, and put them in an oven to
dry at 105’C overnight.
3.3.3.4.2. Dry Aggreaate Measurement
The same procedure for the wet aggregates was used with the exception
that the soil samples were kept dry when they were poured into the Griffith tube
for fall velocity measurement.
3.3.4. Chemical Properties
3.3.4.1. Total C. H and N
Total organic carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen were determined by dry
combustion, using a LECO U~N-600 (Leco Corp., St Joseph, Ml).
200 mg of
air-dried soil, crushed to pass through a 2-mm sieve were weighed in a tin
capsule and inserted in the LEXO CHN for simultaneous measurements of total

---

82
C, H and N by dry combustion. Prior to analysis, presence of CaC03, in the soi1
was tested with HCI and theire was none.
3.3.4.2. .Dissalved Organic Carbon
Soi1 was air-dried and crushed to pass through a 2-mm sieve.
Ten grams of
air-dried soi1 and 25 mL of distilled water were placed into a 250-mL centrifuge
tube. We let it shake for 2 hours, using a platform shaker, and we centrifuged it
at 3840 g for 5 minutes. Then, we filtered ‘the supernatant with a Whatman no.
42 qualit.ative filter paper. Vve took 200 PL aliquot ,from the filtrate and
measured the total organic carbon using a Dohrmann DC-l 90 Total Organic
Carbon Analyzer.
3.3.4.3. Soil carbohydrates
Soil carbohydrates were measured from the Iight-fraction and macroorganic
matter of the soil. The method described by Strickland et al. (1987) was used to
separate light- and heavy-fraction organic materials from soil. Briefly, 25 grams
of air-dried sail were dispersed by stirring (1800 rpm for 30 seconds) in 200 mL
of Nal solution (density = 1 .Y7 g cm”). Suspensions were immediately
centrifuged at 4086 g for 10 minutes. The supernatant containing the light
fraction (LF) was decanted onto a Whatman no. 50 filter and vacuum-filtered.
The macroorganic matter fraction (heavy fraction) residues were resbspended

---

83
twice in fresh Nal solution and the light fractions were combined.
Light and
heavy fractions were washed three times by vacuum filtration with 3.0 M NaCI
(50 mL) and then washed three times with deionized water.
Each fraction was
washed into preweighed tins with deionized water, dried at IO!ZJ~C ovemight and
weig hed.
The determ’ination of carbohydrate content in the organic material fractions
was done using a phenol-sulfuric acid assay (Dubois et al., ‘t956).
To 200 Fg of
frnely ground organic material., 400 PL of 5% phenol was added. Then 1 .O mL of
concentrated H&O, was added rapidly and directly to the solution sut-face
without touching the sides of the spectrocolorimeter tube . The solution was left
undisturbed for 10 minutes before shaking vigorously, and we measured the
absorbante at 490 nm after letting the sample settle for a further 30 minutes.
3.3.5. Biochemical Properties
3.351. Microbial biomass
Microbial biomass was determined using the chloroform fumigation-
incubation (Horwath et al., 1994). Because of the carcinogenic-volatile
properties of chloroform, all work was done in a fume hood. A 50-mL beaker
containing 35 mL of ethanol-free chloroform and antibumping granules was
placed together with a 30-grarn field moist soil sample into a vacuum desiccator.
The desiccator was lined with moist filter paper to prevent desiccation of soil
-111-m-.1-
-r -*-
“ .
--.. ..l-..-l_-,m-,.-
II

---

84
samples during fumigation. The desiccator was evacuated until the chloroform
boiled vigorously. This was repeated three times for 3 minutes each, letting air
pass back into the desiccatclr to facilitate the distribution of the chloroform
throughout the soit. The desiccator was then evacuated a fourth time until the
chloroform boiled vigorously for 2 minutes, the valve on the desiccator was
closed, and the desiccator placed in the dark at 25OC for 48 hours.
Unfumigated
.
samples were also kept in the dark, in desiccator or mason jars at 2PC while
fumigatian proceeded. F,ollowing this period, the chloroform and frlter papers
were removed under the hood, and the desiccator evacuated 3 minutes for eight
times, letting air pass into the desiccator to remove residual chloroforrn.
Following the removal of the chloroform, the fumigated soil samples were placed
in mason jars. Fumigated soil samples were adjusted to optimum soil moisture
content (55% of the water-holding capacity).
1 .O mL of deionized water was
added to the bottom of each mason jar to prevent desiccation.
The soils were
then incubated in closed, gas tight mason jars under standard conditions (25OC
in the dark) for 10 days. A vial containing 1 .O mL of NaOH 2M was pllaced into
each mason jar to trap the CO, mineralized over this period. Blanks consisting
of jars without soil, along with trapped COp in the NaOH were measured by a
potentiometric method (Golterman, 1970) using an automatic titrator (IModel DL
25, Mettler Instrument Corp., Hightstown NJ).

---

85
3.352. Enzyme Activity
@glucosidase (Eivazi et al., 1988), arylsulfatase (Tabatabai et ai., 1970) and
:
fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic (Diack et al., 1996) activities in soils were
determined I
Method for Fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis assay in soils
The buffer used in this assay was 60 mM sodium phosphate adjusted to pH
7.0 with hydrochloric acid (1 hl) to the sodium phosphate buffer.
The procedure was as follows: 1) place 2.5 g of air-dried soil, sieved to pass
2 mm, in a IOO-mL centrifuge tube; 2) add 50 mL of sodium phosphate buffer (60
mM, pH 7.0), and 10 mg of fluorescein diacetate (Sigma Chemical CO.); 3)
stopper the tube and place it on a rotary shaker at 35°C for 24 hours; 4) add 2
mL of acetone (50% [vol/vol]) centrifuge the soi1 suspension at 3840 g for 5
minutes; 5) filter the supernatant using a Whatman no. 42 filter paper; 6) transfer
the filtrate to a spectrophotometer tube and measure the yellow color intensity at
490 nm. The hydrolyzed FDA concentration was calculated from a standard
curve equation obtained with standards containing 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 .O
mg of fluorescein solution. To prepare the standard solution, 10 mg of
fluorescein was dissolved in 10 mL hot 95% ethanol (65’C), and sodium
phosphate buffer (60 mM, pH 7.0). Into 50-mL Erlemeyer flasks, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,
0.4, or OZ ml of the solution was added. We completed to volume with sodium

---

86
phosphate buffer, shook it to homogenize the solution, and measured the
absorbante at 490 nm.
3.4. Statistical Analysis
3.4.1. bperimental design
The experimental design was a completely randomized block, in which the
twelve treatment combinations chosen were composed of four cropping systems
and three tillages. The tillage systems were moldboard plow, chisel plow and
no-till, and the cropping systems were continuous corn, continuous soybean,
corn/soybean and corn/soyblean/wheat. Three field replicates were used as
blocks, and in each block, we did two measurements for infiltration rates and
eight measurements (four around each infiltration point) for all other soil
properties.
3.4.2. Data Analysis
Anatysis of variante, covariance and stepwise regressions were run on the
data to determine differences among treatments and any relationships between
soil physical properties and Ibiochemical characteristics using the PC-SAS,
Version 6.09 (Statistical Analysis System, 1985).

---

87
3.5. Results
3.5.“1. Soi1 Physical Properties
3.5.1.1. Bulk Density
For bulk density, no significant differences (P = 0.05) in the rnean values
were obsetved among tillage lot- trop rotation systems (Tables 3.1 and 3.2).
3.5.1.2. Soi1 Penetrability
The only depth of soil’penetrability used in this analysis was 7.5 cm, SO that
direct comparisons with all the other measurements taken at the same depth
could be made, (see Table C, Appendices for data from greater depths).
There
were significant differences .in mean values for soil penetration resistance at 7.5
cm depth among tillage systerns (Table 3.1). Soil penetrability in no-tilt system
was 92 and 148% greater than in chisel and moldboard plow systems
respectively. Among trop rotation treatments (Tables 3.2) there were no
significant differences in soit resistance to penetration at P = 0.05.
3.5.1.3. Water Infiltration Rate,
The mean values for final water infiltration rates were significat-rty different
among tillages (Tables 3.1) as well as among trop rotation systems (Table 3.2).
Steady-state infiltration rate in chisel plow system was 115% greater tlhan in no-
till and 32% greater than in moldboard plow system.
in trop rsraticn systems,

---

88
final water infiltration rates in continuous corn increased 20% over both
continuous soybean and cornkoybean, and 56% over corn/soybean/wheat
rotation.
351.4. Sealing index
Mean sealing index among tillage treatments (Table 3.1) was significantly
different., In no-till systemI sealing index was 24 and 44% lower than in chisel
and moldboard plow treatments respectively. For continuous soybean, sealing
index had 15, 21, and 24% decrease over corn/soybean/wheat, corrrkoybean
and continuous corn respectively (Table 3.22, but the differences were
statisticalfy significant or& for the continuous soybean vs. all other treatments.
.3.5.2. Soil Chemical Properties
352.1. Total Organic Carbcn
The mean concentrations for total organic carbon were not significantly
different among tillage (Tables 3.1) or trop rotation systems (Table 3.2) Total
organic carbon concentrations in no-till systems were only 13% greater than in
moldboard plow, and 7% greater than in chisel plow system. In trop rotation
systems, cornlsoybean had mean concentrations for total organic carbon almost
equal to that for cornlsoybeanl’wheat rotation and continuous corn, and 7%
higher than that for continuousB soybean.

---

89
3.5.2.2. Total Nitrogen
Total nitrogen mean concentrations were significantly different (P : 0.01)
??
among trop rotation systems, but in tillage systems, the mean values were
significant at P = 0.05 (Table 3.1). In no-tilt system, the mean concentrations for
total nitrogen (Table 3.2) were 10 and 6% higher than in chisel and moldboard
plow systems respectively. F(or continuous soybean, the mean valuesk for total
nitrogen were 15, 32 and 37% greater than for cornkoybean,
corn/soybean/wheat and continuous corn rotations respectively.
3.5.2.3. Dissolved Oraanic Carbon
Highly significant differencfes in mean concentrations for dissolved organic
carbon among tillages (Table Z3.1) and among trop rotations systems (Table 3.2)
were shown. Mean values foir dissolved organic carbon in no-till were 40%
greater than in chisel plow and 44% greater than in moldboard plow.
In trop
rotation systems, mean concentrations for corn/soybean/wheat rotation were 27,
22 and 5% higher than cornkoybean, continuous soybean and continuous corn
respectivety.

---

90
3.53. Soi1 Biochemical Properties
353.1 Microbial Biomass C,
l’ylicrobial biomass had me;& values significantly different among tillage
systems (Table 3.1) as well as among trop rotations (Table 3.2).
Mban
concentrations in no-till were 151 and 57% greater than in moldboaro plow and
chisel plow systems respectively. In trop rotation systems, the me& values for
corn/soybean were 18,29 and 32% greater than continuous soybean,
corn/soybean/wheat and continuous corn respectively.
3.5.3.2. Enzyme Activities
Differences in mean values for fluorescein released from FDA hydrolysis
were highly significant from one tillage system to another (Table 3.1). Mean
values observed in no-till were 14 and 30% greater than in chisel and moldboard
plow systems’ respectively. In trop rotation systems (Table 3.2), the mean
values for FDA hydrolytic activity in continuous soybean were not significantly
different from that in continuous corn but they were J-8.% hioher,mbojh
__ __-__ --..- .-w-J.-.? ^ .
__-_-.
92
systems. On the other hand, bulk density, final infiltration rates and aggregate
stability as measured by sealinlg index (Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 respectively)
have decreased as management moves from intensive to conservation
practices.
The soi1 resistance to penetration at 7.5cm depth (Figure 3.1) shows that
conventional tillage, patticularly moldboard plow, associated with each trop
rotation, resulted in looser top soif than the no-till system. Many researchers
have fouir-rd increased resistance to soi1 penetration at the surface of no-till
(Larney and Kladivko, 1989; Heard et ai., 1988). Heard et al., (198811 suooested

---

91
70% greater than in cornisoybean, continuous soybean and continuous corn
systerns respectively. For arylsulfatase activity, the mean concentrations in no-
till were 37 and 84% greater than in chisel plow and moldboard plow
respectively. In trop rotation systems (Figure 3.12), continuous soybean had a
mean value 9% higher than in corn/soybean/wheat, and 24% greater than in
both continuous corn and cormkoybean. From these three enzyme activities in
soil, FDA hydrolysis was chosen for the evaluation of soil quality (Table 3.3).
353.3. Soi1 Carbohydrates
The mean concentrations for total carbohydrates were significantly different
among tillages (Table 3.1) as well as among trop rotation systems (Table 3.2).
The mean values in no-till system were 117 and 135% greater than in chisel and
moldboard plow systems respectively. As far as trop rotation systern is
concerned, mean concentrations for total carbohydrates for continuous soybean
were 64,25 and 34% higher than continuous corn, cornkoybean and
corn/soybean/wheat rotations;, X%4 , r yr~r 2,:“~ I .
e”
cl
3.6. Discussion
The long-term management practices have induced changes in the soil
physical properties for the field. These changes have resulted in increased soi1
resistance to penetration (Figlure 3.1) from conventional to conservation tillage

---

92
systems. On the other hand, bulk density, final infiltration rates and aggregate
stability as measured by sealing index (Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 respectively)
have decreased as management moves from intensive to conservatiicln
practices.
The soil resistance to penetration at 75cm depth (Figure 3.1) shows that
conventional tillage, particularly moldboard plow, associated with each trop
rotatian, resulted in looser top soil than the no-till system. Many researchers
have found increased resistance to soi1 penetration at the surface of no-till
(Larney and Kladivko, 1989; Heard et al., 1988). Heard et ai., (1988) suggested
that soif with low organic matte,r content and poor structure would benefit more
from conservation tillage practices than soils that are initially well structured,
such as the soi1 we worked with. The effect of trop residues might ease soi1
penetrability at a shallower depth than what we measured, for example in the
first 3 cm. Kladivko (1994) suggested that trop residues are more elastic than
minera1 soil and they have a larger relaxation ratio (ratio of bulk density of test
material under specified Stre:ss to the bulk density after stress is removed).
Also, trop residues have a much lower bulk density than minera1 soi1 particles;
thus, overall soi1 bulk density is reduced by a simple dilution effect of the
residues in the soi1 in the narrower depth increment near the surface. Other
researchers have suggested that trop residues may reduce the susceptibility of
a soi1 to compactibility and perhaps the resistance to penetration (So~ane, 1990;

---

93
Guerif, 1979). Unger (1984) found significant differences in resistance to
penetration (via cane penetrorneter) due to tillage effects at 30-cm depth, some
of which were attributed to differences in soi1 moisture content.
He concluded
fhat penetration reststance of ithe soii was highest for the no-till and disk and
lowest for the moldboard plow treatment. Bradford (1986) stated that soil
factors influencing penetration resistance were water content, bulk density, soi1
compressibility, soil strength parameters and soi1 structure.
Even though no significant difference is shown for bulk density as a function
of the management practices, no-till system, associated with each of the four
rotations, presents just a slightly lower bulk density than the titled systems
(Figure 3.2). This difference between no-till and other tillage systems agrees
with several authors’ findings (Black, 1973; Lal et al., 1980; Ktadivko, ‘1994).
Crop residues have lower density than the soil, and when left on the surface, the
light fractions tend to slowly mix with the soil surface as the decomposition
proceeds naturally and by the action of soil fauna (Kladivko 1994). Other
researchers have found t.hat residue incorporation by tillage initially decreases
bulk density compared to’no-till systems with surface residues, due to the
loosening action of the tillage operation and the immediate incorporation of the
low-density residue (GriffÏth et. al., 1986; Hill, 1990). Effects of tillage ‘and
incorporation of residues may not remain throughout an entire cropping cycle,
however. The slight difference observed among tillages may also be due to the

---

94
timing of the sampling (early spring). At this period, the soi1 temperature rises
and with the rainfall resuming, residue decomposition speeds up thus, increases
the bulk density in no-M systems. Also, the no-tilt system over the long1 term
may induce a compaction effect on this particular silty clay loam soil.
This effect
could impede the expected decrease in surface bulk density for the no-t&
system.
Changes in water infiltration rates between different management practices
(Figure t3.3) were characterized by overall highest values for conventional tillage
I
and particularly chisel plow. Tillage effect made significant difference in final
infiltration rates (Table 3.1). This result is not consistent with what is geinerally
known, as no-till often increases infiltration with the protective action of dur-face
!
trop residues (Steiner, 1994; Kladivko, 1994; Alberts et al., 1994; Sims et al.,
1994).
No-tillage soils typically contain greater percentage of macropores than
tilled soifs and, in addition, soils under no-till develop relatively permanent water-
conducting channels such as worm holes and root channels (Zachmann,et al.,
1987).
liowever, the infiltration was measured using a ponding method; and not
a sprinkler. If we did use a sprinkler method, no-till system could have Iewer
runoff and thus greater infiltration than the tilled systern, due to a better $oil
structure and surface residue protection. Also, during the infiltration test, we
observed few earthworms in the no-till plots (less than 10 per m*). Kladivko
(1993) found earthworm populations as high as 20 per m2 in no-till continuous

---

95
corn and 140 per m2 in no-till soybean in silty clay loam soils near Lafayette, IN.
The relatively low number- of earthworms observed in the IPM plots may not be
high enough to have a significant effect on soil physical processes.
The return
of macroporous structure to soils, when tillage is reduced, encourages the rapid
movement of water through the profile, reducing ponding and runoff at the
surface. Baver (1972) reported that porosity of soils determines the permeability
of soi1 to water, and also determines the water retention at a given suction.
The
soi1 characteristics which affect the hydraulic conductivity are related to the pore
geometry, i.e., the pore size distribution and the tortuosity of the soil pores
(Ghildhyal et al., 1987). Generally, a soi1 higher in organic matter content in the
A horizon, would have a better structure and a better aggregate stability which
would increase its hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate. Our result showing
the highest infiltration rate under chisel plow agrees with Meek et al. (1992).
A
situation such as the no-till system is susceptible to compaction due to the long-
term rnanagement and low number of earthworms, whereas chisel plow, as an
intermediate tillage intensity, would appear to maintain infiltration rate at a
refatively hig h level.
As observed with the previous soil physical properties, changes in sealing
index as a measure of soil aggregate stability (Table 3.1) were mainly induced by
degrees in tillage intensities, resulting from differences in amount of trop
residues left on the soil surface. No-till combined with continuous soybean

---

96
(Figure 3.5), presented the’lowest sealing index, resulting in most stable soi1
aggregates . This is probably due to the high c0ntent.s of readily available
carbon and nitrogen in the soybean residues as compared to corn and wheat
residues.
Aggregate stability controls in part the resistance of surface
aggregates to forces of raindrop impact, surface flow and slaking. The potential
for a soil to seal increases as the stability of aggregates decreases. ‘Ne used a
“non-standard” aggregate stability test as indicated by the sealing becauise it
relates blest to trust formation as associated with low organic matter and low
aggregate stability. Also, our criteria of high soil quality were set for a
conservation system in which soil erosion would mainly occur by water due to
soil crusting or slaking (chemical/biologicaI processes) but not by meçhanical
disruption due to tillage intensity. For these reasons, measuring soil aggregate
stability by the sealing index seemed more appropriate.
This effect of no-till on the aggregate stability is consistent with what Tiessen
et al.., (1983); Adem, (1984); Hadas, (1987); Tisdall, (1996); Carter and $tewart,
(1996) have found. Kay (1990) observed that the structure of a soi1 varies with
the trop type grown on the soil. The difference is not solely due to absolute
amount of plant residues returned to the soil, nor to tillage practices. The
.
characteristics of corn, soyb’ean and wheat being grown, the sequence of these
different species, and the frequency of harvest are all aspects of trop rotation

---

97
systems that affect soil structuire by influencing the formation of biopores by plant
roots and soil fauna.
The soil chemical properties also have varied from conventional system to
conservation practices. Whik? total organic carbon (Figures 3.5) did not vary
Signifïcantly, total nitrogen (Figure 3.6) and dissolved organic carbon (Figure 3.7)
have increased from conventional to conservation practices.
Except for total organic calrbon, soil chemical and biofogical property
changes were influenced by both tillage and trop rotation practices (Tables 3.2
and 3.3). The non-significant difference in total organic carbon between tillages
and trop rotations seems unusual to some extent, but may be due to a spatial
variability among plots within blocks.
Annual plowing of soil generally results in accelerated decomposition of
organic matter along with mixing of trop residues. Soils under no-till contain
organic matter predominantly at the surface and in some cases contain more
organic matter than the typical plowed soils (Tyler et al., 1983).
Greater carbon
levels associated with reduced tillage are most Eikely the result of less
decomposition, which is a direct function of lack of mixing and dilution. The
influence of tillage on organic carbon distribution was demonstrated by Doran
(1980, 1987), in a study of microbial biomass changes as associated with tillage
systems; Rice and Smith (1984) in studying short-term immobilization of fertilizer
nitrogen at the surface of no-till and plowed soils; and Blevins et al. (1’983) as

---

98
they studied the influence of conservation tilfage on sail properties. Plant
residues’ at the surface are exposed to an environment different from that in
which they are incorporated. Through the action of no-till on trop residues,
organic matter apparently is m;aintained due to additions from the decaying plant
roots and lower soi1 temperature in the no-till system. This effect results in
reduced organic matter loss from oxidation. When trop residues are
incorporated to the depth of tillage with moldboard plowing, higher soiil
temperatures lead to increased oxidation and lower organic matter level. At the
surface, trop residues are exposed to desiccation; thus water activity often may
be limiting for microbial growth (Sims et al., 1994). In this study, microb!ial
biomass, like any other soil property, was measured within the top 7.5 cm of the
soif profile, where soil moisiure content was significantly different between tillage
practices.
This increase in moisture content under no-till may support the fact
that microbial activity was much higher under no-till than under conventional
tillage (Fïgure 3.8). Microbial iactivity in most terrestrial systems is primarily
heterotrophic, driven by plant carbon.
Thus, organisms and the organic material
derivatives are expected ta develop proportionally to the available carbon
(Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.9). ‘Organic carbon and nitrogen contents in soil are a
result of a complex biochemical interaction between substrate additions of C and
I\\l in fertitizers and in plant and animal residues, and losses of C and N through
microbial decomposition and mineralization and erosion. Changes in residue

---

99
inputs induced by different Mages, and fertilizers (Jansen 1987a, b; Campbell et
al., 1991a.) which regulate soi1 microbial activity and mineralization rates, are
reflected in the total organic C and N content of soif.
The soil microbial biomass (Figure 3.8), soil carbohydrates (Figure 3.9) and
soil enzyme activities (Figures 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12) have increased with
conservation practices. Cha[nges in soil carbohydrates were significantly
different within both tillage systems and trop rotation practices. Because soil
carbohydrates originate from plants, animals and microorganisms (Gregorich et
al., 1994) and undergo transformations in the soil environment, and because of
the high amount of trop residues prevailing under no-tilt, soil carbohydrate
contents predominate in conservation practices as compared to conventional
practices (Figure 3.9). The high value for soil carbohydrates observed in no-till
continuous soybean may be explained by the nature of the residues, legumes,
characterized by their high nitrogen and simple sugar contents as compared to
corn and wheat wh’ich are cereats (Diack, 1994). This particular management
practice seems to show the blest relationship between sealing index and soil
carbohydrates (Figures 3.4 and 3.9). One effect of high organic matter content
at the soi1 surface is to increase porosity, especially increasing the volume of
large interaggregate pores. On the other hand, the volume of intermediate-size
pores is likely to be somewhat greater in a lower organic matter content soil,
while the interaggregate micropores remain unaffected. This result is consistent

---

100
with a number of researchers who found that although carbohydrates make up
only 10 to 20% of the organic rnatter in soil, the stability of aggregates is often
correlated with the concentration of carbohydrate in soil (Rennie et al., 1954;
Oades, 1972; Burns and Davies, 1986; Tisdall, 1994).
Soif enzyme activities, along with soil carbohydrates, showed significant
differences within both tillage systems and trop rotation practices. Tlhe enzyme
activities measured in no-till were higher than in conventional tillage, within the
same trop rotation, for FDA hydrolysis as well as 8-glucosidase and
arylsulfatase activities. In general, soil enzyme activities are directly
proportional to the content of soil organic matter (Skujins, 1967; Frankenberger
and Dick, 1983; Baligar and Wright, 1991; Baligar et al., 1991). The enzyme
activities measured on the same soil samples by three different methods,
fluorescein diacetate, 6-glucosidase and arylsulfatase hydrolysis, showed the
same pattern (Figures 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12). Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis is
a good indicator of microbial activity (Diack et al., 1996) and it is involved in lipid
metabolism, ubiquitous among all living cells. P-glucosidase hydrolysis,
producing important energy sources for soil organisms, plays a major role in
degradation of carbohydrates in soijs (Eivazi and Tabatabai, 1987; Dick and
Miller, 1992). Arylsulfatases, hydrolyzing organic sulfate esters, have been
detected in plants, animals and microorganisms (Tabatabai and Bremner, 1969).
Perrucci (1992) found rates of fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis in Soi/s amended

---

101
with municipal compost measured over a 3-year period to be highly correlated
with activities of arylsulfatase and microbial biomass C. P-glucosidases and
arylsulfatases are well established in response to soi1 management practices
however each responds specifically to the soil management. Because it is
involved in lipid metabolism, ulbiqtiitous among all living cells, fluorescein
diacetate hydrolysis was’chosen among the three enzyme activities (Table 3.3)
for the soil quality evaluation.
Stepwise regressions show linear relationships between bulk density and soil
enzyme activity (Figure 3.13). The equation is the following:
BD = -O.O00017*ENZ + 1.51
(3.1)
This resuR is consistent with Dick et al. (1988a) who found highly significant
negative correlations between bulk density and activities of dehydroge.nase,
. phosphatase and arylsuIfatase in compacted and uncompacted forest soils.
Furthermore, in 7 of 10 enzymes tested, Martens et al. (1992) found significant
negative correlations with soil ~bulk density, and in five enzymes significant
positive correlations with cumulative water infiltration rates. The relationship
seems to indicate that soil enzymes indirectly participate in soil structure
development. And, if is true that decomposers are the primary source of soil
enzymes, then it is possible that a correlative relationship exists between soil
enzymes and soif structural parameters.

---

102
Soil organic matter, basically derives from the root system turnover and the
fraction of the aboveground biomass of the residue left on the soi1 surface. The
quantity of the soil organic rnatter depends on the amount of root biomass, and
the amount of the readily degradable fraction of the aboveground biomass of the
trop residue. The quality of the organic matter depends on the degree of
degradability of both raot system and aboveground biomass, in other words, the
quality of the organic matter is a function of the chemical composition of root
system and aboveground bilomass, both characteristic of the trop type (Stott,
1993). Soil temperature &d moisture content as environmental factors and soil
microbes are known to affect the decomposition rate of these residue types,
however, they all depend on the tillage system, which determines the locatiNon of
each residue type in the soil,
It has been suggested that trop rotation, involving longer periods of
sequential crops, generally increases soil organic matter content. The four
rotation systems used in this study involve corn, soybean and wheat.
Corn and
wheat are cereal crops, and they both bear grains on top of the aboveground
biomass,
It has been shown that these trop types have usually the highest total
nitrogen content on the part of Ithe aboveground biomass which is in the vicinity
of the grains (Diack, 1994). This means that when these crops are harvested,
trop residue that is left on the soil surface has lower nitrogen content than the
top part harvested. AIdo, the readily available carbon, in the form of Isugars, is

---

103
concentrated in the root system of these crops. Stott (1996) found th;at the
aboveground biomass of wheat residues released a greater amount of dissolved
organic carbon during the decay process than corn residues. Also, soybean is a
tegume, and its total nitrogen content is concentrated on top of the aboveground
biomass and the readily available carbon in the root system. Therefore, the
chemical composition of these residues, whether the residues are left on the soil
sutiace or inverted into the solil to a certain depth, seems to affect the
transformations of the soit organic matter quantitatively and qualitatively during
the trop rotations. As a result, soi1 chemical effects and biological properties on
soi1 physical properties may be attributed to the quality of the soil organic matter.
Tillage is the major contributor in these soi1 property changes. This
emphasizes the rote that tillage, as the principal soil management practice even
when combined with trop-rotation, plays in the evaluation of soil quality.
Soil organic matter is considered to encompass a set of attributes rather
than being a single entity. Included among the attributes and discussed here
are total soil organic carbon and nitrogen, microbial biomass, soil carbohydrates
from the light fractions and enzymes. These attributes are involved in various
soil processes, such as those related to water storage, soil structure and
biological activity. .Soil structural’ processes, such as the formation and
stabilization of aggregates and macropores, are affected by the total organic
matter, microbial biomass ancl carbohydrates. Attributes such as microbial

---

104
biomass, enzymes and mineralizable C and N are measures of biological activity
in soils.
Concerns about the-effects of agricuttural practices on the environment and
the effect of the environment on soil erodibility have stimulated interest in
quantifying their impact on soil quality. Use of a set of soil propet-ties,
comprising a number of soil biochemical properties sensitive to management,
perturbations and inputs to the soil, is a critical step for assessing soil quality.
3.7. Soil Quality Indicators
For many years, nations have sought policies to protect their agricultural
soils against degradation and to improve them to ensure sustainable food
production for future generations. Yet recent assessments conducted on
regional and global scales indicate that the ravages of human-induced
degradation (soi1 erosion, saliniization, organic matter decline, etc.) are causing
loss of millions of hectares of agricultural land every year. In addition1 to
assessments of degradation, a more quantitative assessment is needed of how
farming practices are affecting the capacity of the soil to produce food and
perform certain environmental ,functions (i.e. soil quality) and whether the
capacity is being degraded, ‘aggraded. or is remaining unchanged.

---

105
3.7.1. Conceptual soit quality mode1
,: .*
The criteria for a high-qua,lity soi1 were based on the ability of the soil to
partition water and regulate infiftration thus decreasing soit erodibility. TO
develop a quantitative soit index as related to water partitioning and decreasing
soil erodibility, subjective, qualitative, and quantitative measurements of ait
apprompriate and meaningful biochemical and physical indicators must lbe
combined in a consistent and reproducible manner.
The functions chosen for 1:he soil quality indices as related to water
partitioning and infiltration were derived from the sensitivity analysis of the WEPP
(Water Erosion Prediction Prqject) (Nearing et al., 1990b). A systems
engineering technique was applied by Karlen and Stott (1994) to define a soit
quality rating with regard to er’osion by water to provide a mechanism for
assigning relative weights to each function. Wrthin each level, relative weights
are given to each indicator. These weights may change over time or llocation,
depending on priorities or unc~ontrollable factors, but the approach or framework
for developing a quantitative procedure for evaluating soil quality is constant.
lt has been suggested that the primat-y function of soi1 with high quality,
relative to water erodibility, is to accommodate entry of the water into the soil
matrix through the infiltration rate and capacity (Karlen and Stott, 1994,). If the
water cari enter the soil, it Will not run off, and thus initiate the erosion process.
Based on this rationale, we suiggest that this function be given a weight of 0.4 or

---

106
40%. For water to be able to enter the soi1 matrix, resistance of the surface
structure to degradation and transport away from the surface are assumed to be
the next two most critical functions. The remaining 0.6 or 60% is assigned to
the functions of facilitating w;ater transport, decreasing erodibility and resisting
degradation at the surface, and these functions interact with sustaining plant
growth. In the definition of soill quality, the ability of the soil to sustain plant
growth is assumed to be les!; important than the process contributing %to water
entry and transport or to aggregate formation and stability. Obviously, these
assumptions and weights would not be true if soil quality were being assessed
with regard to trop productivity.
However, the proposed framework cari be
easily modified and used to compute a series of soil qwality indices rellative to
various problems.
After assigning relative weights to the functions necessary for a soil to resist
erosion by water, physical, chemical and biological indicators useful for
evaluating those functions cari be identified and priorit,ized.
TO quantify soil
quality relative to the function of accommodating water entry into a soil, we use a
direct measure of infiltration rate which, we think, is the first function.
With regard to facilitating water transport and absorption as a second
function, bulk density and soi1 penetrability are used to assess the soil quality.
A third function of a soil with high quality relative to decreasing crusting is
measured by the sealing indlex: and this third function is closely relateld to a fourth

---

107
function which is to resist structural degradation. Critical indicators for
assessing this function of resisting soi1 degradation include measurements of,
\\ Y(JC
total organic carbon, dissolvecl organic carbon, soil c&bohydrates, microbial
biomass and enzyme activity.
The fifth function, the ability to sustain plant growth, is much more Idependent
on the development of the roo2 system through soi1 nitrogen and the effect of the
root system on reducing soil erodibility.
However, this primarily refllects the soil quality assessment problem that was
chosen. If this assessment had been made relative’to trop productivity,
groundwater quality, or even food safety, indicators identifïed in this section
would have been much different with very different weights.
3.7.2. Conceptual approach for rating a quality of soil (Karlen and Stott., 1994)
An approach for developing a soil quality rating is as follows:
1) Star-t out by defining soit quality;
2) set goals for high-quality soil;
3) set criteria for high-quality soil in order to determine soi1 quality indices;
4) rank criteria according to goals and definition of soil quality;
5) give a weight to each parameter according to the rank of criteria;
6) add up all weighted parameters to obtain a numerical value for a given soil.

---

108
The value of each soi1 reipresents its quality rating based on the standard
scoring function “more is bett.er”.
The mode1 used is the following:
Soi1 QuaW (Q) = q,, (4 + qwt (wt) + qd, @t)+ qrd (wt) + q,, (wt)
(3.2)
where
q,, is the rating for accommodating water entry
q, is the rating for water transport and absorption
q,, is the rating for decreasing erodibility
q, is the rating for resisting degradation
qSpg is the rating for supporting plant growth
wt is the weighting factor for each function
3.7.3. Evaluation Mechanics
Having identified.critical soil functions and potential physical, chernical and
biological indicators that Will be used to assess soil quality relative to its ability to
resist erosion by water, it is essential to develop a mechanism to combine the
distinctly different functions and indicators. This cari be done by using standard
scoring functions (Figure 3.14) that were developed for systems engineering
problems (Wymore, 1993). Four of the most common shapes for scoring
functions are referred to as “more is better”, “less is better”, “an optimum range”
and “undesirable range”. For this evaluation, we have chosen “more is better”,

---

‘8
109
as to compare the soi1 quality level between no-till, chisel plow and moldboard
plow systems.
Standard scoring functions enable us to directly convert soil property mean
values to unitless numerical values on a 0 fo 1 scale.
The procedure begins by
selecting the appropriate physical, chemicat and biological properties of soi1 that
affect a particular function retated to soil erosion. An appropriate scoring
function and realistic baseline and threshold values for each indicator are
established.
All indicators affecting a particular function are grouped together
as shown in Table 3.3, and assigned a relative weight based on importance. All
wei’ghts sum to 1 .O or 109%. After scoring each factor, the value is multiplied by
the appropriate weight. When all indicators for a particular function have been
scored, we then have a matrix that cari be summed to provide a soil quality
rating as related to erosion by water.
3.7.4. Procedure for convertina, the soil data in a 0 to 1 scale (Wymorei 1993)
The set of all scoring functions for the function f is defined as follows:
SE(f) = FNS(RNG(fj, RLS[O,l$
(3.3)
where
SFS is the set of scoring functions for a given function
FNS is the set of functions
RNG is the range of functions

---

110
RLS is the set of real numbers.
Example of a scoring function
If A is a set of soi1 property data,
{s, t} c RLS such that s <: t, and
f E FNS (A,ONTO, RLS[s, t]), then
g = {(x, y): x E RLS(s, t); y E RLS[O,l]; y = (x -s) / (t - s)},
(3.4)
SO, for “more is better”, y = (x - s) / (t - s), whereas for “less is better”,
y = 1 - (x -s) / (t-s), for every x E A.
TO be conformed with our hypotheses, for the conversion of these soil data into a
0 to ? scale, we Will be using “more is better”, for final infiltration rate, total
organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, total nitrogen, soi1 carbohydrates,
microbial biomass and enzyrne activity (FDA hydrolysis). As for bulk density,
soi1 penetrability and sealing index, “less is better” Will be used.
Example:
The mean value for final infiltration rate in no-till is 1.26 cm hr’.
IJsing
equation (3.4), y = (x -s) / (t -. s) where
y is the value of the soil property converted into the 0 to 1 scale
x is the value of the soi1 property to be converted into the 0 to 1 scale
s and t are any real numbers c’hosen such that s < x < t.

---

111
TO choose s and t values as real numbers, we decide that s equal0, the
lowest possible value for these soit data and t be the highest value among the
tillage data, within the particular soil property, plus 10% of its value (Table 3.1).
. . I
For final infiltration rate (Table 3.1), the highest value is 2.71 cm/hr.
And 10% of 2.71 = 0.27; therefore, still using equation (3.4),
For no-t& y = (X - S) / (t - s) = (1.26 - 0) / ([2.71 + 0.271 - 0) = 1.26 / 2.98 = 0.42.
This approach gives converted values in the 0 to 1 scale, and these values
are consistent with the data in Table 3.1 in terms of statistical differences.
3.7.5. Soil Quality Assessment for Three IPM Tillage Systems.
Q = [infiltration (wti)] + [bulk density (wt,J] + [penetrability (wtp)] +
[sealing index (wtsi)] + [total carbon (wtd] + [dissolved organic carbon (wtJ]
+ [carbohydrates (wt,) + [rnicrobial biomass (wt,,,)] + [enzyme activity (FDA)
WL)1 + [total N W&)l=
(:3.5)
Within the same soil function (Table 3.3), the sum of weighted indicators
determines the level of that fumction. The sum of these functions determines the
level of soil quality. These results show that chisel plow system has the highest
soil quality level as related to water erosion. This result is consistent with the
actual status of the no-till in this specific fîeld. No-till system in this particular

---

112
field has depressional areas, very low infiltration rates as compared to the
common no-till systems.
3.8. Conclusions
The results showed that soiil management practices did effectively influence
soil structural characteristics which were closely related to the soil chemical and
biochemical properties. Tillage system was the major contributor in these
physical changes as they were induced by changes in soil chemical and
biochemical properties. Crop rotation combined with tillage system did affect
soil biochemical properhes such as microbial biomass C, soil carbohydrates and
enzyme activities. The results suggest that these soi1 parameters are potential
indicators of soil quality with regard to crusting and erodibility.
Soil organic
matter, as characterized to distinguish biological and biochemical prope ies, is a
key attribute to soil quality. These soil properties, as they change due 1
management practices, cari be used to evaluate the soil quality of a giivt 1
ecosystem. Some relationships show that almost all the soil indicators re
interrelated supporting the ideal that there is no single indicator that cari ,uantify
a soil quality. These indicators ought to be considered together for a cc nplete
soil quality assessment. Use of a set of data, comprising a number of: )il
biochemical properties sensitive to management, disturbances, and inp :s to the
soil, is a critical first step for assessing soil quality.
Efforts to define ainc quantify

---

113
soi1 quality are not new, but reaching a consensus with regard to the specific
criteria required for its evaluation have been difficutt. This study has c:ontributed
to the understanding of soi1 quality by establishing a consensus with regard to a
set of standard conditions to be used for evaluation. What needs to be done in
terms of soil quatity is to develop a minimum data set which would be a set of
indicators that are temporacily and spatially representative of the soil status.
In
that way, this study could be expanded to a wider range of soils.
The approach
used for developing soil quality rating is a promising step towards a more
comprehensive assessment of soil quality.

---

114
Photograph 3.1, The Griffith ,tube for measuring soit aggregate stability.
Photograph 3.2. Pan assemby containing trays for collecting soi1 aggrSq des.

---

Table 3.1. Comparison of soi1 properties mean values among tillages.
.
Tillage Means
Soii Properties*
Moldboard Plow Chisei Plow
No-Till
Bulk Density (g cm-‘)
1.41 *O.l a
1.40 f 0.1 a
1.38 f 0.1 a
,,/‘,) > r i . ’
.
.’
Soi1 Penetrability (kgf cm”)
1.24 f 0.5 a
1.61 f 0.6 b
3.08kl1.2~
Final Infiltration Rate (cm hF’)
2.06&0.9b
2.7ik1.3~
1.26&0.6a
Seaiing index
1.77*0.4a
1.52 f 0.3 ab
1.23 f 0.2 bc
-&y .; y*..: 1 ’ . * . -4 3
Total Organic Carbon (%)
2.30 f 0.6 a
2.44 f 0.3 a
2.60 f 0.4 a
,.
>
’
Total Nitrogen (%)
0.31 f 0.1 a
0.30 f 0.1 a
0.33 f 0.1 b
Dissolved Organic Carbon (ppm)
57.00 f 16.1 a
58.61 f 12.9 a
82.31 AY 16.2 b
Microbial Biomass C (pg g-’ soil)
400.89 f 121.0 a
643.87 f 273.7 b
1008.63 f 148.9 c
Enzyme Activity (FDA) (pg g” soi1124 hr) 5.69 f 1.3 a
6.49 f 1.7 b
7.41 * 1.3 c
Soil Carbohydrates (LF and HF) (%)
1.84 f 0.4 a
2.00 f 0.4 a
4.33 f 1.4 b
Values withk each KM, followeû by the same ietter, aîe mi significaniiy different by Siuûeni-Newman-Keuis
range test at P = 0.05. FDA = fluorescein diacetate; LF = light fraction; HF = heavy fraction,
*Unless otherwise indicated, soil samples were collected at 0 to 7.5cm depth.
I
VI

---

Table 3.2. Comparison of soi1 properties mean values among trop rotations
Crop Rotation Means
Soi1 Properties*
Corn/Corn
Soybean/Soybean Corn/Soybean
CornlSoybeanMlheat
Bulk Density (g cm”)
1.38 f 0.7 a
1.41 f 0.1 a
1.38 f 0.1 a
1.40 f 0.1 a
Soi1 Penetrability (kgf cme2)
2.08 f 1.1 a
1.78*0.7a
2.16 f 1.6 a
1.88*0.8a
Final Infiltration Rate (cm ht--‘)
2.43 f 0.9 b
2.03& 1.6 a
2.03&l.Oa
1.56*0.8a
Seaiing inciex
1.62 f û.3 a
i.3i f û.i ab
i.58*0.2a
i.5 f 0.2 a
Total Organic Carbon (%)
2.45 f 0.3 b
2.34 f 0.6 ab
2.51 f 0.4 b
2.49 f 0.4 b
Total Nitrogen (%)
0.27 f 0.1 a
0.37 f 0.1 c
0.32 f 0.1 b
0.28 f 0.1 a
Dissolved Organic C (ppm)
70.51 f 12.9 b
60.68 f 14.2 a
58.43 f 19.9 a
74.27 f 23.3 bc
Microbial Biomass C (pg g“ soil)
614.46 f 336.7 a
685.89 f 314.7 a
808.46 f 251 .l b
628.24 f 338.7 a
Enzyme Activity (FDA) (pg g-’ soit/24 hr)
7.06 i 1.6 b
7.06 f 2.1 b
6.0,0~ 1.2 a
6.00 f 0.9 a
il 2 6
<x
’
1
.q * . I
Soil Carbohydrates (LF and HF) (%)
2.10 * 0.7 a
3i45 f 2.3 c
2.7;f 1.1 b
2.58 f 0.6 a b
Values within each row, followed by the same letter, are not significantly different by Student-Newman-Keuls range
testat? = 0.05. FDA = fluorescein diacetate; LF = light fraction; HF = heavy fraction
*
~. .~ .-.... .-. .-
.~...~.. .~-..~ .~
7.5-w-I_.I._ “-^- ..-.. ^_
^ _.X .-_. . . ~...^ . .._.. “-” ._l_-l . _l”-.-l.~ ^ ._.” _-.. - .

---

Table 3.3. Soil quality functions, indicators and ratings as related to soi1 erosion by water.
Functions
Indicators
Weights
No-till ““‘“w
Accommodate water entry
Infiltration
0.40
0.168
Facilitate water transport and absorption
Bulk density
0.05
0.006
0.005
0.005
Soi1 penetrability
0.05
0.005
0.026
0.032
Decrease erodibility
Sealing Index
0.225
0.083
0.050
. 0.023
I,q,.> ; / ,
,<
‘z .
Wesist degradation
Total Brganic Carbon
.
0.05
0.046
0.043
0.040
Dissolved organic c.arbon
0.05
0.045
0.033
0.032
Soi1 carbohydrates
0.05
0.046
0.021
0.018
Microbial biomass C
0.05
0.046
0.029
0.035
Enzyme activity (FDA)
0.05
0.046
0.040
0.020
I
Sustain plant growth
Total nitrogen
0,025
0.023
0.021
0.021
#‘.
, ., : Score
0.51

---

118
CCCP CCNT
SSNT
T
CSNT
CSWMP
SSCP
SSMP
T
CSCP
T-
0.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES i
t
Figure 3.1. Effect of managernent practices on soi1 resistance to pe
Bars represent standard deviations at each given mana
CCMP = corrkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-m
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT =
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; C
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; C
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = corn/so
chisel plow; CS\\NNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.
~

---

119
1.5
SSCP
CSWCP
CSCP
CSWMP
XMP
CCCP
T
SSNT CSMP
1.4
CCNT
T
h
c-3
CSNT
T
E
0
m
5: 1.3
k
CO
w
cl
s
1 1.1
m
1.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.2. Effect of management practices on soit bulk density.
Bars
represent standard deviations at each given management.
CCMP = corn/corn-moldboard plow; CCCP = corn/corn-chisel plow;
CCNT = corn/corn-no-tilt; SSMP = soybean/soybean-moldboard
plow; SSCP = soybean/soybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybean/
soybean-no-till; C:SMP = corn/soybean-moldboard plow; CSCP =
corn/soybean-chisel plow; CSNT = corn/soybean-no-till; CSWMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = corn/soybean /wheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

120
4.0
SSCP
T
3.0
:CMP
CSMP
CCCP
T
CSCP
C C N T
r
T
2.0
CSWMP
C
S W N
1.0
S S N T
0.0
.MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.3. Effect of management practices on final infiltration rate. B
s
represent standard deviations at each given management.
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chk
plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldb lrd
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybi
r-r/
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CZ
P=
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CS
rMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean
vheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-titi.

---

121
2.0 :CMP
CSMP
CSWMP
CSCP
T
CCCP CCNT SSMP
x 1.5
T
SSCP
T
CSNT
ri
T
CSWN
SSNT
3
T
r
5 1.0
w
CO
0.5
0.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.4. Effect of managernent practices on seafing index.
Bars
represent standard deviations at each given management.
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chisel plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldboard
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybean/
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CSCP =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CSWMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean /wheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

1 2 2
CSNT
T
SSNT
1
tCCMP
LT
CCNT
T SSMP
CSMP
T
T
MANAGEMENT PFWCTICES
Figui re 3.5. Effect of management practices on soi1 organic carbon.
B
represent standard deviations at each given management
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-ch
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-mol
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = SO
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow;
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till;
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybqa
chisel ~104; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.
~

---

123
0.5
SSNT
T
0.4
SSCP
CSNT
g
T
Y-
z
SSMP
-r
CCNT
CSMP
g 0.3
T
CCCP
2
!z
Z
9 0.2
2
z
0.1
0
AGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.6. Effect of management practices on soi1 total nitrogen. Bars
represent standard deviations at each given management.
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chiisel plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeanlsoybean-moldboard
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybean/
soybean-no-titi; CISMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CSCP =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CSWMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybeam /wheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

110
100
90
CSNT
CCNT
T
80
-l-
SSNT
:CMP
c
70
T
CCCP
:swMP
60
SSMP
SSCP
T
T
T
CSMP CSCP
50
T
40
30
20
10
0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.7. Effect of management practices on soi1 dissolved organic ca
Bars represent standard deviations at each given managem
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chise
low;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldbo
i
plow; SSCP = soybeanlsoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybez
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CSC
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CSV
,p=
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean /1
lest-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

1 2 5
CSVVN’
CSNT
S S N T
T
SSCP
800
600
CSMP CSCP
T
T
CCCP
400
200
0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.8. Effect of management practices on soi1 microbial biomass. Bars
represent standard deviations at each given management.
CCMP - cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chisel plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldboard
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybean/
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CSCP =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CSWMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean Jwheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

8.0
-
-
SSNT
6.0
5.0
4.0
C S N T
S W N
T
CCN-I
3.0
CSCP
C S M P T
2.0
1.0
0.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.9. Effect of managlement practices on soi1 carbohydrates. E3a
represent stand’ard deviations at each given management.
CCMP = corrkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornkorn-c’hk
I plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldb 3rd
plow; SSCP = soybeanlsoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybc In/
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CC :P =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CS dMP =
corn/bean/wheat-rnoldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean
tiheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

127
CCNT
T
SSNT
8.0
SSCP l-
CSNT
T
CCCP
SSMP
6.0
T
CSCP
4.0
2.0
0.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.10. Effect of management practices on fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis
in soils. Bars represent standard deviations at each given
management. CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard piow; CCCP = corn/
corn-chisel plow; CCNT = cornlcorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeanl
soybean-moldboard plow; SSCP = soybeanlsoybean-chisel plow;
SSNT = soybeankoybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-
mold board plow; CSCP = cornkoybean-chisel plow; CNSNT =
cor& soybean-no-till; CSWMP = corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow;
CSWCP = cornkoybean /wheat-chisel plow; CSWNT = con-r/
soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

128
CSNT
l-
SSNT
T
8 0
CSCP
CCNT
SSCP
6 0
CSMP
T
SSMP
4 0
2 0
0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Figure 3.11. Effect of management practices on P-glucosidase activity it goils.
Bars represent standard deviations at each given manager-t nt.
CCMP = cornkom-mold board plow; CCCP = cornkorn-chk
l
plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeanlsoybean-moldb
ird
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybc ni
soybean-no-till; (” ’
AMP = cornkoybean-moldboard plow; CZ
P =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CS
/MP =
corn/bean/whea,t-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean
Yheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

129
80
S S N T
T
SSCP
60
T
S S M P
50
T
40
30
20
10
0
MANAGEMENT PFWCTICES
Figure 3.12.. Effect of management practices on arylsulfatase activity in soils.
,Bars represent standard deviations at each management.
CCMP = cornkorn-moldboard plow; CCCP = cornlcorn-chisel plow;
CCNT = cornkorn-no-till; SSMP = soybeankoybean-moldboard
plow; SSCP = soybeankoybean-chisel plow; SSNT = soybeanl
soybean-no-till; CSMP = cornkoybean-mofdboard plow; CSCP =
cornkoybean-chisel plow; CSNT = cornkoybean-no-till; CSWMP =
corn/bean/wheat-moldboard plow; CSWCP = cornkoybean /wheat-
chisel plow; CSWNT = corn/soybean/wheat-no-till.

---

130
1.5c
?
?
?? - 0.000017x +1 Sl
? = 0.97
1.45
1.40
1.25
0 O b s e r v e d
- Predicted
1.20
4uuu
6000
8000
10000
12000
,
/
ENZYME ACTIVITY (ug/g soiK24 h)
/
I
/
Figure 3.13. Relationship between soi1 bulk density and fluorescein diacetbte
hydrolylitic activity a.s soil management changes.
I
I

---

1 3 1
ssFs(L 81.0. Bz U. SI. s3, Di
Figure 3.14. General shapes for standard scoring functions. The Upper left
indicates “more is bette?, the Upper right “an optimum range”, the
lower left “less is better”, and the lower right “an undesirable
range”. The letters L, B, U, and S refer to the lower threshold,
baseline, Upper threshold, and slope values, respectively.
The D
value would be the domain over which the function is described.
(adapted from Wymore, 1993 and SSSA, Special Publication
no. 35 with Permission).

---

/
132
/
3.9. References
Adem, H.H and J.M. Tisdall. 1984. Management of tillage and trop resid es for
double-cropping in fragile soils of south-eastern Australia. Soil Tillag Res.
41577-589.
Alberts, E.E and W.H. Neibling. 1994. Residue effects on soi1 physical
’
properties. In: Managing agricultural residues. pp. 20-39. P.W. Ungel [ed.],
Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Baligar, V.C. and R.J. Wright 1991. Enzyme activities in Appalachian SO 1s. 1.
j
Arylsulfatase. Comm. Solil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:305-315.
/
!
Baligar, V.C., T.E. Staley and J.R. Wright. 1991. Enzyme activities in
!
Appalachian soils. II. Urease. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:315-.32b.
Baver, L.D., W.H. Gardner, WR. Gardner. 1972. Soil physics. Fourth ed(t. John
Wiley & Sons, lnc., New York, NY.
/
Black, A.L. 1973. Soil property changes associated with trop residue
’
management in a wheat-falllow rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37,1943.
/
Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. 1986. Bulk density. pp.: 363-382. In: Meth ds of
soi1 analysis, Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronom si no. 9
(2nd Edition). Am. Soc. Ag. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
/
Blevins, R.L., M.S. Smith, G.W.. Thomas, and W.W. Frye. 1983. Influent of
conservation tillage on sioil properties. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38, 30 1 .
Bradford, J.M. 1986. Penetrability. pp.: 463-478. In: Methods of soi1 anal sis,
Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy no. 9 (2nd E 1ition).
Am. Soc. Agron. Soit Scii. Soc. Am.
I
Burns, R..G. and J.A. Davies. 1986. The microbiology of soi1 structure. Blol
Agric. Hort. 3:95-l 13.
I
/
Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederlbeck, R.P. Zeutner and G.P. Lafond. 1991a i Effect
of trop rotations and cultural practices oh soi1 microbial biomass an
respiration in a thin black Chernozem. Can. J. Soil Sci.
7
71:363-376. /
/
Carter, M.R. and B.A. $tewart. 1996. Structure and organic matter storape in
agricultural soils. In: Advanices in Soil Science. Lewis Publ., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.

---

133
Cheshire, M.V. 1979. Quantitative analysis of soit carbohydrate. pp.: 23-67. In:
Nature and origin of carbohydrates in soils. Academic Press, New York.
Diack, M. 1994. Residue decomposition of cotton, peanut and sorghurn. MS
thesis. Purdue Univers@, West Lafayette, IN.
Diack, M., D.E. Stott and R.P. Dick. 1996. Optimization of the fluorescein
diacetate hydrolysis assay in soils. Am. Soc. Agron. Abs. pp. 237.
Dick, R.P., D.D. Myrold and E.A. Kerle. 1988a. Microbial biomass and soil
enzyme activities in compacted and rehabilitated skid trail soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 52:512-516.
Doran, J.W.. 1980. Soil microbial and biochemical changes associated with
reduced tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 765.
Doran, J.W.. and M.S. Smith. ‘1987. Organic matter management and utilization
of soi1 and fertilizer nutrients. In: Soil fertility and organic matter as critical
components of production systems. R.F. Follet, J.W.B., Stewart and C.V.,
Cole [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 19:53-72. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.
Doran, J.W.. and T.B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing soi1 quality. In:
Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. J. W. Doran, D.C.
Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 353-21 ASA-
CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI.
Dubois, M., K.A. Gilles, J.K. Hamilton, P.A. Rebers and F. Smith. 1956. Phenol-
sulfuric acid assay. Anal. Chemistry. 28, 350.
Eivazi, F. and M.A. Tabatabai. 1988. Glucosidases and galactosidases in
soils Soil. Biol. Biochem. 20:601-606.
Frankenberger, W.T. ,Jr. and W.A. Dick. 1983. Relationships between enzyme
activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 47:945-951.
Gardner, W.H. 1986. Water content. pp.: 493-544. In: Methods of soil analysis,
Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy no. 9 (2nd Edition).
Am. Soc. Ag. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Ghildyal, B.P., R.P. Tripathi. 1987. Soil physics. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.

---

I
134
/
/
Golterman, H.L. 1970. Methcids for chemical analysis of fresh waters. IPII
Handbook no. 8 Blackwell, Oxford, England.
/
/
Gregorich, E.G., M.R. Carter,, D.A. Angers, C.M. Monreal, and B.H. Ellert.
1994. Towards a minimum data set to assess soil organic matter qu lity in
;1
agricultural soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 74:367-385.
j/
Griffith,D.L., J.V. Mannering and J.E. Box. 1986. Soil and moisture
I
management with reduced tillage. In: No-tillage and surface -tillage
agriculture: The tillage revolution. Sprague, M.A. and Triplet G.B., [e#s.J
I
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
I
Guerif, J.. 1979. Mechanical properties of straw: the effects on soil. In: S raw
decay and its effects on disposa1 and utilization. Grossbard, E. [ccl.] ohn
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
:
Hadas, A. 1987. Long-term tillage practice effects on soil aggregation m des
.q
and strength. Soil Sci.Soc. Am. J. 51:191-197.
Hairsine, P and G. McTainsh. 1986. The Griffith tube: a simple settlin91 t be for
the measurement of settling velocity of aggregates. AES working pa er
:
3/86. School of Australiasn Einvironmental Studies.
Harris, R.F. and D.F. Bezdicek. 1994. Descriptive aspects of soil quality/ ealth.
In: Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. J. W. Doran,
.C.
Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart [eds.]. Spec. Publ. 35: 123 35
d
ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.
Heard, J-R., E.J. Kladivko and J.V. Mannering. 1988. Soil macroporosity
hydraulic conductivity and air permeability of silty soils under long-te m
conservation tillage in Indian. Soil Tillage Res. II:I-? 8.
;
/
I
Hill, R.L. 1990. Long-term conventional and no-till effects on selected SO I
physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
[
/
Horwath, W.R. and E.A.. Paul. 11994. Determination of microbial biomass pp.
754-771. In: Methods of soil microbiological and biochemical prope iesn
analysis. R. W. Weaver, J. S. Angle and P.S. Bottomley [eds.]. SSS ,
~
Madison, WI.
,
Ivarson, K.C. and F.J. Sowden. 1962. Methods for the analysis of ca bo ydrate
4
material in soil. 1. .Colorimetric determination of uronic acid,
L
hexo, es ‘and
pentoses. Soi1 Science 9145245250.
l

---

135
Janzen, H. t-l. 1987a. Effect of fertiliser on soi1 productivity in long-term spring
wheat rotations. Can. J. Soi1 Sci. 67:165-174.
Janzen, H.H. l987b. Soi1 organic matter characteristics after long-term
cropping to various spring wheat rotations. Can. J. Soil Sci. 67:845-856.
Jenkinson, D.S. 1988. Determination of microbial carbon and nitrogen in soil.
pp. 368-386. In: J.B. Wilson [ed.] Advances in nitrogen cycling. CA,B
International, Wallingford, England.
Karlen, L.D. and D.E. Stott. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and
c’hemical indicators of soil quality, In: Defining soil quality for a sustainable
environment. J. W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. Stewart
[eds.]. SSSA Special publication 3553-72.
Kay, B.D. 1990. Rates of changes of soil structure under different cropping
systems. Adv. Soil Sci. 12:1-52.
Kemper, W.D. and R.C. Roseneau. Aggregate stability and size distribution. pp.
425-442. In: Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. Physical and mineralogical
methods. Agronomy no. 9 (2nd Edition). Am. Soc. Ag. Soif Sci. Soc. Am.
Kladivko, E,.J. 1993, Earthworms and trop management. Cooperative
extension service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Kladivko, E..J. 1994. Residue effects on soil physical properties. In: Managing
agricukural residues. pp. 123-141. P.W. Unger [ed.], Lewis Publ., CRC
Press, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Ladd, J.N. 1978. Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. pp,. 107-
124. In: Origin and range of enzymes in soils. pp. 51-96. In: R.G. t3urns
[ed.]. Soil enzymes. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Lal, R., D. De Vleeschauwer and R.M. Nganje. 1980. Changes in properties of
a newly cleared tropical Atfïsol as affected by mulching. Soil Sci Soc. Am. J.
44,827.
Larney, FJ. and E.J. Kladivko. 1989. Soil strength properties under four tillage
systems at three long-term study sites in Indiana. Soil Sci Soc. Arn. J.
53: 1539-I 545.

---

136
Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1991. Conservation and enhancement of $oil
quality. pp. 175-203. In: Evaluation for sustainable land managemer$ in the
devefoping world. Int. Board Soil Res. and Management (IBSRAM). irac.
12, Z!. Bangkok, Thailand.
Larson, \\N.E. and F.J. Pierce. a994. The dynamics of soi1 quality as a m$asure
of smstainable management. In: Defining soi1 quality for a sustainabl
environment. J. W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek and B.A. t
S,ewart
[eds,.]. Spec. Publ. 35: 3’7-51. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI.
Lyon, T.D., H-0. Buckman, N. Brady. 1959. The nature and properties of soils.
A college text of edaphy. Fifth edit. McMillan Company, New York, VY.
Martens, D.A., J.B. Johanson and W.T,. Frankenberger, Jr. 1992. Produ&on and
persistence of soi1 enzyrnes with repeated additions of organic residbes. Soil
Sci. 153:53-61.
Meek, B..D., EI.R. Rechel, L.M. Carter, W.R. DeTar and A.L. Urie. 1992. :
Infiltration rate of a sandy loam soil: effects of traffic, tillage and plat-$ roots.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:908-913.
Monnier, G., L. Turc, and Jeanson-Lusinang. 1962. Une méthode de
fractiionnement densimétrique par centrifugation des matières organiques
du sol. Ann. Agron. 1355-63.
Nearing, M.A., L. Deer-Ascough and J.M Laflen. 1990b. Sensitivity analisis of
the WEPP hillslope profile erosion model. Trans. ASAE 33:839-849.1
Oades, J.M. ‘1972. Studies on soi1 polysaccharides: III. Composition of
polysaccharides in some Australian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 10:113-126.
Parr, J.F., R.I. Papendick, S.B. Hormick, and R.E. Meyer. 1992. Soil qu&ity:
attributes and relationships to alternative and sustainable agriculturd. In:
Am. J. Alt. pp. 5-11.
Perrucci, P. 1992. Enzyme activity and microbial biomass in a fïeld soi1
amended with municipal refuse. Biol. Fet-t. Soils. ii4:54-60.
Rennie, D.A.., E. Truog and O.N. Allen. 1954. Soil aggregation as influerhced by
microbial gums, level of fertility and kind of trop. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. @c.
18:399-403.
I

---

137
Rice, C.W., M.S. Smith. 1984. Short-term immobilization of fertilizer nitrogen at
the surface of no-tilled and ptowed soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 295.
Soane, B.D. 1990. The role of organic matter in soil compactability: a review of
some practical aspects. Soil Tillage Res. 16, 179.
Schreiber, M.M. 1992. influence of tillage, trop rotation and weed management
on Giant Foxtail (Setaria faben) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed
Sci. Soc:. Am. 40:645-653.
Skujins, J. 1967. Enzymes in soit. in: A.D. McLaren and G.H. Peterson, [eds.].
pp. 371-407. Soi1 Biochemistry. Marc Dekker Publ. New York, NY.
Stewart, B.A. 1992. Advances in Soil Science 20, 1 Spring-Verlag New York,
NY.
Steiner, J. L. 1994. Residue effects on soit physical properties. In: Managing
agricultural residues. pp. 42-76. P.W. Unger [ed.], Lewis Pubt., CRC Press,
Ann Arbor, Ml.
Stott, E.D. and J.P. Martin. 1990. Synthesis and degradation of natural and
synthetic humic material in soits.. In: Am. Soc. Agron. and Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
[ed.]. Humic substances in soil and trop sciences: selected readings. pp. 37-
63.
Stott, E.D. 1993. Mass and C loss from corn and soybean residues as
associated with their chemical composition. Agronomy Abstract pp. 267.
Stott, E.D. 1996. Impact of decaying plant residues and gums on aggregate
stability and rill erosion. Agron. Abs. pp. 237.
Strickland, T.C. and P. Sollins.. 1987. Improved method for separating light- and
heavy-fraction organic matter material from soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.. J.
51:1390-l 393.
Tabatabai, M.A., and J.M. Bremner. 1970. Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 34:225-229.
Tiessen, H. and J.W.B. Stewart. 1983. Particle-size fractions and their use in
studies of soil organic matter. Il. Cultivation effects on organic matter
composition in size fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47509-514.

---

138
Tisdall, J.M. 1996. Formation of soi1 aggregates and accumulation of soi]
carbon. In: Structure and organic matter storage in agricultural soils.; In:
Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.,
Tyler, D.D., J.R. Overton, anid A.Y. Chambers. 1983. Tillage effects of sc/d
properties, diseases, cyst nematodes and soybeans yield. 38, 374.
Unger, P.W. ‘1984. Tillage and residue effects on wheat, sorghum and
sunflower grown in rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 885.
Wymore, A.W. 1993. Model-based systems engineering: an introduction/ to the
mathematical theory of discrete systems and to the tricotyledon theojry of ’
system design. CRC. Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Zachmann, J-E., D.R. Linden and C.E. Clapp. 1987’. Macroporous infiltr :ion and
redistribution as affectecl by earthworms, tillage and residue. Soil S
Soc.. Am. J. 51, 1580.

---

APPENDICES

---

139
Table A. Moisture content on the IPIvl plots
Samples
Can # Can wt(g) !?oil+can(g) Dry soil+can(g) Dly soit(g) Moisture(g) i%Moisture
Rep2 Pi3 A B-101
62.82
344.14
297
234.18
47.14
20.13
Rep2 P13 A
B-31
63.68
390.72
341.29
277.61
49.43
17.81
Rep2 PI3 A B-130
61.73
343.95
298.25
236.52
45.7
19.32
Rep2 PlZ! A
8-70
63.3
348.95
298.93
235.63
50.02
21.23
Rep2 P13 B B-116
63.59
385.87
311.49
247.9
74.38
30.00
Rep2 P131 B E3-46
62.48
427.04
352.54
290.06
74.5
25.68
Rep2 P131 6 B-141
63.33
396.72
341.05
277.72
55.67
20.05
Rep2 P131 B B-14
63.21
441.88
359.17
295.96
82.71
27.95
Rep2 P12. A B-l 16
63.59
312.29
266.08
202.49
46.21
22.82
Rep2 P12. A B-l 12
63.14
:269.8
231.4
168.26
38.4
22.82
Rep2 P12: A
20
64.12
281.72
239.13
175.01
42.59
24.34
Rep2 P12: A
2
66.47
287.74
241.07
174.6
46.67
26.73
Rep2 P12: B B-100
61.31
311.8
260.69
199.38
51.11
25.63
Rep2 P12: B E3-14
63.21
308.46
252.97
189.76
55.49
29.24
Rep2 P12: B E3-28
63.3
309.1
257.59
194.29
51.51
26.51
Rep2 P12: B B-132
61.73
343.62
269.6
207.87
74.02
35.61
Rep2 P2 A
AB-24
62.6
353.38
300.31
237.71
53.07
22.33
Rep2 P2 A
AB-9
63.23
330.36
285.25
222.02
45.11
20.32
Rep2 P2 A AB-13
65.81
347.45
301.1
235.29
46.35
19.70
Rep2 P2 A At3-10
61.6
328.93
280.18
218.58
48.75
22.30
Rep2 P2 B
AB-55
61.82
324.16
285.09
223.27
39.07
17.50
Rep2 P2 H
AB-47
63.14
377.55
329.18
266.04
48.37
18.18
Rep2 P2 13
AB-91
63.13
371.23
323.19
260.06
48.04
18.47
Rep2 P2 B
AB-78
63.76
331.76
289.58
225.82
42.18
18.68
Rep2 P14. A f3-141
63.33
336.05
296.49
233.16
39.56
16.97
Rep2 Pl4. A
E3-66
62.37
248.05
217.63
155.26
30.42
19.59
Rep2 P14. A E3-25
62.95
320.49
277.28
214.33
43.21
20.16
Rep2 Pl4. A
f3-33
62.36
285.74
256.11
193.75
29.63
15.29
Rep2 P14. B 13-40
62.73
287.85
246.86
184.13
40.99
22.26
Rep2 Pl4. B
91
62.87
348.89
307.41
244.54
41.48
16.96
Rep2 P14. B A.B-75
63.63
316.54
278.02
214.39
38.52
17.97
RepX P14 B AB-52
63.61
258.99
222.73
159.12
36.26
22.79
Rep2 PlCI A 13-61
62.24
395.77
342.69
280.45
53.08
18.93
Rep2 PlC) A
33
65.23
440
375.42
310.19
64.58
20.82
Rep2 P 1 C) A
B-25
62.95
359.12
312.1
249.15
47.02
18.87
Rep2 PlC) A An-1 1
63.62
372.3
322.01
258.39
50.29
19.46
Rep2 PICI B 13-82
66.67
412.47
356.62
289.95
55.85
19.26
Rep2 PlO B
58
63.74
382.34
325.69
261.95
56.65
21.63
Rep2 PI 0 B B-l 06
61.07
429.3
369.54
308.47
59.76
19.37
Rep2 PIC) B D-05
62.73
405.5
350.81
288.08
54.69
18.98
Rep2 Pl .A
B-46
62.48
369.8
329.13
266.65
40.67
15.25
Rep2 PI A
n-100
61.31
358.73
311.95
250.64
46.78
18.66
Rep2 Pl A
B-28
63.3
361.56
318.12
254.82
43.44
17.05
Rep2 Pl A B-1111
63.47
341.29
303.4
239.93
37.89
15.79
Rep2 Pl B
B-l 30
61.73
346.88
300.98
239.25
45.9
19.18
Rep2 PI B
B-l 32
61.73
363.12
312.37
250.64
50.75
20.25
Rep2 PI B
B-l 5
61.58
385.08
332.27
270.69
52.8'1 I
19.51
I

---

140
Rep2 Pl B
B-73
62.4
344.08
295.22
232.82
48.86
20.99
Rep2 Pi5 A
20
64.12
374.2
303.29
239.17
70.91
29.65
Rep2 PI5 A
47
36.82
251.47
202.03
165.21
49.44
29.93
Rep2 P15 A
91
62.87
318.69
260.89
198.02
57.8
29.19
Rep2 PI5 A
15
63.44
332.39
266.14
202.7
66.25
32.68
Rep2 P15 B
31
66.84
344.21
276.45
209.61
67.76
32.33
Rep2P15B
46
64.72
343.93
291.8
227.08
52.53
22.96
Rep2 PI5 B
53
37.17
229.82
170.08
132.91
59.74
44.95
Rep2 PI5 B
33
65.23
285.87
224.07
158.84
61.8
38.91
Rep2 P6 A
B-31
‘63.68
378.07
317.79
254.11
60.28
23.72
Rep2 P6 A
B-28
63.3
350.27
293.67
230.37
56.6
24.57
Rep2 iP6 A
B-140
63.38
311.48
261.6
198.22
49.88
25.j6
Rep2 P6 A
B-100
61.31
353.66
292.76
231.45
60.9
26.31
Rep2 P6 B
B-18
62.51
350.18
285.78
223.27
64.4
28.84
Rep2 P6 B
B-l 12
63.14
319.63
271.17
208.03
48.46
23.29
Rep2 P6 B
B-104
62.59
364.51
298.04
235.45
56.47
23.98
Rep2 P6 B
B-l 32
61.73
328.78
271.03
209.3
57.75
27.59
Rep2 P5 A
AB-14
62.99
453.81
370.84
307.85
82.97
26.95
Rep2 P5 A
91
62.87
347.55
299
236.13
48.55
20.56
Rep2 P5 A
B-40
62.73
343.01
299.5
236.77
43.51
18.38
Rep2 P5 A
AB-55
61.82
375.18
311.21
249.39
63.97
25.65
Rep2 P5 B
AB-39
63.82
344.97
283.23
219.41
61.74
28.14
Rep2 P5 6
AB-47
63.14
264.56
235.71
172.57
48.85
28.31
Rep2 P5 B
AB-52
63.61
343.73
300.2
236.59
43.53
78.40
Rep2 PS B
AB-75
63.63
391.32
334.99
271.36
56.33
20.76
Rep2 P3 A
B-79
61.71
303.72
252.31
190.6
51.41
26.97
Rep2 P3 A
B-101
62.82
292.9
248.9
186.08
44
23.65
Rep2 P3 A
B-38
62.92
302.81
257.06
194.14
45.75
23.57
Rep2 P3 B
AB-43
62.67
303.69
259.74
197.07
43.95
22.30
Rep2 P3 B
B-1111
63.47
367.33
319.47
256
47.86
18.70
Rep2 P3 B
B-73
62.4
325.53
273.28
210.88
52.25
24.78
Rep2 P3 B
B-46
62.48
342.66
274.34
211.86
68.32
32.25
Rep2 P7 A
B-l 8
62.51
352.93
312.76
250.25
40.17
16.05
Rep2 P7 A
B-27
62.93
356.09
302.7
239.77
53.39
22.27
Rep2 P7 A
B-38
62.92
373.58
328.99
266.07
44.59
16.76
Rep2 P7 A
B-140
63.38
370.64
330.2
266.82
40.44
15.16
Rep2 P7 B
B-14
63.21
387.13
334.85
271.64
52.28
19.25
Rep2 P7 B
B-112
63.14
358.64
309.98
246.84
48.66
19.71
Rep2 P7 B
B-116
63.59
380.88
338.39
274.8
42.49
15.46
Rep2 P7 B
B-79
61.71
351.21
309.04
247.33
42.17
17.05
Rep2 P4 A
B-23
62.53
356.22
308.45
245.92
47.77
19.43
Rep2 P4 A
B-85
62.6
348.5
302.37
239.77
46.13
19.24
Rep2 P4 A
B-54
66.1
352.12
301.63
235.53
50.49
21.44
Rep2 P4 A
B-70
63.3
375.25
329.63
266.33
45.62
17.13
Rep2 P4 B
911
64.12
405.18
359.88
295.76
45.3
15.32
Rep2 P4 B
B-29
62.32
362.23
322.95
260.63
39.28
15.07
Rep2 P4 B
B-42
62.59
337.83
287.27
224.68
50.56
22.50
Rep2 P4 B
c-22
63.66
327.18
288.06
224.4
39.12
17.43

---

141
Table A. Confinued
Samples
Can # Can wt(g) !Zioil+can(g) Dry soil+can(g] Dry soil(g) Moisture(g
%Moisture
Rep3 PI3 A AB-I 05
61.6
398.22
346.61
285.01
51.61
18.11
Rep3 P13 A
k\\B-43
62.67
410.78
366.02
303.35
44.76
14.76
Rep3 P13 A
AB-52
63.61
414.4
371.99
308.38
42.41
1 3 . 7 5
Rep3 P13A AB-107
60.65
389.03
339.99
279.34
49.04
17.56
Rep3 P13 B
B-54
66.1
385.98
348.72
282.62
37.26
13.18
Rep3 Pi3 B
B-28
63.3
391
347.09
283.79
43.91
15.47
Rep3 PI3 B
B-42
62.59
4,21.66
378.87
316.28
42.79
13.53
Rep3 PI3 B
B-79
67.71
389.02
347.26
285.55
41.76
14.62
Rep3 PI2 A
8-54
66.1
271.47
246.49
180.39
24.98
13.85
Rep3 PI2 A
B-42
62.59
319.75
274.5
211.91
45.25
21.35
Rep3 PI2 A
Eh106
61.07
299.72
247.91
186.84
51.81
27.73
Rep3 Pi2 A
m-91
63.13
364.4
308.4
245.27
56
22.83
Rep3 PI2 B
IB-61
62.24
295.95
253.48
191.24
42.47
22.21
Rep3 P12 B
IB-82
66.67
327.01
288.96
222.29
38.05
17.12
Rep3 Pi2 B AB-105
61.6
287.71
247.81
186.21
39.9
21.43
Rep3 PI2 B
AB-78
63.76
303.78
257.71
193.95
46.07
23.75
Rep3 P2 A
AB-144
62.99
330.89
289.01
226.02
41.88
18.53
Rep3 P2 A
PIB-89
63.15
372.66
318.67
255.52
53.99
21.13
Rep3 P2 A
AB-75
63.63
383.1
334.66
271.03
48.44
17.87
Rep3 P2 A
AB-9 1
63.13
333.14
286.66
223.53
46.48
20.79
Rep3 P2 E3
B-l 16
63.59
369.12
315.96
252.37
53.16
21.06
Rep3 P2 E3
13-40
62.73
361.38
317.46
254.73
43.92
17.24
Rep3 P2 E3
El-731
63.46
394.58
333.76
270.3
60.82
22.50
Rep3 P2 E3
13-27
62.93
389.13
344.05
281.12
45.08
16.04
Rep3 PI4 A B-1111
63.47
362.05
330.53
267.06
31.52
11.80
Rep3 PI4 A
13-28
63.3
333.79
304.7
241.4
29.09
12.05
Rep3 PI4 A
13-79
61.71
317.69
289.04
227.33
28.65
12.60
Rep3 Pi4 A
13-15
61.58
379.76
341.86
280.28
37.9
13.52
Rep3 Pi4 B
IB-73
62.4
327.2
287.27
224.87
39.93
17.76
Rep3 P14 B
El-l 04
62.59
377.54
326.25
263.66
51.29
19.45
Rep3 PI4 B
B-38
62.92
359.07
316.99
254.07
42.08
16.56
Rep3 PI4 B
B-l 02
61.73
327.37
290.42
228.69
36.95
16.16
Rep3 Pi0 A
El-116
63.59
314.19
275.79
212.2
38.4
18.10
Rep3 PI 0 A
l%-79
61.71
383.35
340.96
279.25
42.39
15.18
Rep3 PI0 A
B-61
62.24
331.18
280.05
217.81
51.13
23.47
Rep3 PlOA
B-25
62.95
383.46
331.92
268.97
51.54
19.16
Rep3 Pi0 B
2
66.47
345.04
298.58
232.1?
46.46
20.02
Rep3 PlO B AB-114
63.62
:327.3
281.71
218.09
45.59
20.90
Rep3 PlO B
46
64.72
316.51
272.48
207.76
44.03
21.19
Rep3 PI0 B
B-54
66.1
371.19
317.6
251.5
53.59
21.31
Rep3 Pl A
B-14
63.21
342.84
289
225.79
53.8,4
23.85
Rep3 PI A
B-31
63.68
355.03
300.42
236.74
54.61
23.07
Rep3 Pl A
B-130
61.73
342.02
286.85
225.12
55.17
24.51
Rep3 PI A
B-73
62.4
i372.8
312.15
249.75
60.65
24.28
Rep3 PI l3
B-l 00
61.31
316.71
274.62
213.31
42.09
19.73
Rep3 Pl B
B-85
62.6
334.03
288.59
225.99
45.44
20.11
Rep3 Pi B
B-l 32
61.73
336.52
283.67
221.94
52.85
23.81

---

142
Rep3 PI 6
B-82
66.67
391.47
332.12
265.45
59.35
22.36
Rep3 P15A
B-l 32
61.73
322.01
275.81
214.08
46.2
21.58
Rep3 P15 A
B-46
62.48
343.97
286.04
223.56
57.93
25.91
Rep3 P15 A
B-100
61.31
353.05
305.92
244.61
47.13
19.27
Rep3 P15 A
B-79
61.71
349.39
280.8
219.09
68.591
31.31
Rep3 P15 B
D-l 1
63.98
341.93
295.76
231.78
46.17
19.92
Rep3 PI5 B
B-28
63.3
329.18
273.52
210.22
55.66
26.48
Rep3 PI5 B
B-140
36.38
365.1 'l
305.62
269.24
59.49
22.10
Rep3 P15 B
B-105
62.82
363.58
296.23
233.41
67.35
28.85
Rep3 P6 A
B-18
62.51
345.8
284.67
222.16
61.13
27.52
Rep3 P6 A
B-111
63.47
302.15
254.98
191.51
47.17
24.63
Rep3 P6 A
B-73
62.4
354.32
301.42
239.02
52.9
22.13
Rep3 P6 A
B-31
63.68
350.47
291.91
228.23
58.56
25.66
Rep3 P6 B
B-l 5
61.58
345.7
298.9
237.32
46.8
19.72
Rep3 P6 B
B-l 04
62.59
312.34
269.82
207.23
42.52
20.52
Rep3 P6 B
B-38
62.92
350.78
303.29
240.37
47.49
19.76
Rep3 P6 B
B-l 12
63.14
351.97
294.2
231.06
57.7/
25.00
Rep3 P5 A
B-140
63.38
334.34
288.71
225.33
45.63
20.25
Rep3 P5 A
B-33
62.36
327.46
281.06
218.7
46.4
21.22
Rep3 P5 A
911
64.12
318.89
279.18
215.06
39.711
i8.46
Rep3 P5 A
B-18
62.51
364.28
311.08
248.57
53.2
27.40
Rep3 P5 B
B-l 12
63.14
353.1
319.04
255.9
34.06
13.31
Rep3 P5 E3
B-l 00
61.31
418.76
368.25
306.94
50.511
16.46
Rep3 P5 E3
B-27
62.93
323.88
281.06
218.13
42.82
19.63
Rep3 P5 B
B-66
62.37
349.09
296.47
234.1
52.62
22.48
Rep3 P3 A
B-23
62.53
261.56
221.73
159.2
39.83
25.02
Rep3 P3 A
114
62.98
298.98
243.09
180.11
55.89
31.03
Rep3 P3 A
B-l 16
63.59
281.97
231.21
167.62
50.76
30.28
Rep3 P3 A
96
62.28
278.6
240.01
177.73
38.59
21.71
Rep3 P3 B
AB-52
63.61
321.46
277.23
213.62
44.23
20.70
Rep3 P3 B
AB-9
63.23
330.15
276.79
213.56
53.36
24.99
Rep3 P3 B
B-85
62.6
359.8
307.16
244.56
52.64
21.52
Rep3 P3 B
AB-135
65.81
385.11
320.64
254.83
64.47
25.30
Rep3 P7 A
AB-91
63.13
355.79
305.11
241.98
50.68
20.94
Rep3 P7 A
Ai3-47
63.14
355.75
303.36
240.22
52.39
21.81
Rep3 P7 A
B-61
62.24
365.69
312.37
250.13
53.32
21.32
Rep3 P7 A
AB-55
61.82
401.25
340.21
278.39
61.04
21.93
Rep3 P7 f3
AB-43
62.67
351.74
295.69
233.02
56.0!5
24.05
Rep3 P7 B
AB-144
62.99
362.83
306.49
243.5
56.34
23.14
Rep3 P7 B
96
62.28
381.49
327.6
265.32
53.89
20.31
Rep3 P7 B
AB-9
63.23
373.37
315.61
252.38
57.76
22.89
Rep3 P4 A
B-23
62.53
402.21
361.07
298.54
41.14
13.78
Rep3 P4 A
46
64.72
400.58
362.19
297.47
38.39
1 2 . 9 1
Rep3 P4 A
B-70
63.3
429.54
379.48
316.18
50.06
15.83
Rep3 P4 A
B-29
62.32
423.82
371.94
309.62
51.88
16.76
Rep3 P4 f3
47
36.82
334.22
297.06
260.24
37.16
14.28
Rep3 P4 B
B-38
62.92
463.49
414.07
351.15
49.42
14.07
Rep3 P4 B
F-l
66.25
445.6
395.6
329.35
50
15.18
Rep3 P4 B
32
36.65
336.31
297.47
260.82
38.84
14.89

---

143
Table A. Continued
Samples
Can # Can wt(g) Soil+can(g) Dry soil+can(g) Dry soil(g) Moisture(g) /a% Moisture
Rep4P13A Es-106
61.07
354.61
302.67
241.6
51.94
21.50
Rep4 P13A Es-101
62.82
336.75
293.23
230.41
43.52
18.89
Rep4PlfiA
B-40
62.73
379.34
332.71
269.98
46.63
17.27
Rep4 Pl3A B-1111
63.58
354.07
304.11
240.53
49.96
20.77
Rep4Pl3B
B-79
61.71
403.16
358.54
296.83
44.62
15.03
Rep4 P13 B El-104
62.59
380.37
333.14
270.55
47.23
17.46
Rep4P13B Es-100
61.31
379.77
337.36
276.05
42.41
15.36
Rep4P13B
B-27
62.93
398.5
360.27
297.34
38.23
12.86
Rep4 Pi2 A Es-112
63.14
322.22
256.78
193.64
65.44
33.79
Rep4 Plî! A Es-130
61.73
260.04
226.52
164.79
33.52
20.34
Rep4 P12A :B-15
61.58
288.99
238.01
176.43
50.98
28.90
Rep4 Pi2 A IB-31
63.68
358.55
264.27
200.59
94.28
47.00
Rep4 P12 B Es-141
63.33
318.05
262.41
199.08
55.64
27.95
Rep4P12 B
18-54
66.1
329.21
278.43
212.33
50.78
23.92
Rep4 P12 B Es-140
63.38
310.9
231.17
167.79
79.73
47.52
Rep4P12 B
IB-61
62.24
293
242.21
179.97
50.79
28.22
Rep4P2A
ID-29
62.32
385.73
333.8
271.48
51.93
19.13
Rep4P2A
IB-42
62.59
349.85
295.04
232.45
54.81
23.58
Rep4 P2A
E1-132
61.73
352.67
301.72
239.99
50.95
21.23
Rep4 P2A
IB-66
62.37
400.5
340.62
278.25
59.88
21.52
Rep4 P213
B-70
63.3
325.41
275.46
212.16
49.95
23.54
Rep4P2B
13-18
62.51
376.58
314.96
252.45
61.62
24.41
Rep4 P2H
13-82
66.67
.357.7
313.91
247.24
43.79
17.71
Rep4P2 13
13-38
62.92
301.01
257.14
194.22
43.87
22.59
Rep4 P14.A
13-14
63.21
365.24
305.93
242.72
59.31
24.44
Rep4 Pl4A
13-23
62.53
273.63
239.56
177.03
34.07
19.25
Rep4 P14. A
13-73
62.4
337.7
284.91
222.51
52.79
23.72
Rep4Pl4A
13-28
63.3
308.96
257.79
194.49
51.17
26.31
Rep4 P14. B
13-85
62.6
372.46
319.54
256.94
52.92
20.60
Rep4P14 B
13-25
62.95
342.32
294.68
231.73
47.64
20.56
Rep4 P14. B
IB-33
62.36
333.95
285.41
223.05
48.54
21.76
Rep4 P14t B Ej-116
63.59
400.53
342.73
279.14
57.8
20.71
Rep4 PlOA lB-46
62.48
399.18
349.57
287.09
49.61
17.28
Rep4 PIOA AB-144
62.99
380.05
334.31
271.32
45.74
16.86
Rep4 PIOA AB-55
61.82
379.42
328.48
266.66
50.94
19.10
Rep4PlOA AB-114
63.62
394.8
346.69
283.07
48.11
17.00
Rep4 PI0 B Es-731
63.46
348.73
305.89
242.43
42.84
17.67
Rep4 PIC) B AB-91
63.13
337.77
296.62
233.49
41.15
17.62
Rep4PlO B AB-43
62.67
344.7
307.83
245.16
36.87
15.04
Rep4PlOB 9 1
62.87
377.32
335.04
272.17
42.28
15.53
Rep4 Pl.4
f\\B-89
63.15
393
343.84
280.69
49.16
17.51
Rep4 Pl.4 58
63.74
376.06
328.39
264.65
47.67
18.01
Rep4 PI A
114
62.98
397.28
351.28
288.3
46
15.96
Rep4 Pl A
D-05
62.73
379.12
334.97
272.24
44.15
16.22
Rep4PIB 3 1
66.84
380.57
336.09
269.25
44.48
16.52
Rep4PlB
2
66.47
363.58
334.55
268.08
29.03
10.83
Rep4 Pl B
F-2
63.76
378.46
336.61
272.85
41.85
15.34

---

144
Rep4 PI B
AB-47
63.14
344.31
305.66
242.52
38.65
15.94
Rep4 PI5 A
004
66.25
379.15
300.8
234.55
78.35
33.40
Rep4 P15 A
F-3
65.42
369.5
297.18
231.76
72.32
31.20
Rep4 PI5 A
D-l 1
63.98
334.5
259.62
195.64
74.88
38.27
Rep4 Pi5 A
c-122
63.11
378.75
293.22
230.11
85.53
37.17
Rep4 PI5 B
117
62.92
359.31
282.12
219.2
77.19
35.21
Rep4 PI5 B AB-107
60.65
301.36
235.92
175.27
65.44
37.34’
Rep4 PI5 B AB-105
61.6
371.69
289.17
227.57
82.52
36.26
Rep4 P15 B
D-07
61.64
374.23
286.71
225.07
87.52
38.89
Rep4 P6 A
B-70
63.3
339.96
281.7
218.4
58.26
26.68
Rep4 P6 A
B-l 5
61.58
363.38
301.71
240.13
61.67
25.68
Rep4 P6 A
B-25
62.95
355.99
297.83
234.88
58.16
24.76
Rep4 P6 A
B-46
62.48
365.57
307.35
244.87
58.22
23.78
Rep4 P6 B
B-116
63.59
348.64
285.15
221.56
63.49
28.66
Rep4 P6 E3
B-28
63.3
397.92
321.19
257.89
76.73
29.75
Rep4 P6 B
B-61
62.24
345.69
275.75
213.51
69.94
32.76
Rep4 P6 B
B-54
66.1
328.89
273.38
207.28
55.51
26.78
Rep4 P5 A
AB-39
63.82
333.64
277.77
213.95
55.87
26.11
Rep4 P5 A
AB-75
63.63
414.74
352.87
289.24
61.87
21.39
Rep4 P5 A
40
37.1
288.48
246.31
209.21
42.17
20.16
Rep4 P5 A
c-22
63.66
379.58
324.39
260.73
55.19
21.17
Rep4 P5 B
AB-135
65.81
339.42
281.32
215.51
58.1
26.96
Rep4 P5 B
911
64.12
357.47
309.04
244.92
48.43
19.77
Rep4 P5 B
20
64.12
352.97
297.0%
232.96
55.89
23.99
Rep4 P5 B
AB-78
63.76
358.63
301.91
238.15
56.72
23.82
Rep4 P3 A
AB-55
61.82
375.07
306.5
244.6%
68.57
28.02
Rep4 P3 A
AB-91
63.13
294.11
226.26
163.13
67.85
41.59
Rep4 P3 A
D-05
62.73
323.92
255.3
192.57
68.62
35.63
Rep4 P3 A
AB-89
63.15
392.02
311.18
248.03
80.84
32.59
Rep4 P3 A
B-79
61.71
351.08
292.71
231
58.37
25.27
Rep4 P3 A
B-31
63.68
382.65
301.78
238.1
80.87
33.96
Rep4 P3 A
B-1111
63.47
353.8
289.98
226.51
63.82
28.18
Rep4 P3 A
B-38
62.92
338.89
265.91
202.99
72.98
35.95
Rep4 P7 A
AB-114
63.62
385.25
337.1
273.48
48.15
17.61
Rep4 P7 A
24
63.19
355.03
314.45
251.26
40.58
16.15
Rep4 P7 A
17
66.47
412.79
361.32
294.85
51.47
17.46
Rep4 P7 A
12
65.64
424.9
369.51
303.87
55.39
18.23
Rep4 P7 B
58
63.74
373.31
328.51
264.77
44.8
16.92
Rep4 P7 B
31
66.84
373
323.11
256.27
49.89
19.47
Rep4 P7 B
B-62
64.16
367.75
321.04
256.88
46.71
18.18
Rep4 P7 B
B-73
62.4
393.49
333.93
271.53
59.56
21.93
Rep4 P4 A
B-79
61.71
380.17
333.47
271.76
46.7
17.18
Rep4 P4 A
B-l 5
61.58
367.29
316.35
254.77
50.94
19.99
Rep4 P4 A
B-46
62.48
375.03
321.99
259.51
53.04
20.44
Rep4 P4 A
B-104
62.59
382.14
343.89
281.3
38.25
13.60
Rep4 P4 l3
B-40
62.73
363.59
321.86
259.13
41.73
16.10
Rep4 P4 B
B-25
62.95
293.68
264.68
201.73
29
14.38
Rep4 P4 B
B-116
63.59
383.35
336.75
273.16
46.6
17.06
Rep4 P4 l3
B-54
66.1
356.73
325.5
259.4
31.23
12.04

---

145
Table B. Bulk density on the IPM plots
Samples
R..int.diam.(cm) R. ht (cm) Soi1 vol.(cm3) Dry soil wt (g) BD (gIcm3)
Rep2 P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
88.01
1.28
Rep2 PI3 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.27
1.33
Rep2 Pi3 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.73
1.34
Rep2 P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
86.73
1.26
Rep2 P13 B
5.4
3
68.67
85
1.24
Rep2 PI3 B
5.4
3
68.67
89.12
1.30
Rep2 PI3 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.44
1.36
Rep2 P13 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.79
1.37
Rep2 PI2 A
5.4
3
68.67
98.89
1.44
Rep2 Pl2: A
5.4
3
68.67
101.99
1.49
Rep2 Pl2: A
5.4
3
68.67
91.21
1.33
Rep2 PI2 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.85
1.45
Rep2 PI2 B
5.4
3
68.67
75.96
1.11
Rep2 P12 B
5.4
3
68.67
88.19
1.28
Rep2 P12 B
5.4
3
68.67
74.86
1.09
Rep2 Pl2: B
5.4
3
68.67
82.88
1.21
Rep2 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
84.07
1.22
Rep2 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
82.86
1.21
Rep2 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
90.05
1.31
Rep2 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.06
1.36
Rep2 P2 13
5.4
3
68.67
92.38
1.35
Rep2 P2 13
5.4
3
68.67
92.53
1.35
Rep2 P2 13
5.4
3
68.67
85.5
1.25
Rep2 P2 13
5.4
3
68.67
94.08
1.37
Rep2 P14. A
5.4
3
68.67
89.86
1.31
Rep2 Pl4. A
5.4
3
68.67
79.32
1.16
Rep2 P14 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.23
1.40
Rep2 P14. A
5.4
3
68.67
103.67
1.51
Rep2 P14. B
5.4
3
68.67
100.7
1.47
Rep2 P14. B
5.4
3
68.67
98.2
1.43
Rep2 P14r B
5.4
3
68.67
95.9
1.40
Rep2 PI4 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.52
1.38
Rep2 PlO A
5.4
3
68.67
99.84
1.45
Rep2 PI0 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.35
1.49
Rep2 PlO A
5.4
3
68.67
101.36
1.48
Rep2 PI0 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.02
1.40
Rep2 PI0 B
5.4
3
68.67
101.28
1.47
Rep2 PI0 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.64
1.45
Rep2 PI0 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.76
1.37
Rep2 PI0 B
5.4
3
68.67
100.35
1.46
Rep2 P’l A
5.4
3
68.67
94.76
1.38
Rep2 PI A
5.4
3
68.67
88.24
1.28
Rep2 Pl A
5.4
3
68.67
86.02
1.25
Rep2 PI A
5.4
3
68.67
84.48
1.23
Rep2 Pl B
5.4
3
68.67
92.08
1.34
Rep2 PI B
5.4
3
68.67
93.42
1.36
Rep2 PI B
5.4
3
68.67
93.12
1.36

---

146
Rep2 PI B
5.4
3
68.67
92.41
1.35
RepZ PI5 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.34
1.37
Rep2 P15 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.07
1.36
Rep2 Pl5 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.74
1.45
Rep2 PI5 A
5.4
3
68.67
97.22
1.42
Rep2 P?5 B
5.4
3
68.67
92.47
1.35
Rep2 P15 B
5.4
3
68.67
90.58
1.32
Rep2 PI5 B
5.4
3
68.67
88.03
1.28
Rep2 Pi5 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.26
1.45
Rep2 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
97.81
1.42
Rep2 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.61
1.45
Rep2 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.58
1.49
Rep2 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.83
1.34
Rep2 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
9
4
.
4 1.37
Rep2 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
97.45
1.42
Rep2 Pô B
5.4
3
68.67
94.61
1.38
Rep2 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
96.82
1.41
Rep2 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.2-l
1.33
Rep2 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.04
1.35
Rep2 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
89.57
1.30
Rep2 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.38
1.40
Rep2 P5 6
5.4
3
68.67
94.85
1.38
Rep2 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
88.09
1.28
Rep2 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
92.67
1.35
Rep2 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.02
1.37
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.35
1.49
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
97.75
1.42
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.7
1.41
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
89.54
1.30
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.65
1.36
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.7
1.50
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
86.56
1.26
Rep2 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.61
1.36
Rep2 P7 A
5.4
3
68.67
92.66
1.35
Rep2 P7 A
5.4
3.
68.67
93.28
1.36
Rep2 P7 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.8
1.38
Rep2 P7 A
5.4
3
68.67
100.84
1.47
Rep2 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.32
1.36
Rep2 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.49
1.38
Rep2 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
95.35
1.39
Rep2 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
95.82
1.40
Rep2 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
88.22
1.28
Rep2 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.83
1.34
Rep2 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.8
1.38
Rep2 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
87.81
1.28
Rep2 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
95.44
1.39
Rep2 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
90.63
1.32
Rep2 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
92.45
1.35
Rep2 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.08
1.36

---

147
Table B. Continued
Samptes
R.int.diam.(cm) R. ht (cm) Soit voL(cm3) Dry soit wt (g) BD (gkm3:)
Rep3 P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.63
1.49
Rep3 ,P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.72
1.45
Rep3 PI3 A
5.4
3
68.67
100.28
1.46
Rep3 P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
89.49
1.30
Rep3 PI3 B
5.4
3
68.67
106.51
1.55
Rep3 Pi3 B
5.4
3
68.67
i 06.88
1.56
Rep3 P13 B
5.4
3
68.67
98.39
1.43
Rep3 P13 B
5.4
3
68.67
93.91
1.37
Rep3 P12 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.39
1.40
Rep3 P12! A
5.4
3
68.67
99.98
1.46
Rep3 P12 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.56
1.41
Rep3 P12 A
5.4
3
68.67
97.14
1.41
Rep3 Pi2 B
5.4
3
68.67
103.68
1.51
Rep3 Pi2 B
5.4
3
68.67
78.49
1.14
Rep3 P12 B
5.4
3
68.67
95.64
1.39
Rep3 P12 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.28
1.37
Rep3 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
104.83
1.53
Rep3 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.2
1.40
Rep3 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
92.82
1.35
Rep3 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
87.11
1.27
Rep3 P2 B
5.4
3
68.67
105.48
1.54
Rep3 P2 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.2
1.44
Rep3 P2 B
5.4
3
68.67
106.4
1.55
Rep3 P2 B
5.4
3
68.67
100.86
1.47
Rep3 PI4 A
5.4
3
68.67
ioi .48
i .48
Rep3 PI4 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.15
1.44
Rep3 PI4 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.8
1.45
Rep3 PI4 A
5.4
3
68.67
100.1
1.46
Rep3 P14, B
5.4
3
68.67
98.51
1.43
Rep3 Pl4 B
5.4
3
68.67
98.51
1.43
Rep3 P14 B
5.4
3
68.67
100.26
1.46
Rep3 P14 B
5.4
3
68.67
96.55
1.41
Rep3 PlCl A
5.4
3
68.67
99.43
1.45
Rep3 PIO A
5.4
3
68.67
94.29
1.37
Rep3 PlC) A
5.4
3
68.67
98.81
1.44
Rep3 PlO A
5.4
3
68.67
98.19
1.43
Rep3 PlCl B
5.4
3
68.67
95.38
1.39
Rep3 PlO B
5.4
3
68.67
97.3
1.42
Rep3 PlO B
5.4
3
68.67
94.79
1.38
Rep3 PlO B
5.4
3
68.67
97.96
1.43
Rep3 Pl A
5.4
3
68.67
94.99
1.38
Rep3 PI A
5.4
3
68.67
93.8
1.37
Rep3 Pl A
5.4
3
68.67
98.14
1.43
Rep3 Pl A
5.4
3
68.67
91.57
1.33
Rep3 P1 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.29
1.45
Rep3 PI B
5.4
3
68.67
89.53
1.30
Rep3 PI B
5.4
3
68.67
90.77
1.32

---

148
Rep3 Pl B
5.4
3
68.67
95.97
1.40
Rep3 P15 A
5.4
3
68.67
103.72
1.51
Rep3 P15 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.34
1.37
Rep3 PI5 A
5.4
3
68.67
102.98
1.50
Rep3 Pi5 A
5.4
3
68.67
89.27
1.30
Rep3 PI5 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.8
1.38
Rep3 PI5 B
5.4
3
68.67
86.67
1.26
Rep3 PI5 B
5.4
3
68.67
91.13
1.33
Rep3 P15 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.26
1.37
Rep3 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
87.75
1.28
Rep3 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
101.39
1.48
Rep3 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.27
1.45
Rep3 P6 A
5.4
3
68.67
100.42
1.46
Rep3 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
98.89
1.44
Rep3 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
103.77
1.51
Rep3 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
96.78
1.41
Rep3 P6 B
5.4
3
68.67
94.05
1.37
Rep3 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
93.83
1.37
Rep3 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.65
1.41
Rep3 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.74
1.34
Rep3 P5 A
5.4
3
68.67
97.13
1.41
Rep3 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
100.16
1.46
Rep3 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
100.44
1.46
Rep3 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
97.4
1.42
Rep3 P5 B
5.4
3
68.67
101.52
1.48
Rep3 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
104.94
1.53
Rep3 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
100.11
1.46
Rep3 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
103.35
1.50
Rep3 P3 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.56
1.41
Rep3 P3 B
5.4
3’
68.67
83.31
1.21
Rep3 P3 B
5.4
3’
68.67
93.12
1.36
Rep3 P3 B
5.4
3’
68.67
102.9
1.50
Rep3 P3 B
5.4
3’
68.67
86.68
1.26
Rep3 P7 A
5.4
7
u
68.67
101.84
1.48
Rep3 P7 A
5.4
31
68.67
98.29
1.43
Rep3 P7 A
5.4
31
68.67
104.88
1.53
Rep3 P7 A
5.4
31
68.67
93.11
1.36
Rep3 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.54
1.45
Rep3 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
89.97
1.31
Rep3 P7 B
5.4
7;
68.67
99.44
1.45
Rep3 P7 B
5.4
3
68.67
92.61
1.35
Rep3 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.3
1.37
Rep3 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
88.23
1.28
Rep3 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.39
1.45
Rep3 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.03
1.40
Rep3 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
102.77
1.50
Rep3 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
103.91
1.51
Rep3 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
96.71
1.41
Rep3 P4 B
5.4
3
68.67
110.52
1.61

---

149
T a b l e 0. C o n t i n u e d
Samples
R.int.diam.(cm) R. ht (cm) Soi1 voL(cm3) Dry soit wt (g) BD (gkm3) ?,’
Re+ F’13 A
5:4
3
6 8 . 6 7
98.9
Re@ Pi3 A
5.4
3
68.67
101.03
1.47
.‘i
Rep4 P13 A
5.4
3
68.67
103.77
1.51
,,:%.
Rep4 F)I3 A
5.4
:
3
68.67
98.09
1.43
L-1
Rep4 F*13 B
5.4
3
68.67
103.28
1.50
..-
Rep4 F’13 B
5.4
:
3
68.67
106.98
1.56 ’ :
Rep4 PI3 B
5.4
3
68.67
81.83
1.19
Rep4 PI3 B
5.4
3
68.67
104.87
1.53
.:-:
RefM F*I2 A
5.4
3
68.67’
97.42
1.42
’
Re@ PI2 A
5.4
3
68.67
78.96
1.15
.-
Rep4 PI2 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.98
1.34
”
Rep4 Pi2 A
5.4
3
68.67
87.39
1.27
‘.’
Rep4 P12 B
5.4
3
6 8 . 6 7
81.49
1
.
1
9
Rep4 P12 B
5.4
3
68.67
87.93
1.28
Rep4 Fa12 B
5.4
3
68.67
80.09
1.17
Rep4 F’12 B
5.4
3
68.67
8 2 . 5 7
1.20 .
Re@ P2 A
5.4
‘3
68.67
92.98
1.35
Rep4 P2 A
5.4
3
68.67
98.65
1.44
Rep4 Fa2 A
5.4
3
68.67
83.5
1.22
Rep4 F’2 A
5.4
3
68.67
84
1.22
Rep4 F’2 B
5.4
3
68.67
89.91
1.31
Rep4 P2 B
5.4
~ 3
68.67
94.31
1.37
Rep4 FI2 B
5.4
3
68.67
86.56
1.26
Rep4 F’2 B
5.4
3
68.67
99.31
1.45
Rep4 FV4 A
5.4
3
68.67
101.58
1.48
Rep4 P14 A
5.4
3
68.67
96.42
1.40
Rep4 P14 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.22
1.37
Rep4 Fa14 A
5.4
3
68.67
91.56
1.33
Rep4 Pl4 B
5.4
3
68.67
76.24
1.11
Rep4 P14 B
5.4
3
68.67
105.68
1.54
Rep4 PI4 B
5.4
3
68.67
97.2
1.42
Rep4 P14 f$
5.4
3
68.67
104.66
1.52
R e p 4 fVOA
5.4
3
68.67
9 5 . 3
1.39
F?e@.PlO A
5.4
3
68.67
95.06
1.38
Rep4 fV0 A
,5.4
3
68.67
103.57
1.51
Re$ fV0 A
5.4
3
68.67
94.48
1.38
Rep4 fV0 B
5.4
3
68.67
96.02
1.40
Rep4 PI0 B
5.4
:
3
68.67
91.52
1 . 3 3
Rép4 f’l0 B
5.4
3
68.67
105.24
1.53
Rep4 fY0 B
5.4
3
Rep4 IV A
5.4
3
68.67
106.85
1.56
Rep4 1’1 A
5.4
3
68.67 .
98.76
1.43
Rep4 fV A
5.4
3
68.67
97.94
1.43
Rep4 fV A
5.4
3
68.67
110.12
1.60‘
Rep4 1’1 B
5.4
3
68.67
105.66
1.54
Rep4 Pl B
5.4
3
68.67
98.85 ;
1.44
Rep4 f’l B
5.4
3
68.67
97.71
1.42

---

150
Rep4 PI B
3 ,,.
68.67
101.43
1.48
Rep4 PI5 A
3 ‘-
68.67
86.2
1.26
Rep4 Pl5 A
3
68.67
99.17
1.44
Rep4 PI5 A
3
68.67
100.16
1.46
Rep4 P15 A
3
68.67
98.02
1.43
Rep4 P15 B
3
68.67
90.98
1.32
Rep4 Pi5 B
3’
68.67
92.02
1.34
Rep4-Pi 5 e
3
68.67
95.87
1.40
Rep4 PI5 B
3
68.67
95.89
1.40
Rep4 P6 A
3
68.67
100.61
1.47
Rep4 P6 A
3
68.67
100.61
1.47
Rep4 P6 A
3
68.67
101.45
1.48
Rep4 P6 A
3
68.67
98.57
1.44
Rep4 P6 6
3
68.67
93.53
1.36
Rep4 P6 B
3
68.67
95.25
1.39
Rep4 P6’ l3
3
68.67
97.17
1.41
Rep4 P6 B
3
68.67
98.09
1.43
Rep4 P5 A
3
68.67
102.02
1.49
Rep4 P5 A
3
68.67
106.28
1.55
Rep4 P5 A
3
68.67
95.79
1.39
Rep4 P5 A
3
68.67
99.77
1.45
Rep4 P5 B
3
68.67
92.12
1.34
Rep4 P5 B
3
68.67
93.37
1.36
Rep4 P5 l3
3
68.67
103.71
1.51
Rep4 P5 B
3
68.67
98.72
1.44
Rep4 P3 A
,3
68.67
87.31
1.27
Rep4 P3 A
3
68.67
92.49
1.35
Rep4 P3 A
3
68.67
102.35
1.49
Rep4 P3 A
3
68.67
101.65
1.48
Rep4 P3 13
3
68.67
88.24
1.28
Rep4 P3 B
3
68.67
92.36
1.34
Rep4 P3 B
.3
68.67
,104.73
1.53
Rep4 P3 B
3
68.67
92.1
1.34
Rep4 P7 A
3.
68.67
98.65
1.44
Rep4 P7 A
5.4 ‘3
68.67
9 2 . 4 3
1.35
Rep4 P7.A
5.4.
3
68.67
94.97
1.38
Rep4 P7 A ii 5.4
‘-
3
68.67
91.91
,1.34
Rep4 P7 B ] ‘, 5.4
’ ‘3
68.67
98.55
‘1.44
Rep4 P7
t3 5.4
3
68.67
99.73
1.45
Rep4 P7 13
5 . 4
3
68.67
97.65
1.42
Rep4 P7 B
:
“. 5.4
3
68.67
97.97
1.43
Rep4 P4 A
5.4.
.3
68.67
104.99
1.53
,
Rep4P4A
5.4
..3 . .
68.67
98.48
1.43
Rep4
P4A- 5.4 3
68.67
104.23
1.52
Rep4 P4 A
5.4
3
68.67
99.37
1.45
Rep4 P4 B
5.4
-. 3 .
68.67
103.33
1.50
Rep4 P4 B
“- 5.4
,,,:
‘,,
3
68.67
101.26
1.47
‘RBp4 P4 B ” . 5.4’
68.67
98.22
1.43
.Rep4
P+‘B 5.4
.3
68.67
101.99
1.49

---

151
Table C. Soi! resistance to penetration on the IPM plots
Sampies
3” depth
G”,depth
9” depth
12” depth
Rep2 PI 3 A
5
10
20
80
Rep2 PI3 A
5
,‘lO
20
30
Rep2 PI3 A
10
20
35
90
Rep2 PI3 A
20
40
80
120
Mean
10
20
35.75
8
0
Force (kgfIcm2)
0.7
1.41
2.73
5.63
Rep2P13B
20
.25
40
70
Rep2 PI3 B
20
40
40
100
Rep2 PI3 B
20
40
50
90
Rep2 PI3 B
10
15
20
45
Mean
17.5
30
37.5
76.25
Force(kgWcm2)
1.23
2.11
2.64
5.37
Rep2 PI2 A
140
100
140
150
Rep2 Pi2 A
8’0
70,
100
120
Rep2 PI2 A
40
50
80
110
Rep2 Pi2 A
120
140
140
160
Mean
95
.go
115
135
Force (kgf/cm2)
6.69
-6.34
8.1
9.5
Rep2 PI2 B
4 0
80
100
120
Rep2 PI2 B
40
80
100
140
Rep2 PI2 B
80
120
140
160
Rep2 P12 B
60
90:
120
140
Mean
55
92.5
115,
140
Force (kgfIcrn2)
3.87
6.5T
8.1,
9.86
Rep2 P2 A
10
40,
60
90
Rep2 P2 A
10
40
80
90
Rep2 P2 A
10
2 0
60
70
Rep2 P2 A
20
40.
80
90
Mean
12.5
.35
70
85
Force (kgflcrn2)
0.88
2.46
4.93
5.98
Rep2 P2 B
40
40
100
100
Rep2 P2 B
30
40
8Q
120
Rep2 P2 B
20
40,
80
100
Rep2 P2 .B
20
60
80
120
Mean
27.5
45
85
122.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.94
‘3.17
5.98
8.62
Rep2 P14 A
20
30’
60
80
Rep2 PI4 A
25
40
80
110
Rep2P14A
30
40
90
100
Rep2 P14 A
60
80
100
100
Mean
33.75
,’ 47.5
82.5
97.5
Force (kgWcrn2)
2.38
3.34
5.81
6.86
Rep2 PI4 B
30
60
100
110
Rep2 P14 B
30
40
80
100
Rep2 PI4 B
20
20
65
80
Rep2 PI4 B
20
40
60
100

---

152
Mean
25
40
76.25
9 7 . 5
Force (kgfIcm2)
1.76
2.82
5.37
6.86
Rep2 PI0 A
40
60
80
120
Rep2 PIOA
30
:35
60
80
Rep2 PI0 A
15
20
25
90
Rep2 PI0 A
15
25
25
50
Mean
21.5
:35
47.5
85
Force (kgfIcm2)
1.51
2.46
3.34
5.98
Rep2 PlO B
10
:35
20
30
Rep2 PlO B
1 5
‘15
20
40
Rep2 PI0 B
15
25
45
80
Rep2 PI0 B
35
:35
60
100
Mean
1 a.75
27.5
36.25
62.5
Force (kgflcm2)
1.32
1.94
2.55
4.4
Rep2 PI A
20
25
45
70
Rep2 PI A
5
‘10
20
50
Rep2 PI A
10
20
25
50
Rep2 PI A
10
:30
50
80
Mean
11.25
21.25
35
62.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
0.79
1.5
2.46
4.4
Rep2 PI B
10
20
30
50
Rep2 P? B
20
25
30
70
Rep2 PI B
20
25
50
70
Rep2 PI B
20
25
30
50
Mean
17.5
23.75
35
60
Force (kgWcm2)
ir .23
1.67
2.46
4.22
Rep2 PI5 A
30
60
70
85
Rep2 PI5 A
20
!jO
70
90
Rep2 P15 A
30.
45
60
80
Rep2 PI5 A
30
!j5
80
100
Mean
27.5
52.5
70
88.75
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.94
3.7
4.93
6.25
Rep2 PI5 B
30
40
55
90
Rep2 PI5 B
30
45
60
85
Rep2 PI5 B
40
!X
70
80
Rep2 PI5 B
40
60
70
90
Mean
35
!jO
63.75
86.25
Force (kgficm2)
2.46
3.52
4.49
6.07
Rep2 P6 A
30
45
65
a5
Rep2 q6 A
20
:30
40
50
Rep2 P6 A
30
40
60
75
Rep2 P6 A
30
40
70
85
Mean
27.5
38.75
58.75
73.75
Force (kgficm2)
1.94
2.73
4.14
5 . 1 9
Rep2 P6 B
25
40
60
70
Rep2 P6 B
20
:30
60
80
Rep2 P6 8
20
:35
60
80
Rep2 P6 B
30
40
60
80
Mean
23.75
36.25
60
77.5

---

153
Force (kgflcm2)
1.67
2.55
4.22
5.46
Rep2 P5 A
35
60
80
130
Rep2 P5 A
20
40
80
100
Rep2 P5 A
40
60
80
100
Rep2 P5 A
35
40
100
120
Mean
32.5
50
85
107.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.29
3.52
5.98
7.57
Rep2 P5 B
25
40
60
60
Rep2 P5 B
20
25
60
100
Rep2 P5 B
20
25
80
100
Rep2 P5 B
40
50
90
100
Mean
26.25
35
72.5
90
Force (kgfJcm2)
1.85
2.46
5 . 1
6.34
Rep2 P3 A
30
45
70
90
Rep2 P3 A
50
60
70
90
Rep2 P3 A
40
65
90
100
Rep2 P3 A
20
40
70
80
Me’an
35
52.5
75
90
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.46
3.7
5.28
6.34
Rep2 P3 B
40
60
70
80
Rep2 P3 B
70
75
90
100
Rep2 P3 B
40
60
70
90
Rep2 P3 B
30
40
60
80
Mean
45
58.75
72.5
87.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
3.17
4.14
5 . 1
6.16
Rep2 P7 A
10
10
20
40
Rep2 P7 A
5
15
25
50
Rep2 P7 A
10
10
15
60
Rep2 P7 A
10
10
20
80
Mean
8.75
11.25
20
57.5
Force (kgflcm2)
0.62
0.79
1.41
4.05
Rep2 P7 B
10
10
20
30
Rep2 P7 B
110
20
20
25
Rep2 P7 B
1’0
15
30
60
Rep2 P7 B
10
15
20
50
Mean
10
15
22.5
41.25
Fa)rce (kgfIcm2)
017
1.06
1.58
2.9
Rep2 P4 A
40
40
80
80
Rep2 P4 A
10
20
40
80
Rep2 P4 A
10
20
40
70
Rep2 P4 A
40
40
40
80
Mean
25
30
50
77.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.76
2.11
3.52
5.46
Rep2P4B’
80
50
60
100
Rep2 P4 B
15
20
40
80
Rep2 P4 f3
10
20
25
40
Rep2 P4 B
10
20
30
65
Mean
28.75
27.5
38.75
71.25
Force (kgWcrn2)
2.02
1.94
2.73
5.02

---

154
Table C. Continued
Samples
3” depth
6” depth
9” depth
12” depth
Rep3 PI 3 A
20
25
20
30
Rep3 P13 A
5
20
25
40
Rep3 Pi3 A
5
‘15
20
40
Rep3 P13 A
40
40
45
60
Mean
17.5
25
27.5
42.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
Y.23
1.76
1.94
2.99
Rep3 PI3 B
20
40
50
60
Rep3 PI3 B
5
‘15
20
30
Rep3 PI3 B
20
20
40
45
Rep3 PI3 B
10
‘15
20
30
Mean
13.75
22.5
32.5
41.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
0.97
1.58
2.29
2.90
Rep3 PI2 A
35
‘70
80
90
Rep3 PI2 A
60
‘70
75
90
Rep3 Pi2 A
45
60
70
80
R e p 3 P12A
30
45
65
85
Mean
42.5
6’1.2!5
72.5
86.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.99
4.31
5.10
6.07
Rep3 PI2 B
40
60
85
120
Rep3 P12 B
40
!jO
70
90
Rep3 PI2 B
40
60
70
85
Rep3 P12 B
55
;30
90
110
Mean
43.75
62.5
78.75
101.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
3.08
4.40
5.54
7.13
Rep3 P2 A
20
:30
40
70
Rep3 P2 A
10
25
50
70
Rep3 P2 A
20
:25
35
50
Rep3 P2 A
20
:25
60
80
Mean
17.5
26.25
46.25
67.5
Force (kgfIcm2)
1.23
1.85
3.26
4.75
Rep3 P2 B
20
120
20
20
Rep3 P2 13
60
d40
60
50
Rep3 P2 B
110
160
80
80
Rep3 P2 13
120
130
100
100
Mean
77.5
.50
65
62.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
5.46
3.52.
4.58
4.40
Rep3 P14. A
10
840
80
100
Rep3 P14. A
20
,40
60
80
Rep3 P14. A
10
30
50
60
Rep3 Pl4. A
10
30
50
80
Mean
12.5
35
60
80
Force (kgf/cm2)
0.88
2.46
4.22
5.63
Rep3 Pi4 B
20
30
40
60
Rep3 PI4 B
20
40
60
70
l?ep3 PI4 B
10
30
40
60
Rep3 P14 B
20
25
40
60

---

155
Mean
17.5
31.25
45
62.5
Force (kgficm2)
1.23
2.20
3.17
4.40
Rep3 PlO A
20
30
40
60
Rep3 Pi0 A
50
5
20
40
Rep3 PI0 A
15
20
40
45
Rep3 PI0 A
20
25
35
60
Me;an
26.25
20
33.75
5 1 . 2 5
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.85
1.41
2.38
3.61
Re:p3 P10 B
10
15
45
40
Rep3 PI0 B
10
30
40
60
Rep3 PI0 B
20
40
80
90
Rep3 PI0 B
20
25
25
40
Me.an
15
27.5
47.5
57.5
Force (kgficm2)
1.06
1.94
3.34
4.05
Rep3 PI A
20
25
50
60
Rep3 PI A
20
30
50
90
Rep3 Pi A
20
45
80
90
Rep3 Pi A
15
20
25
50
Mean
18.75
30
51.25
72.5
Force (kgfIcm2)
1.32
2.11
3.61
5.10
Rep3 Pi B
20
25
45
75
Rep3 Pl B
20
20
30
40
Rep3 Pl B
10
20
60
80
Rep3 PI 8
5
20
35
60
Mean
13.75
21.25
42.5
63.75
Force (kgfIcm2)
0.97
1.50
2.99
4.49
Rep3 PI5 A
50
70
80
90
Rep3P15A
60
70
75
60
Rep3 P15 A
40
80
90
85
Rep3 PI5 A
55
70
75
80
Mean
51.25
72.5
80
78.75
Force (kgf/cm2)
3.61
5.10
5.63
5.54
Rep3 P15 B
60
70
45
75
Rep3 P15 B
40
50
45
65
Rep3 P15 B
40
60
70
75
Rep3 PI5 B
40
50
65
70
Mean
45
57.5
56.25
71.25
Fa#rce (kgf/cm2)
3.17
4.05
3.96
5.02
Rep3 P6 A
40
50
60
75
Rep3 P6 A
30
40
50
80
‘Rep3 P6 A
40
50
60
70
Rep3 P6 A
40
60
70
95
Mean
37.5
50
60
80
Force (kgWcm2)
2.64
3.52
4.22
5.63
Rep3 P6 B
60
70
90
120
Rep3 P6 B
40
60
70
85
Rep3 P6 B
40
60
80
110
Rep3 P6 B
60
70
90
120
Mean
50
65
82.5
108.75

---

156
Force (kgflcm2)
3.52
4.58
5.81
7.66
Rep3 P5 A
10
210
25
45
Rep3 P5 A
20
40
65
80
Rep3 P5 A
5
210
45
45
Rep3 P5 A
10
40
50
50
Mean
11.25
30
46.25
55
Force (kgf/cm2)
0.79
2.11
3.26
3.87
Rep3 P5 B
15
210
60
70
Rep3 P5 ES
20
30
45
60
Rep3 P5 B
20
30
40
50
Rep3 P5 B
15
210
50
65
Mean
17.5
215
48.75
61.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.23
1.76
3.43
4.31
Rep3 P3 A
60
80
95
105
Rep3 P3 A
60
90
120
140
Rep3 P3 A
40
50
60
90
Rep3 P3 A
50
60
100
110
Mean
52.5
70
93.75
111.25
Force (kgWcm2)
3.70
4 . 9 3
6.60
7.83
Rep3 P3 ES
40
50
60
70
Rep3 P3 E3
20
40
60
80
Rep3 P3 B
40
50
65
85
Rep3 P3 B
40
70
90
100
Mean
35
52.5
68.75
83.75
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.46
3.70
4.84
5.90
Rep3 P7 A
10
40
40
40
Rep3 P7 A
20
30
40
40
Rep3 P7 A
20
30
40
60
Rep3 P7 A
10
2!0
40
50
Meai
15
30
40
47.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.06
2.11
2.82
3.34
Rep3 P7 B
20
;!o
60
120
Rep3 P7 B
15
40
80
100
Rep3 P7 B
20
40
60
80
Rep3 P7 B
10
2!0
80
100
Mean
16.25
30
70
100
Force (kgWcm2)
1.14
2.11
4.93
7.04
Rep3 P4 A
20
40
20
55
Rep3 P4 A
20
40
30
50
Rep3 P4 A
20
30
35
60
Rep3 P4 A
20
30
30
90
Mean
20
35
28.75
63..75
Force (kgWcm2)
1.41
2.46
2.02
4.49'
Rep3 P4 B
15
20
40
60
Rep3 1’4 B
20
25
40
55
Rep3 P4 B
25
20
30
60
Rep3 P4 B
10
20
30
70
Mean
17.5
21.25
35
61.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.23
1 50
2.46
4.31

---

157
Table C. Continued
Samples
3” depth
6” depth
9” depth
12” depth
Rep4 PI3 A
30
20
20
50
Rep4 PI3 A
40
35
35
80
Rep4 PI3 A
36
40
30
60
Rep4 PI3 A
20
20
30
60
Mean
31.5
28.75
28.75
62.5
Force (kgfIcm2)
2.22
2.02
2.02
4.40
Reip4 P13 B
40
35
50
100
Rep4 PI3 B
35
40
50
90
Rep4 PI3 B
30
3
5
40
95
Rep4 P13 B
50
20
50
100
Mean
38.75
32.5
47.5
96.25
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.73
2.29
3.34
6.78
Rep4 PI2 A
30
40
60
100
Rep4 PI2 A
90
80
85
100
Rep4 P12 A
50
90
95
100
Rep4 PI2 A
40
60
100
120
Mean
52.5
67.5
85
105
Force (kgfIcm2)
3.70
4.75
5.98
7.39
Rep4 PI2 B
50
95
80
70
Rep4 P12 B
35
50
80
30
Rep4 PI2 B
65
60
80
80
Rep4 P12 B
90
80
80
80
Mean
60
71.25
80
65
Force (kgfIcm2)
4.22
5.02
5.63
4.58
Rep4 P2 A
40
50
100
95
Rep4 P2 A
35
80
90
90
Rep4 P2 A
60
40
110
110
Rep4 P2 A
50
40
120
110
Mean
46.25
52.5
105
101.25
Force (kgWcm2)
3.26
3.70
7.39
7.13
Rep4 P2 B
20
20
80
90
Rep4 P2 B
40
70
130
120
Rep4 P2 B
10
40
80
100
Rep4 P2 B
40
40
100
110
Mean
27.5
42.5
97.5
105
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.94
2.99
6.86
7.39
Rep4 Pi4 A
25
10
15
55
Rep4 PI4 A
25
45
25
70
Rep4 PI4 A
10
20
40
30
Rep4 PI4 A
10
25
35
70
Mean
17.5
25
28.75
56.25
Force (kgflcm2)
1.23
1.76
2.02
3.96
Rep4 PI4 B
20
35
40
45
Rep4 PI4 B
35
40
55
35
Rep4 PI4 6
5
20
55
60
Rep4 PI4 B
15
35
65
90

---

158
Mean
18.75
32.5
53.75
57.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
3.32
2.29
3.78
4.05
Rep4 PI0 A
15
20
40
50
Rep4 PlO A
5
20
30
40
Rep4 PI0 A
40
40
40
60
Rep4 Pi 0 A
2
0
30
40
40
Mean
20
27.5
37.5
47.5
Force (kgflcm2)
1.41
1.94
2.64
3.34
Rep4 PI0 B
15
20
20
30
Rep4 PI0 B
15
2 0
40
40
Rep4 PI0 B
40
35
40
60
Rep4 PI0 B
35
40
40
85
Mean
26.25
28.75
35
53.75
Force (kgWcm2)
1.85
2.02
2.46
3.78
Rep4 PI A
25
:70
60
90
Rep4 Pl A
40
40
50
60
Rep4 Pl A
10
‘1 5
20
20
Rep4 Pl A
30
40
35
100
Mean
26.25
41.25
41.25
67.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.85
2.90
2.90
4.75
Rep4 PI 13
20
20
40
110
Rep4 Pl i3
15
30
50
50
Rep4 PI B
10
40
35
80
Rep4 Pl H
15
30
40
80
Mean
15
30
41.25
80
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.06
2.11
2.90
5.63
Rep4 P15 A
30
60
100
100
Rep4 PI5 A
40
60
130
a30
Rep4Pl5A
40
65
85
Al0
Rep4 Pi5 A
40
130
110
120
Mean
37.5
66.25
i06.25
115
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.64
4.66
7.48
8.10
Rep4 PI5 B
40
60
80
90
Rep4 PI5 B
30
40
70
110
Rep4P15B
20
60
90
130
Rep4 PI5 B
30
60
80
100
Mean
30
!j5
80
107.5
Force (kgf/cm2)
2.11
3.87
5.63
7.57
Rep4 P6 A
40
60
95
125
Rep4 P6 A
30
60
115
120
Rep4 P6 A
30
60
85
100
Rep4 P6 A
25
‘70
85
115
Mean
31.25
62.5
95
115
Force (kgfhm2)
2.20
4.40
6.69
8.10
Rep4 P6 B
35
150
65
110
Rep4 P6 B
55
100
110
140
Rep4 P6 B
40
i30
100
115
Rep4 P6 B
30
60
80
120
Mean
40
72.5
88.75
121.25

---

159
Force (kgfIcm2)
2.82
5.10
6.25
8.54
Rep4 P5 A
40 40
80
100
Rep4 P5 A
20
60
100
130
Rep4 P5 A
2’0
a0
110
145
Rep4 P5 A
15
60
80
140
Mean
23.75
60
92.5
I 28.75
Force (kgWcm2)
1.67
4.22
6.51
9.06
Rep4 P5 6
20
60
80
90
Rep4 P5 B
20
60
80
90
Rep4 P5 B
10
20
60
95
Rep4 P5 B
15
20
60
80
Mean
16.25
40
70
88.75
Force (kgf/cm2)
1.14
2.82
4.93
6.25
Rep4 P3 A
5
50
80
95
Rep4 P3 A
20
50
80
100
Rep4 P3 A
40
80
105
115
‘Rep4 P3 A
35
60
105
120
Mean
25
60
92.5
107.5
Force (kgflcm2)
1.76
4.22
6.51
7.57
Rep4 P3 B
40
60
80
100
Rep4 P3 B
20
60
90
110
Rep4 P3 B
30
60
100
115
Rep4 P3 B
35
70
100
120
Mean
31.25
62.5
92.5
111.25
Force (kgfhzm2)
2.20
4.40
6.51
7.83
Rep4 P7 A
10 ‘35
60
80
Rep4 P7 A
20
40
60
85
Rep4 P7 A
20
40
55
70
Rep4 P7 A
10
30
60
75
Mean
15
36.25
58.75
77.5
Force (kgflcm2)
1.106
2.55
4.14
5.46
Rep4 P7 B
10
40
60
a5
Rep4 P7 B
10
45
75
90
Rep4 P7 B
5
5
20
45
Rep4 P7 B
10
20
35
85
Mean
8.75
27.5
47.5
76.25
Force (kgWcm2)
0.62
1.94
3.34
5.37
Rep4 P4 A
5
15
20
40
Rep4 P4 A
20
20
40
100
Rep4 P4 A
20
20
40
60
Rep4 P4 A
15
20
20
40
Mean
15
18.75
30
60
Force (kgWcm2)
1.06
1.32
2.11
4.22
Rep4 P4 B
15
20
60
80
Rep4 P4 B
5
10
40
40
Rep4 P4 B
5
20
40
100
Rep4 P4 B
20
20
40
60
Mean
11.25
17.5
45
70
Force (kgflcm2)
0.79
1.23
3.17
4.93

---

160
Table D. Water infiltration rate or! the IPM plots
Samples T (mn) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir(ci/hr) Samples T (mn) ElapsedT W.h(‘cn-
Ir(cm/hr)
Pi R2A
2.5
2.5
4.1
112.8
PI R 3B
30
.5
2.:3
27.6
Pi R2A
5
2.5
2.5
60
. Pi R 3B
35
5
1.!3
22.8
PI R2A
7.5
2.5
3.1
74.4
PI R 3B
40
5
2
24
Pi R2A
10
2.5
2.2
52.8
PI R 38
50
10
1 .i3
21.6
PI R2A
12.5
2.5
1 . 9
45.6
PI R 38
60
10
3:7
22.2
/
5
Pi R2A
15
2.5
2.2
52.8 PI R 38
70
10
3.1
18.6
PI R2A
20
5
3.6
43.2
Pi R3B
80
10
3.2
19.2
PI R2A
25
5
3.6
43.2
PI R 38
90
10
3.4
18.6
‘1
Pi R2A
30
5
3.1
37.2
PI R 38
100
10
3
18
Pi R2A
35
5
3.2
38.4
Pi R 38
110
10
3.1
18.6
Pi R2A
40
5
2.8
33.6
PI R 3B
-
-
-.--‘120
10
3
18
Pi R2A
50
10
5.9
35.4
PI R4A
1.5
1.5
1.6
64
Pi R2A
60
10
5.2
31.2 ,-Pi R4A
3
1.5
1.5
60
PI R2A
70
10
4.9
29.4
PI R4A
4.5
1.5
1.3
52
PI R2A
80
10
4.3
25.8 P I R4A
6
1.5
1.4
56
PI R2A
90
10
4.3
25.8
PI R4A
7.5
1.5
1.2
48
PI R2A
100
10
4.5
27
, PI R4A
9
1.5
1.2
48
Pi R2A
110
10
4.L.
26
Pi R4A
12
3
1.9
38
PI R2A
120
?O
4.5
26
P I R4A
15
3
1.8
36
Pi R3A
2.5
2.5
5 7
127.2
PI R4A
18
3
1.5
30
/PI R 3A
5
2.5
3:;;
84
.;Pi R4A
21
3
1.3
26
Ii3
Pi R3A
7.5
2.5
3.1
88.8
PI R4A
26
5
2.4
28.8
.Pl R3A
10
2.5
2.8
67.2
PI R4A
31
5
2.7
32.4
Pi R3A
12.5
2.5
3
72
Pi R4A
36
5
2.5
30
PI R3A
15
2.5
3 . 1
74.4
.P1 R4A
41
5
2.5
30
PI R3A
20
5
6 . 1
73.2
Pi R4A
51
10
3.6
21.6
1.
Pi R3A
25
5
5.;:
62.4 P i R4A
61
10
3.5
21
PI R3A
30
5
5 . 1
61.2
PI R4A
7 1
10
3.7
22.2
PI R3A
35
5
4.1
56.4
PI R4A
_- --
81
10
3.6
21.6
Pi R3A
40
5
4.3
51.6
PI RAB
1.5
1.5
1.5
60
PI R3A
50
10
7 . 1
42.6
-Pi R 4B
3
1.5
1.6
64
Pi R3A
,60
10
6 7
.b
37.8
Pi R4B
4.5
1.5
1.5
60
Pi R3A
70
10
6.7
40.2
4’1 R4B
6
1.5
1.4
56
PI R3A
80
10
6.9
41.4
PI R4B
7.5
1.5
0.8
32
PI R3A
90
10
6.9
41.4
PI R4B
9
1.5
0.7
28
PI R3A
100
10
6.6
40.8
PI R4B
12
3
1.6
32
PI R3A
110
10
6.9
41.4
,Pl R4B
15
3
1.7.
34
PI R3A
120
10
6.7
40.2
Pi R4B
18
3
1.4
28
Pl R 3B
2.5
2.5
2.cr
69.6 .,Pi R4B
21
3
1.5
30
!
PI R3B
5
2.5
1.9
45.6
PI R4B
26
5
2.5
30
PI R 38
7.5
2.5
1 5
36
,-Pi R 48
31
5
2.9
34.8
Pl. R 3B
10
2.5
1:;;
38.4
PI R 48
36
5
2.5
30
,Pl R3B
12.5
2.5
1.4.
33.6
*Pl R4B
41
5
2.6
31.2
Pi R 38
15
2.5
1.4.
33.6
PI R4B
51
10
3.8
22.8
Pi R3B
20
5
2.7
28.8
P I R4B
61
10
3.7
22.2
PI R 38
25
5
2.3
27.6
PI R4B
71
10
3.8
22.8
Pi R4B
81
10
3.6
21.6

---

161
Table D. Continued
Sarnples T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir(cm/hr) Samples T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir(cm/hr)
P2R2A
2.5
2.5
5.5
132
P2R4A
18
3
3.4
40.8
P2 R 2A
5
2.5
3.4
81.6 J’2 R 4A
23
5
3.4
40.8
P2R2A
7.5
2.5
3.3
79.2
P2 R4A
28
5
6.5
39
P2R2A
10
2.5
2.7
64.8
P2 R4A
33
5
2.3
31:8 / c-,
P2R2A
12.5
2.5
2.8
67.2
P2 R4A
38
5
5.1
30.6
-*
P2R2A
15
2.5
2.6
62.4 , P2 R 4A
48
10
4.7
28.2
P2 R 2A
20
5
6.8
71.6
P2R4A
58
10
4.6
27.6
P2 R 2A
25
5
5.7
68.4 , P2 R 4A
68
10
4.6
27.6
P2 R2A
30
5
5.6
67.2
P2 R 4A
78
10
4.5
27
P2 R 2A
35
5
5.2
62.4 P2 R 4B
1.5
1.5
1.3
52
P2 R 2A
40
5
3.7
57.2 ,f’2 R 4B
3
1.5
1 . 1
44
, P2R2A
50
10
7.7
46.2
P2 R4B
4.5
1.5
0.9
36
P2 R 2A
60
10
6.5
39.6 ,P2 R 4B
6
1.5
0.8
32
P2 R 2A
70
10
7 . 1
42
P2 R4B
7.5
1.5
0.8
32
, ,;
P2 R 2A
80
10
7
42
/P2 R 48
9
1.5
0.4
16
- P2 R 2A
90
10
7
42
P2R4B
12
3
1.3
26
P2 R 2A
100
10
7
42
,P2 R4B
15
3
1 . 1
22
P2 R 2A
110
10
7 . 1
42.6 ’ P2 R 4B
18
3
1 . 1
22
(..
P2 R 2A
120
10
7
42
P2 R4B
23
5
1.9
22.8
F
P2 R 3A
2.5
2.5
3.6
67.2 P2 R 4B
28
5
1.8
21.6
P2 R 3A
!5
2.5
2.9
40.8
P2 R4B
33
5
1.6
22.8
P2 R 3A
7.5
2.5
2.6
28.8 P2 R 4B
38
5
2.5
19.2
P2 R 3A
10
2.5
2.4
36
P2R4B
48
10
2.4
15
P2 R 3A
12.5
2.5
2.2
31.2
P2 R 4B
58
10
2.6
14.4
P2 R 3A
15
2.5
2 . 1
28.8
P2 R4B
68
10
2.6
15.6
P2 R 3A
20
5
4
26.4 P2 R 4B
78
10
2.4
14.4
P2 R 3A
25
5
3.8
24
P2 R 3A
30
5
3.5
28.8
P2 R 3A
35
5
3.4
27.6
P2 R 3A
22.8
.’
40
5
3.4
. P2 R 3A
50
10
6.5
19.2
P2 R 3A
60
10
5.3
18.2
P2 R 3A
70
10
5.7
18
P2 R 3A
80
10
4.7
16.2
P2 R3A
90
10
4.6
15.6
,yT: P2 R3A
100
10
4.6
15.6
P2 R 3A
110
10
4.5
16.2
P2 R 3A
120
10
4.6
15.6
P2 R4A
1.5
Ii .5
2.9
69.6
,,P2 R 4A
3
7.5
2.6
62.4
P2R4A
4.5
1.5
2.4
57.4
. P2 R4A
15
1.5
2.2
52.8
P2 R 4A
7.5
1.5
2 . 1
50.4
P2 R4A
9
1.5
4
48
P2 R4A
12
3
3.8
45.6
P2 R4A
15
3
3.5
42

---

162
Table D. Continued
Samples T (mIin) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr) Samples T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cr
Ir (cm/hr)
P3RZB
2.!j
2.5
2.3
55.2
P3 R3B
30
5
1.4
16.8
/ P3R2B
5
2.5
2.3
55.2 , P3 R 3B
35
5
1.2
14.4
P3R2B
7.5
2.5
1.7
40.8
P3 R3B
40
5
1.3
1’5.6
;./ 7
~ P3R2B
10
2.5
1.6
38.4
P3 R 38
50
10
2.4
14.4
P3 R2B
12.5
2.5
1.4
33.6
P3 R 38
60
10
2.4
14.4
,, P3 R2B
15
2.5
1.4
33.6
P3 R3B
70
10
2.3
13.8
P3R2B
20
5
2.7
32.4
P3 R 38
80
10
2.4
14.4
, P3R2B
25
5
2.15
31.2
P3R3B
90
10
2.2
13.2
P3R2B
30
5
2.15
31.2 ’ P3R3B
100
10
2.1
12.6
, P3R2B
35
5
2.,4
28.8
P3 R3B
110
10
2.2
13.2
P3 R2B
40
5
2:4
28.8
P3 R3B
120
______--..
10
2.2
.13.2
, P3R2B
50
10
4.3
27.6
p?i-Fi-%--
2.5
2.5
1.9
45.6
P3 R2B
SO
10
4 4
26.4 ,, P 3 R 4A
5
2.5
1.8
43.2
P3 R 28
70
10
4.4
25.8
P3R4A
7.5
2.5
1.5
36
P3 R2B
80
10
4.3
27
, P3R4A
10
2.5
1.4
33.6
,,/A r
P3R2B
90
10
4.5
26.4
P3 R4A
12.5
2.5
1.5
36
I
P3 R2B
100
10
4.4
26.4
P3R4A
15
2.5
1.6
38.4
P3 R 2B
110
10
4.3
25.8
P3 R4A
20
5
2.5
30
P3R2B
l_.__~
120
10
4.4
26.4 ,P3R4A
25
5
2.2
26.4
P3 R 3A
2.5
2.5
1.6
38.4
P3R4A
30
5
2.1
25.2
f<<,
, P3 R 3A
5
2.5
1.4
33.6
P3R4A
35
5
2
24
P3 R 3A
7.5
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P3R4A
40
5
2.1
25.2
P3 ,R 3A
10
2.5
0.9
26.6
P3R4A
50
10
3.5
21
P3 R 3A
12.5;
2.5
1.1
26.6
P 3 R4A
60
10
3.3
19.8
P3 R 3A
15
2.5
0.9
26.4
P3 R4A
70
10
3.4
20.4
P3 R 3A
20
5
2.1
25.2 ’ P3R4A
80
10
3.5
21
P3 R 3A
25
5
1.8
21.6
P3R4A
90
10
3.4
20.4
P3 R 3A
30
5
1.7
20.4
P3R4A
100
10
3.3
19.8
P3 R 3A
35
5
1.4
16.8
P3R4B-
2.51
2.5
1.5
36
P3 R 3A
40
5
1.4
16.8 _ P 3 R 4B
5
2.5
1.2
28..8
, P3 R 3A
50
10
3.2
19.2
P3R4B
7.51
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P3 R 3A
60
10
3.7
22.2
P 3 R4B
10
2.5
0.9
21.4
P3R3A
70
10
3.3
19.8
P3R4B
12.5
2.5
0.9
21.4
y
A(’
,”
P3 R 3A
80
10
c;
18
P3R4B
15
2.5
1
2
4
’
P3 R3A
90
10
‘:~
cg
18
P3R4B
20
5
2.5
30
P3 R 3A
100
10
5
18
P3R4B
25
5
2.2
26.4
P3 R 3A
110
10
3:;
18.6
P3R4B
30
5
2.1
25.2
_ ]‘<.
P3 R 3A
120
10
2.9
17.4
P3R4B
35
5
1.7
20.4
PS R 38
2.5
2.5
1.5
36
P3R4B
40
5
1.8
21.6
. P3 R 38
5
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P3R4B
50
10
3.9
23.4
P3 R 3B
7.5
2.5
1
24
P3R4B
60
10
3.6
21.6
, P3 R 3B
10
2.5
0.8
19.2
P3R4B
70
10
4
24
‘II
P3 R 3B
12.5
2.5
0.9
21.6
P3R4B
80
10
3.9
21.6
. P3 R 3B
15
2.5
0.8
19.2
P3R4B
50
10
4
24
P3 R 38
20
5
1.8
21.6
P3R4B
100
10
3.8
22.8
P3 R 38
25
5
1.6
19.2

---

163
Table D. Continued
Samples T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir (cm/hr) Samples T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr)
P4 R 2A
2.5
2.5
5.9
141.6 -P4R3A
35
5
1.7
20.4
P4R2A
5
2.5
3.3
79.2
P4 R3A
40
5
1.8
21.6
P4R2A
7.5
2.5
3
72
~ P4 R 3A
50
10
1.8
10.8
P4R2A
‘10
2.5
2.5
60
P4 R 3A
60
10
1.8
10.8 ,/ r.
P4R2A
12.5
2.5
2.1
50.4
P4 R 3A
70
10
3.5
9
P4R2A
15
2.5
2.1
50.4
P4 R3A
80
10
1.3
7.8
P4R2A
20
5
3.7
44.4
P4 R3A
90
10
1.2
7.2
P4R2A
25
5
3.2
38.4
P4 R 3A
100
10
1 . 1
6.6
P4R2A
30
5
2.7
32.4
P4 R3A
110
10
1.2
7.2
P4R2A
35
5
2.3
27.6
P4 R3A
120
10
1
6
16
P4R2A
40
5
2.6
31.2
P4R3B
2.5
2.5
2
48
P4 R2A
!jO
10
4.2
25.2 , P4 R 3B
5
2.5
1.3
31.2
P4R2A
60
10
4.7
28.2
P4 R3B
7.5
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P4R2A
70
10
3.4
20.4 , P4 R3B
10
2.5
1.2
28.8
P4R2A
80
10
3 . 1
18.6
P4 R3B
12.5
2.5
0.4
9.6
P4R2A
90
10
3.2
19.2 P4 R 3B
15
2.5
0.5
12
P4R2A
100
10
3 . 1
18.6
P4R3B
20
5
0.9
10.8
P4 R 2A
110
10
3
18
P4R3B
25
5
0.8
9.6
P4 R 2A
120
10
3 . 1
18.6
P4 R 3B
30
5
0.5
6
! ,>
P4R2B
Z!.5
2.5
3.5
84
: P4 R 38
35
5
1.2
14.4 ,
, P4R2B
5
2.5
2.8
67.2
P4 R3B
40
5
1.2
14.4
P4 R2B
7.5
2.5
2
48
P4R3B
50
10
1
6
P4R2B
10
2.5
1.7
40.8
P4 R3B
60
10
1.2
7.2
P4R2B
12.5
2.5
1.8
43.2
P4 R 3B
70
10
1 . 1
6.6
P4R2B
‘15
2.5
1.6
38.4
P4 R 3B
80
10
1 . 1
6.6
P4 R2B
20
5
2.9
34.8
P4 R 3B
90
10
‘1.1
6.6
P4R2B
25
5
3
36
P4 R 38
100
10
1 . 1
6.6
P4 R2B
30
5
2.6
31.2
P4 R3B
110
10
1.1
6.6
P4 R2B
35
5
2.6
31.2
P4 R 3B
120
10
1
6’
P4 R2B
40
5
2.2
26.4
P4R4A
2.5
2.5
6.J
160.8
P4 R 2B
50
10
5
30
-’ P4 R4A
5
2.5
3
72
P4 R2B
60
10
4.1
24.6
P4 R 4A
7.5
2.5
2.7
64.8
P4 R2B
‘70
10
3.7
22.2 /P4 R 4A
10
2.5
2.4
57.6
P4 R2B
80
10
3.6
21.6
P4R4A
12.5
2.5
2.3
55.2
1
6
P4 R2B
90
10
3.7
22.2 , P4 R4A
15
2.5
1.9
45.6
P4. R 2B
100
10
3.5
21
P4R4A
20
5
4
48
;;“;
P4 R 2B
110
10
3.6
21.6 P4R4A
25
5
3.4
40.8
,P4 R 28
120
10
3.6
21.6
P4R4A
30
5
3.5
42
P4, R 3A
2.5
2.5
3
72
P 4 R4A
35
5
2.8
33.6
P4, R 3A
5
2.5
2.2
52.8
P4 R 4A
40
5
2.5
3 0 . 8
P4 R 3A
-7.5
2.5
1.3
31.2
P4R4A
50
10
5.8
34.8
’ .L./
P4, R 3A
10
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P4R4A
60
10
6
36
P4. R 3A
12.5
2.5
1.2
28.8 8 P4 R4A
70
10
6
36
P4 R 3A
‘4
15
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P4R4A
80
10
3.3
19.8
‘i
P4 R 3A
20
5
1.6
19.2 . P4R4A
90
10
3.6
21.6
P4. R 3A
25
5
1.6
19.2
P4R4A
100
10
3.9
23.4
P4 R 3A
.30
5
1.6
19.2
P4R4A
110
10
3.8
22.8

---

164
Table D. Continued
Samples T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm:) Ir (cm/hr) Samples T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm)
(cmlhr)
P5R2A
2.5
2.5
4.3
103.2, P 5 R 3A
35
5
4.6
55.2
c/P5R2A
5
2.5
3:7
88.8
P5 R3A
40
5
4.7
56.4
P5R2A
7.5
2.5
3.4
81.6
P5R3A
50
10
a.1
50.4
, P5R2A
10
2.5
2.6
62.4
P 5 R 3A
60
10
7.9
47.4
.P5R2A
12.!j
2.5
3.2
76.4
P 5 R 3A
70
10
7.9
47.4
J
-,.
/. P5R2A
15
2.5
2.6
62.4
P5 R3A
80
10
7.7
4 6 . 2
P5R2A
20
5
5.!5
66
P5R3A
90
10
7.6
4.5.6
, P5R2A
2!5
5
5.2
62.4
P5 R3A
‘100
10
7
42
r.
P5R2A
30
5
5.‘1
61.2
P5R3A
‘1 10
10
7.5
45
P5R2A
35
5
5
60
P5R3A
120
10
7.6
45.6
P5R2A
40
5
4.‘7
56.4
P 5 R3B
.2.5
2.5
5.5
132
P5R2A
50
10
7.13
4 6 . 8 P 5 R 38
5
2.5
4.2
i 00.8
’ P5R2A
60
10
7.13
46.8
P 5 R3B
7.5
2.5
4.6
110.4
/c
P5R2A
70
10
7.7
46.2 . P 5 R 38
10
2.5
3.3
79.2
P5R2A
80
10
7.7
46.2
P 5 R3B
12.51
2.5
3.4
81.6
P5R2A
10
7.6
45.2 , P 5 R 3B
15
2.5
3.3
79.2
I’
90
P5R2A
100
10
7.7
46.2
P5 R3B
20
5
5.9
70.8
P5R2A
110
10
7.:3
46.8
P5 R3B
25
5
5.6
67.2
P5R2A
120
10
7:7
46.2
P5 R3B
30
5
4.5
54
P5R2B
2.5
2.5
5 . 1
122.4
P 5 R 3B
35
5
5.1
61.2
- P5R2B
5;
2.5
3.4
81.6
P5R3B
40
5
4.4
52.8 J
‘I
P5R2B
7.5
2.5
3.:3
91.2
P5R3B
50
10
9.3
55.8
i P5R2B
10
2.5
3.4
89.6
P5 R3B
60
10
9
54
P5R2B
12.5
2.5
3.7
88.8
P 5 R 38
70
10
a.9
53.4
, P5R2B
15
2.5
3
72
P5R3B
80
10
8.9
53.4
P5R2B
20
5
6.2
74.4 P5 R 3B
90
10
8.8
52.8
P5R2B
25
5
5.9
70.8
P5 R3B
‘100
10
a.9
53.4
P5R2B
30
5
5.5
66
P5R3B
‘1 10
10
8.8
52.8
P5R2B
35
5
5 . 1
61.2
P5R3B
‘120
10
a.8
52.8
P5R2B
40
5
5..3
63.6
P5R4A
2.5
2.5
2.8
67.2
P5R2B
50
10
7.13
46.8
P 5 R 4A
5
2.5
2.1
50.4
P5R2B
60
10
8
48
P5R4A
7.5
2.5
1.9
45.6
P5R2B
70
10
7.9
47.4
P5R4A
10
2.5
1.5
36
P5R2B
80
10
7.s
46.8
P5R4A
125
2.5
1.7
40.8
if , P5R2B
90
10
7.‘3
47.4 . P5R4A
15
2.5
1.3
31.2
P5R2B
100
10
8
48
P5R4A
20
5
2.5
30
\\*
P5R2B
110
10
7.3
47.4
P5R4A
25
5
2.2
26.4
/
P.5 R 2B
1 ri!0
10
7.5
46.8
P5 R4A
30
5
2.1
25
P5R3A
2.51
2.5
6.5
156
P5R4A
35
5
2
24
P5R3A
5
2.5
4.5
108
P5R4A
40
5
1.2
14.4
P5R3A
7.5i
2.5
3.5
86.4
P5 R4A
50
10
1.9
11.4
‘<
, P5R3A
10
2.5
3.4
81.6
P5R4A
60
10
1.9
11.4
P5R3A
12.5
2.5
3.6
86.4
P5R4A
70
10
1.7’
10.2
, P5R3A
15
2.5
2.9
69.6
P5R4A
80
10
1 .a
10.8
P5R3A
20
5
5.9
70.8
P 5 R4A
90
10
1.9
Il .4
P5R3A
25
5
4.8
57.6
P 5 R4A
100
10
1.9
‘11.4
P5R3A
30
5
4.6
55.2
P5 R4B
2.5
2.5
1.4
33.6

---

165
Table D. Continued
Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr) Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cm/hr)
P6,R2A
2.5
2.5
0.8
19.2
P 6 R 3A
35
5
0.8
9.6
P6R2A
5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 6 R 3A
40
5
0.9
10.8
P6R2A
7.5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6 R 3A
50
10
1.9
11.4
P6R2A
10
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 6 R 3A
60
10
1.7
10.2
P6R2A
12.5
2.5
0.5
12
,P6R3A
70
10
1.7
10.2
i
’
P6R2A
15
2.5
0.4
9.6
P6R3A
80
10
1.7
10.2
’
P 6, R 2A
20
5
1
12
P6R3A
90
10
1.7
10.2
P6R2A
25
5
1
12
P6R3A
100
10
1.8
10.8
J
P6R2A
30
5
1
12
P6R3A
110
10
1.7
10.2
P6R2A
35
5
0.9
10.8
P6R3A
120
-.. ._ .-.-
10
1.7
10.2
P6,R2A
40
5
1
12
P 6 R 3B
2.5
2.5
0.5
12
P 6’ R 2A
50
10
2
12 /P6R3B
5
2.5
0.3
7.2
P 6 R 2A
60
10
2
12
P6R3B
7.5
2.5
0.2
4.8
P 61 R 2A
70
10
1.8
10.8 , P6R3B
10
2.5
0.3
7.2
P6lR2A
80
10
1.9
11.4
P6R3B
12.5
2.5
0.2
4.8
P6lR2A
90
10
2.1
12.6 ,, P6R3B
15
2.5
0.5
4.8
P61R2A
100
10
1.9
11.4
P6R3B
20
5
0.5
6
P6R2A
‘110
10
2
12
P6R3B
25
5
0.4
6
P6R2A
-- .---- . _- 1120
10
1.9
11.4
P6R3B
30
5
0.4
4.8
P6R2B
-2.5
215
0.8
19.2
P6R3B
35
5
0.4
4.8
P6R2B
5
2.5
0.7
16.8
P6R3B
40
5
0.5
6
P61R2B
7.5
.2.5
0.7
16.8
P6R3B
50
10
0.7
4.2
’
I-”
P6R2B
10
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R3B
60
10
0.8
4.8
PE;R2B
12.5
2.5
0.5
12
P6R3B
70
10
0.9
5.4
P6;R2B
15
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R3B
80
10
0.9
5.4
P6lR2B
20
5
1.1
13.2
P 6 R 3B
90
10
0.8
4.8
P6R2B
25
5
1.3
15.6
P6R3B
100
10
0.9
5.4
P6bR2B
30
5
1.3
15.6
P6R3B
110
10
0.9
5.4
PER2B
35
5
0.9
10.8
P6R3B
120
10
0.9
5.4
1.:
P6kR2B
40
5
0.9
10.8
P6R4A
2.5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R2B
50
10
2.1
12.6
P6R4A
5
2.5
0.4
9.6
P6 R2B
60
10
2
12
P6R4A
7.5
2.5
0.3
7.2
P6R2B
70
10
1.9
11.4
P6R4A
10
2.5
0.5
12
P6R2B
80
10
2
12
P6R4A
12.5
2.5
0.4
9.6
P6R2B
90
10
2
12
P6R4A
15
2.5
0.3
7.2
P6R2B
100
10
2
12
P6R4A
20
5
0.7
8.4
‘/.
P6R2B
110
10
2 . 1
12.6
P6R4A
25
5
0.7
8.4
P6R28
-_
120
10
2
12
P6R4A
30
5
0.7
8.4
P 6 R 3A
2.5
2.5
0.8
19.2
P6R4A
35
5
0.6
7
.
2
.P 6 R 3A
5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R4A
40
5
0.5
6
P6R3A
7.5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R4A
50
10
1 . 1
6.6
.‘P 6 R 3A
10
2.5
0.6
14.4
P6R4A
60
10
1 . 1
6.6
PEÎR3A
10
1.3
7.8
\\
12.5
2.5
0.5
12
P6R4A
70
?
PEiR3A
15
2.5
0.5
12
P6R4A
80
10
1.8
10.8
P 6 R 3A
20
5
1
12
P6R4A
90
10
1
6
‘P 6 R 3A
25
5
1
12
P6R4A
100
10
1
6
PEiR3A
30
5
1
12
P6R4A
110
10
0.9
5.4

---

166
Table D. Continued
Samples T (rnin) ElapSedT W.h(cm) Ir (cm/hr) Samples ‘T (rnin) ElapsedT W.h(c
) Ir (cm/hr)
P7R2A
2.5
2.5
4.7
112.8. P7R3A
35
%
2.1
25.2
P7R-2A
!5
2.5
4.5
108
P7R3A
40
5
1.4
16.8
P7R2A
7.5
2.5
3.8
91.2
P7R3A
50
10
4.1
24.6
,P7R2A
10
2.5
3.2
76.8
P 7 R3A
60
10
3.6
21.6
;SI
P7R2A
12.5
2.5
3
72
P7R3A
70
10
3.9
23.4
y:
P7R2A
15
2.5
2.6
62.4
P7 R3A
80
10
3.5
21
P7R2A
20
5
4.8
57.6
P7 R3A
90
10
3.7
22.2
I
P7R2A
25;
5
4.7
56.4
P 7 R 3A
100
10
3.5
21
1 t
P7R2A
30
5
4.2
50.4
P7 R3A
110
10
3.8
22.8
P7R2A
35
5
3.3
39.6
P7 R3A
120
10
3.6
21.6
P7R2A
40
5
3.4
40.8
P? f?3B
2.5
2.5
7
168
./, . P7R2A
50
10
4.5
27
P7R3B
!5
2.5
3.7
88.8
P7R2A
60
10
5 4
. .
32.4
P 7 R3B
7.5
2.5
2.8
67.2
, P7R2A
70
10
4.9
29.4
P7 R3B
10
2.5
2.3
55.2
P7R2A
80
10
4.8
28.8
P7 R3B
Ii!.5
2.5
3.7
88.8
. P7R2A
90
10
4.9
29.4
P 7 R 38
15
2.5
3.8
91.2
P7R2A
100
10
4.8
28.8
P 7 R 38
20
5
3.6
43.2
P7R2A
110
10
4.8
28.8
P7 R 3B
25
5
2.6
31.2
1
3
P7R2A
120
10
4.8
29.4
P7 R3B
30
5
1.9
22.8
i
,
,/f?R2B
2.!5
2.5
4.8
115.2
P7R3B
35
5
2.2
26.4
P7R2B
5
2.5
2.4
57.6
P 7 R3B
40
5
2.1
25.2
P7R2B
7.5
2.5
2.2
52.8
P 7 R 3B
50
10
4.5
27
’ P7R2B
10
2.5
2
48
P7R3B
60
10
4.6
27.6
ci
, P7R2B
12.5
2.5
‘1.8
43.2
P7R3B
70
10
4.5
27
P7R2B
15
2.5
1 . 8
43.2
P7R3B
80
10
4.4
26.4
P7R2B
20
5
3
36
P7R3B
90
10
4.E
27.6
P7R2B
25
5
2.8
33.6
P7 R 38
100
10
4.5
27
P7R2B
30
5
2.6
31.2
P7R3B
110
10
4 . E
27.6
P7R2B
35
5
2.4
28.8
PJ R3B
120
10
4.5
27
P7R2B
40
5
2.3
27.6
-P 7 R 4A
2.5
2.5
6
144
P7R2B
50
10
i5.5
33
PJR4A
5
2.5
4.1
146
P7R2B
60
10
S.2
31.2
P7R4A
7.5
2.5
1.E
108
P7R2B
70
10
4.1
24.6
P7R4A
10
2.5
3c
79.2
P7R2B
80
10
4 1
24.6
P7R4A
12.5
2.5
4:;
112.8
P7R2B
90
10
4.2
25.2
P7R4A
15
2.5
2.L
57.6
P7R2B
100
10
4 . 1
24.6
P7 R4A
20
5
2.:
60
P7R2B
110
10
44.2
25.2
P7R4A
25
5
5.L
64.8
f
P 7 R’2B
120
10
4.1
24.6
P7R4A
30
5
4
48
P7R3A
2.5
2.5
5.7
136.8
P7R4A
35
5
4.1
3 5 . 1 4
.’ P 7 R 3A
5
2.5
3.5
84
P7R4A
40
5
3.:
19.8
P7R3A
7.5
2.5
2.7
64.8
P7R4A
50
10
1.E
2.1.6
, P7R3A
10
2.5
2.1
50.4
P7R4A
60
10
4.L
26.4
-{
P7R3A
12.5
2.5
3.2
76.8
P7R4A
70
10
2.1
16.2
P 7 R 3A,
15
2.5
2.6
62.4
P7R4A
80
10
l.t
10.8
P7R3A
20
5
3.‘1
35.2
P7R4A
90
10
1 .d
8.4
P 7 R 3A
25
5
2.4
28.8
P7R4A
100
10
1.1
7.8
P 7 R 3A
30
5
2.3
27.6
P7R4A
110
10
1:. .
7.8

---

167
Table D. Continued
Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr) Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr)
P iOR2A
2.5
2.5
3.9
93.6
P 10 R 3A
30
5
2.4
28.8
/ PlOR2A
5
2.5
2.6
62.4
P 10 R3A
35
5
2.3
27.6
P lOR2A
7.5
2.5
2.4
57.4
P 10 R 3A
40
5
1.9
22.8
PlOR2A
10
2.5
1.9
45.6
P 10 R 3A
50
10
3.2
19.2
P lOR2A
12.5
2.5
2.2
52.8
P 10 R 3A
60
10
3 . 1
18.6
Gr
P lOR2A
15
2.5
1.6
38.4
P40R3A
70
10
3
18
$!
P lOR2A
20
5
3.9
46.8
P 10 R 3A
80
10
2.7
16.2
P lOR2A
25
5
3
36
PlOR3A
90
10
2.6
15.6
PlOR2A
30
5
3.2
38.4
P 10 R 3A
100
10
2.6
15.6
, PlOR2A
35
5
2.7
32.4
PlOR3A
110
10
2.7
1 6 . 2 - - -
P lOR2A
40
5
3 . 1
37.2
P 10 R 3A
120
10
2.6
15.6
/
PlOR2A
50
10
5
30
PlOR3B
2.5
2.5
2.9
69.6
PiOR2A
60
10
4.7
28.2 .’ P 10 R 3B
5
2.5
2.3
6 2 . 4
PlOR2A
70
10
4.9
29.4
P 10 R 38
7.5
2.5
2.7
64.8
PlOR2A
80
10
4.9
29.4
P 10 R 3B
10
2.5
1.8
43.2
~7
PlOR2A
90
10
4.8
28.8
P 10 R 3B
12.5
2.5
1.8
43.2
ai
PlOR2A
100
10
4.9
29.4
P 10 R 38
15
2.5
1.4
33.6
PlOR2A
110
10
4.8
28.8
P 10 R 3B
20
5
3.6
43.2
P lOR2A
--. _ _ _
120
10
4.9
29.4
P 10 R 38
25
5
2.8
33.6
PlOR2B
2.5
2.5
4.4
105.6
P 10 R 38
30
5
2.6
31.2
, PlOR2B
5
2.5
3.5
84
PlOR3B
35
5
2.4
28.8
PlOR2B
7.5
2.5
2
48
P 10 R 38
40
5
2.3
27.6
PlOR2B
10
2.5
2.2
52.8
PlOR3B
50
10
5
30
PlOR2B
12.5
2.5
2
48
P10R3B
60
10
5
30
PlOR2B
15
2.5
1.8
43.2
P 10 R 3B
70
10
4.7
28.2
P iOR2B
20
5
3
36
PlOR3B
80
10
3 . 1
18.6
.)
P lOR2B
25
5
2.6
31.2
P 10 R 38
90
10
3 . 1
18.6
PlOR2B
30
5
2.5
30
P10R3B
100
10
3
18
PlOR2B
35
5
2.2
26.4
P 10 R 38
110
10
3.1
18.6
PlOR2B
40
5
2.3
27.6
PlOR3B
120
10
3
18
PlOR2B
50
10
5
30
PlOR4A
1.5
1.5
1.9
76
PlOR2B
60
10
4.3
25.8 , P 10 R 4A
3
1.5
1.5
60
PlOR2B
70
10
4.2
25.2
P 10 R 4A
4.5
1.5
1.3
52
P lOR2B
80
10
4
24
PlOR4A
6
1.5
1.3
52
P lOR2B
90
10
4.2
25.2
P 10 R 4A
7.5
1.5
1.2
48
PlOR2B
100
10
4.2
25.2
P lOR4A
9
1.5
1 . 1
44
‘7
P lOR2B
110
10
4.1
24.6
P 10 R4A
12
3
2
40
PlOR2B
120
10
4.2
25
P 10R4A
15
3
1.9
38
PlOR3A
2.5
2.5
2.8
67.2
P i0 R 4A
18
3
1.8
36
PlOR3A
5
2.5
1.7
40.8
P lOR4A
21
3
1.9
38
x
P 10 R3A
7.5
2.5
1.2
28:8
P lOR4A
26
5
2.8
33.6
PlOR3A
10
2.5
1.5
36
P lOR4A
31
5
2.7
32.4
PlOR3A
12.5
2.5
1.3
31.2
P lOR4A
36
5
2.5
30
1.
PlOR3A
15
2.5
1.2
28.8
P 10R4A
41
5
2.6
31.2
P 10 R3A
20
5
2.2
26.4
P lOR4A
51
10
4.6
27.6
PlOR3A
25
5
2
24
PlOR4A
61
10
4.5
27
P lOR4A
71
10
4.6
27.6

---

/
168
Table D. Continued
Samples
T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr) Samples
T (min) ElapsedT W.h(c ) Ir (cm/hr)
P12R2A
2.5
2.5
0.8
'19.2
Pl2R3A
35
5
:';i i
20.4
P12R2A
5
2.5
0.9
21.6
P 12 R 3A
40
5
20.4
P 12 R 2A
7.5
2.5
0.8
19.2
P 12 R 3A.
50
10
3:3/
19.8
P12R2A
10
2.5
0.7
16.8
Pl2R3A
60
10
3.41
20.4
P 12 R 2A
12.5
2.5
0.7,
16.8
P 12 R 3A
'70
10
3.1
18.6
!J
P 12 R 2A
15
2.5
0.7
16.8
Pl2R3A
80
10
3.2,
19.2
!i
P12R2A
20
5
1.3
q5.6 ' P 12R3A
90
10
3.1'
18.6
P 12 R 2A
25
5
l.3
15.6
P12R3A
100
10
3.2
19.2
I \\ci '
P 12 R 2P\\
30
5
'1.2
14.4
P 12R3A
110
10
3Yli
18
P 12 R 2P\\
35
5
'1.1
13.2
P12R3A
120
10
18.6
P 12 R 2A
40
‘1.1
13.2
P12R3B
2.5
2.5
1 l
24
‘f4
P 12 R 2A
50
1:
2.4
14.4 , P12R3B
5
2.5
0.8
19.2 '
P12R2A
60
10
2.1
12.6
P 12 R 3B
7.5
2.5
0.7
16.8
P12R2P\\’
70
10
2.2
13.2
Pl2R3B
10
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 12 R 2P\\
80
10
2
12
P 12 R 38
12.5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 12 R 2A
90
10
2.2
13.2
Pl2R3B
15
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 12 R 2A
100
10
2
12
P 12 R 38
20
5
::3j
15.6
P 12 R 2P\\
110
10
2.1
12.6
P 12 R 38
25
5
15.6
P12R2A
120
10
2
12
Pl2R3B
30
5
1.21
14.4
:Q
P12R2EI
2.5
2.5
2.4
57.6
P 12 R 3B
:35
5
1.31
15.6
Pl2R2B
5
2.5
'1.8
43.2
P 12 R 38
40
5
1.21
14.4
P12R2B
7.5
2.5
‘1 .6
38.4
P 12 R 38
50
10
2.5
15
P12R2EI
ICI
2.5
1
24
P12R3B
60
10
2.4
14.4
P 12 R2E)
12.5
2.5
1
24 , Pl2R3B
'70
10
2.5
15
P 12 R 2E)
1!5
2.5
'1 .7
40.8
P12R3B
80
10
2.5
15
P12R2EI
20
5
2.3
27.6
P12R3B
90
14.4
P 12 R 2B
25
5
2
24
Pl2R3B
100
15
P 12 R 2E!
30
5
2.2
26.4
Pl2R3B
110
13.8
P 12 R 2B
3!5
5
I .9
22.8
Pl2R3B
120
15
q
P 12 R 2E!
40
5'
.1.8
21.6
P 12 R4A
'1 .5
16
P12R2B
!jO
10
4.1
24.6.y
Pl2R4A
3
12
Pl2R2B
60
10
:3.7
22.2
P 12 R 4A
4.5
12
P 12 R 2B
70
10
:3.7
22.2
P12R4A
6
,12
P 12 R 2B
80
10
:3.7
22.2 ' P 12 R 48
7.5
8
P12R2B
90,
10
:3.8
22.8
Pl2R4A
9
12
‘7
P12R2B
100
10
:3.7
22.2
P 12 R4A
12
10
P12R28
110
10
:3.8
22.8
Pl2R4A
15
10
(/
P 12 R 2B
12.0
10
z3.7
22.2
Pl2R4A
18
8
,4
P 12 R 3A
2.5
2.5
1.7
40.8
P12R4A
23
10.8
P12R3A
5
2.5
1.3
31.2
P 12 R4A
28
9.6
P 12 R 3A
7.5
2.5
1.2
28.8
Pl2R4A
33
5
0.91
10.8
P12R3A
10
2.5
1.1
26.4
Pl2R4A
38
‘5
0.71
8.4
P 12 R 3A
12.5
2.5
1.1
P 12
‘I*
Pl2R3A
15
2.5
1
26.4 24 P12R4A
R4A
48 58
10 5
0.6
3.6 3
P 12 R 3A
20
5
1.8
21.6
P 12 R4A
68
10
i:E,
3.6
P 12R3A
25
5
1.9
22.8
P 12 R4A
78
10
0.51
3
P 12 R 3A
30
5
1.8
21.6
P 12 R 48
1.5
1.5
0.71
28

---

169
Table D. Continued
Sarnples
J (min) ElapsedT W.h(cm) Ir (cm/hr) Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr)
P13R2A
2.5
2.5
3.2
76.8
P 13 R 3A
35
5
1.3
15.6
; Pl3R2A
5
2.5
2.5
60
P13R3A
40
5
2.9
14.8
P13R2A
7.5
2.5
2.1
50.4
P 13 R 3A
50
10
2.2
13.2
P 13R2A
10
2.5
1.9
45.6
P13R3A
60
10
3
18
P 13 R2A
12.5
2.5
1.8
43.2
P13R3A
70
10
3
18 , i.-i
P 13R2A
15
2.5
1.8
43.2
P13R3A
80
10
2.5
15
i:
P13R2A
20
5
1.9
45.6
P13R3A
90
10
2.5
15
P13R2A
25
5
3.2
38.4
P13R3A
100
10
2.5
15
31.2
P13R3A
110
10
I
P 13R2A
30
5
2.6
2.4
14.4
4’ P13R2A
35
5
2.2
26.4
P 13R3A
120
10
2.5
15
P13R2A
40
5
1.8
21.6
P 13 R3B
2.5
2.5
2.8
67.2
P13R2A
50
10
3.4
20.4 ( P 13 R 38
5
2.5
2
48
’ P13R2A
60
10
2.9
17.4
P13R3B
7.5
2.5
1
24
P13R2A
70
10
2.8
16.8
P13R3B
10
2.5
0.9
21.6
P 13R2A
80
10
2.8
16.8 ’ P 13 R 3B
12.5
2.5
1.1
26.4
P13R2A
90
10
2.6
15.6
P13R3B
15
2.5
1
24
P13R2A
100
10
2.6
15.6 ’ P 13 R3B
20
5
1
12
P23R2A
110
10
2.5
15
P13R3B
25
5
2.1
25.2
:?
P 13 R2A
120
10
2.6
15.6
P13R3B
30
5
1.9
22.8
i
P13R2B
2.5
2.5
2.7
64.8
P13R3B
35
5
2
24
, P13R2B
5
2.5
1.9
45.6
P 13 R 3B
40
5
2.1
25.2
P13R2B
7.5
2.5
1.6
38.4 ,j P 13 R 38
50
10
3.4
20.4
P13R2B
10
2.5
1.4
33.6
P 13 R 3B
60
10
3.2
19.2
’
P13R2B
12.5
2.5
1.2
28.8 _ P 13R3B
70
10
3 . 1
18.6
P 13R2B
15.
2.5
1 . 1
26.4
P 13 R 3B
80
10
2.9
17.4
Pl3R2B
20
5
2
24
P13R3B
90
10
3
18
P13R2B
25
5
1.7
20.4
P13R3B
100
10
3 . 1
18.6
P113R2B
30
5
1.6
19.2
P13R3B
110
10
3
18
P13R2B
35
5
1.7
20.4
ff 13R3B
120
10
3
18
P13R2B
40
5
1.5
18
P 13.k’4A
1.5
1.5
1.5
60
.Tl
P13R2B
50
10
3.2
19.2, P13R4A
3
1.5
1.4
56
/
P13R2B
60
10
2.8
16.8
P 13 R4A
4.5
1.5
1.2
53
P13R2B
70
10
2.8
16.8
P13R4A
6
1.5
1.1
40
P13R2B
80
10
2.9
17.4’
P13R4A
7.5
1.5
0.7
32
“‘3
P13R2B
90
10
2.7
16.2
P 13 R4A
8.5
1
0.5
23.43
P13R2B
100
10
2.6
15.6 ‘ P13R4A
11
2.5
0.7
20.79
Pl3R2B
110
10
2.5
15
P13R4A
13.5
2.5
1
26.09
P1,3R2B
120
10
2.6
15.6
P13R4A
16
2.5
0.6
15.72
PI3R3A
2.5
2.5
4.5
108
P13R4A
21
5
1.6
19.2
, PIi3R3A
5
2.5
2.6
62.4
P13R4A
26
5
1.4
16.8
Pl3R3A
7.5
2.5
3.2
76.8
P 13 R4A
31
5
1.1
13.2
_ P’l3R3A
10
2.5
1.6
38
P13R4A
36
5
0.9
10.8
P’l3R3A
12.5
2.5
1.3
31.2
P13R4A
41
5
0.85
10.2
P 13 R 3A
15
2.5
1.5
36
P13R4A
46
5
0.55
6.6
P’l3R3A
20
5
2.2
26.4
P13R4A
51
5
0.5
.6
P’l3R3A
25
5
2
24
P13R4A
56
5
0.5
6
P’l3R3A
30
5
2.1
25.2
P13R4A
61
5
0.4
4.8

---

I
170
I
Table D. Continued
/
Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h[cm) Ir (cm/hr) Samples
T (min) ElapsedT W.h(cn nb Ir (cmlhr)
P 14-R 2A
2.5
2.5
2.1
50.4
P 14 R 3A
35
5
3.9
46.8
P 14 R 2A
5
2.5
1.5
36
P14R3A
40
5
3.8
45.6
P 14 R 2A
7.5
2.5
1.3
31.2 Pl4R3A
50
10
7.7
46.2
P 14 R 2A
IQ
2.5
1.2
28.8
,P 14 R 3A
60
10
7.3
43.8
P14R2A
12.5
2.5
‘1
24
Pl4R3A
70
10
6.8
40.8
P 14 R 2A
15
2.5
‘1
2 4 .*P14R3A 80
10
6,4
38.4
P 14R2A
20
5
1.8
2 1 . 6 P14R3A
90
10
6.4
38.4
P 14 R 2A
25
5
1.9
22.8
P 14 R 3A
100
10
6.1
36.6
P 14 R 2A
30
5
2.1
25.2
P 14 R 3A
110
10
6.1
36.6
P 14 R 2P\\
35
5
1.6
19.2 , P14R3A
120
10
6.2
37.2
Pl4R2A
40
5
1.8
21.6
P 14 R 3B
2.5
2.5
2.9
69.6
%
,, P 14 R2A
50
10
3.5
21 * P 14 R 3B
5
2.5
2.1
50.4
P 14 R 2fr
60
10
3.7
22.2
P 14 R 3B
7.5
2.5
2
48
,, P14R2A
70
10
3.3
19.8
P 14 R 38
10
2.5
2
48
P 14 R 2A
80
10
3.2
19.2
P 14 R 38
12.5
2.5
1.7
40.8
P 14 R 2A
90
10
3.2
19.2, P14R3B
15
2.5
1.7
40.8
P 14 R 2A
100
10
2.9
17.4
P 14 R 3B
20
5
3.4
P 14 R 2A
110
10
3.1
1 8 . 6 P14R3B
25
5
3.1
P14R2A
120
10
3.1
18.6
P 14 R 3B
30
5
3.2
P 14 R 2E3
2.5
2.5
2.3
55.2
P 14 R 38
35
5
2.7
32.4
, P14R2E3
5
2.5
1.8
4 3 . 2 P14R3B
40
5
2.8
33.6
P 14 R 2E3
7.5
2.5
1.4
33.6
P 14 R 3B
50
10
5.6
33.6
P 14 R 2E3
10
2.5
1.5
36
P 14 R 3B
60
10
5.3
31.8
P 14 R 2E3
12.5
2.5
1.8
43.2
P 14 R 38
70
10
5.1
30.6
P 14R2B
15
2.5
1.3
3 1 . 2 P14R3B
80
10
5
30
20
5
2.4
28.8
P 14 R 3B
90
10
5
;‘)
P 14 R2E3
30
;\\q .,‘,
P 14 R 2E3
25
5
2.3
27.6
P 14 R 38
100
10
4,.9
29.4
.c
P 14R2B
130
5
2.5
30
P 14 R 38
110
10
4.9
29.4
P 14R2B
35
5
21.2
26.4
P i4 R 3B
120
10
5
30
P 14 R 213
40
5
1.9
22.8
P 14 R 4A
1.5
1.5
1.8
72
P 14R2t3
,50
10
4.4
26.4 P 14 R4A
3
1 .5
1.3
52
P 14 R 2B
60
10
3.6
21.6 P 14 R4A
4.5
1.5
1.4
56
P 14R213
70
10
4.1
2 4 . 6 P 14R4A
6
1.5
1.7
68
P 14 R 213
80
10
3.6
21.6 P 14 R4A
7.5
1.5
1.3
P 14 R 213
90
10
4
24
P 14R4A
9
1.5
1
P 14 R 213
a00
10
3.6
21.6 P 14 R4A
12
3
4.8
36
P 14 R 213
110
10
3.7
22.2
P 14 R 4A
15
3
‘1.8
36
Y!,
P14R2B
120
10
3.7
22.2
P 14 R 4A
18
3
1.9
38
P 14 R 314
2.5
2.5
5
1 2 0 P14R4A
21
3
1.6
32
. P14R3A
5
2.5
3.6
86.4
P 14 R 4A
26
5
‘I .9
22.8
P 14 R3A
7.5
2.5
4.4
105.6
P 14 R 4A
31
5
1 .5
18
P 14 R3A
10
2.5
2.7
64.8
P 14 R 4A
36
5
‘1 .8
21.6
-4
P 14 R3A
12.5
2.5
:3.1
74.4
P 14 R 4A
46
10
3
18
P 14 R3A
15
2.5
2.5
60
P 14R4A
56
10
:3.1
18.6
P 14 R3A
20
5
5
60
P 14R4A
66
10
3
18
P14R3A
25
5
4.4
52.8 P 14 R4A
76
10
p 14-R 48
:3.1
1.8.6
P 14R3A
30
5
4.5
54
1.x
1.5
‘1 .8
72

---

171
Table D. Continued
Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cmlhr) Samples
T (min) Elapsed W.h(cm) Ir (cm/hr)
P15R2A
2.5
2.5
0.7
16.8 - P 15 R 3A
35
-5
1.6
19.2
,’ P15R2A
5
2.5
0.7
16.8
P 15 R 3A
40
5
1.4
16.8
P15R2A
7.5
2.5
0.6
14.4
P15R3A
50
10
2.6
15.6
, P15R2A
10
2.5
0.6
14.4
P15R3A
60
10
2.5
15
P15R2A
12.5
2.5
0.5
12
Pl5R3A
70
10
2.6
15.6 /’ J”
, f’15R2A
15
2.5
0.6
14.4
P 15 R3A
80
10
2.4
14.4 a
P15R2A
20
5
1
1 2 P’15R3A
90
10
2.5
15
P15R2A
25
5
1
12
P 15R3A
100
10
2.4
14.4
\\Ql ” P15R2A
30
5
1 . 1
13.2
Pl5R3A
110
10
2.2
13.2
P15R2A
35
5
0.9
10.8
P 15 R3A
120
10
2.4
14.4
P15R2A
40
5
1
12
P 15R3B
2.5
2.5
1.6
38.4
P15R2A
50
10
1.7
10.2
P 15 R 3B
5
2.5
1.3
31.2
-Jo
P15R2A
60
10
1.8
10.8
P 15R3B
7.5
2.5
0.9
21.6
. P15R2A
70
10
2
12
P15R3B
10
2.5
1
24
Pl5R2A
80
10
1.7
10.2’ P15R3B
12.5
2.5
1
24
P15R2A
90
10
1.7
10.2, P15R3B
15
2.5
0.9
21.6
P15R2A
100
10
1.6
9.6
Pl5R3B
20
5
1.5
18
P15R2A
110
10
1.7
10.2
P15R3B
25
5
1.6
19.2
P15R2A
-_._
120
10
1.7
10.2
P15R3B
30
5
1.4
16.8
‘Pl5RsB
2.5
2.5
0.3
7 . 2
P15R3B
35
5
1.2
14.4
I Pl5R2B
5
2.5
0.2
4.8
P15R3B
40
5
1.2
14.4
Pl5R2B
7.5
2.5
0.2
4.8
Pl5R3B
50
10
2.5
15
P15R2B
10
2.5
0 . 1
2.4
P 15R3B
60
10
2.2
13.2
Pi5R2B
12.5
2.5
0.2
4.8
P15R3B
70
10
2.4
14.4
P15R2B
15
2.5
0 . 1
4.8
P15R3B
80
10
2.2
23.2
20
5
0.3
2.4
P15R3B
90
10
2.3
13.8
I CE P15R2B
t: I,
P 15 R 28
25
5
0.3
3.6
P15R3B
100
10
2
12
P15R2B
30
5
0.2
3.6
P15R3B
110
10
2
12
P15R2B
35
5
0.3
2.4
P15R3B
120
10
2
12
P15R2B
40
5
0.2
3.6
P 15R4A
2.5
2.5
0.8
19.2
Pl5R2B
50
10
0.5
2.4
P15R4A
5
2.5
0.7
16.8
P15R2B
60
10
0.4
3
P 15R4A
7.5
2.5
0.7
16.8
P15R2B
70
10
0.4
2.4
P 15R4A
9
2.5
0.6
14.4
P15R2B
80
10
0.4
2.4
P15R4A
11.5
2.5
0.3
7.2
P15R2B
90
10
0.4
2.4
P 15R4A
14
2.5
0.6
14.4
-A
P15R2B
100
10
0.4
2.4
P15R4A
19
5
1
12
P15R2B
110
10
0.4
2.4
P15R4A
24
5
0.8
9.6
P15R2B
120
10
0.5
2.5
P 15R4A
29
5
0.9
1 0 . 8
P15R3A
2.5
2.5
2
48
P 15R4A
34
5
0.8
12
P15R3A
5
2.5
1.4
33.6
P 15R4A
44
5
1.9
11.4
P15R3A
7.5
2.5
1.2
28.8
P 15R4A
54
10
2
12
P15R3A
10
2.5
1.1
26.4
P15R4A
64
10
2.2
13.2
P15R3A
12.5
2.5
1
24
P 15 R4A
74
10
1.9
11.4
4
P15R3A
15
2.5
1.1
26.4
Pl5R4A
84
10
1.5
9
P15R3A
20’
5
1.8
21.6
P 15 R4A
94
10
2.3
13.8
P15R3A
25
5
1.6
19.2
P 15R4A
_....
104
10
2
12
Pl5R3A
30
5
1.5
18
$-15R4ti
2.5
2.5
1 . 1
26.4

---

172
Table E. Total organic carbon in the IPM plots
Samples
Soi1 wt (g) C (%) Samples
Soi1 wt (g) C (%) Samples
C (%)
Rep2 PI A
0.2184
2.93, f?ep3 Pl A
0.2296
2.61
Rep4 PI A
1.82
Rep2 Pl A
0.1903
3.03 f?ep3 Pl A
0.2039
2.93 Rep4 Pl A
1.73
Rep2 Pl A
0.2342
2.82 f?ep3 Pl A
0.1988
2.6
Rep4 PI A
1.87
Rep2 Pl A
0.1973
2.99 f?ep3 Pi A
0.2278
2.81
Rep4 Pl A
1.89
Rep2 Pl B
0.1932
2.96 fiep3 Pl B
0.1758
2.7
Rep4 Pl B
O.l9l)2
1.58
Rep2 Pl B
0.2173
2.66 f?ep3 PI B
0.1996
2.6
Rep4 Pi B
Rep2 Pl B
0.2104
2.54 f?ep3 Pl B
0.2184
2.81
Rep4 PI B
Rep2 --, Pl B
0.2078
2.7
f?ep3 Pl B
0.2303
2.79 Rep4 P2 A
. Ic
Rep2 P2: A
0.186
2.54 fi&3 P2 A
0.2204
2.63 Rep4 P2 A
Rep2 P2: A
0.2309
2.29
fiep3 P2 A
0.2442
2.85 Rep4 P2 A
Rep2 P2: A
0.2122
2.35
f?ep3 P2 A
0.194
2.75 Rep4 P2 A
Rep2 P2: A
0.2224
2.55
fiep3 P2 A
0.1783
2.82 Rep4 P2 B
Rep2 P2: B
0.2109
2.38
Rep3 P2 B
0.2035
2.84 Rep4 P2 B
Rep2 P2: B
0.2172
2.4
Rep3 P2 B
0.2203
2.23 Rep4 P2 B
Rep2 P2: B
0.1799
2.38 Rep3 P2 B
0.2422
2.44 Rep4 P2 B
Rep2 P2 B
0.1978
2.4
Rep3 P2 B
0.2351
2.2
Rep4 P3 A
Rep2 P 3 A
0.2407
2 . 1
Rep3 P3 A
0.2408
1.97 Rep4 P3 A
Rep2 PC; A
0.2429
2.17 Rep3 P3 A
0.2474
1.85 Rep4 P3 A
Rep2 P 3 A
0.2673
1.86
Rep3 P3 A
0.1796
2.25 Rep4 P3 A
Rep2 P3 A
0.236
2.41
Rep3 P3 A
0 2261
2.69 Rep4 P3 B
Rep2 P 3 B
0.2424
1.6
Rep3 P3 B
0.2014
2.92 Rep4 P3 B
Rep2 P 3 B
0.2498
2.18 Rep3 P3 B
0 2274
1.82 Rep4 P3 B
Rep2 P 3 B
0.248
2.33 Rep3 P3 B
0.2287
2.01
Rep4 P3 B
Rep2 P 3 B
0.2459
2.31
Rep3 P3 B
0.2262
1.46 Rep4 P4 A
Rep2 P4 A
0.1684
3.42 lRep3 P4 A
0.2031
,1.23
Rep4 P4 A
Rep2 P4 A
0.1591
3.28 Rep3 P4 A
0.2603
1.35 Rep4 P4 A
Rep2 P4I A
0.198
3.4
lRep3 P4 A
0 2312
,1.27
Rep4 P4 A
Rep2 P4 A
0.2152
3.19 IRep3 P4 A
0 1943
‘1.3
Rep4 P4 B
Rep2 P4I B
0.2187
3.37 lRep3 P4 B
0.1924
1.14 Rep4 P4 B
Rep2 P4 B
0.2381
3.13 lRep3 P4 B
0.2216
1.17 Rep4 P4 B
Rep2 P4 B
0.2247
3.28 lRep3 P4 B
0 2577
1.14
Rep4 P4 B
Rep2 P 4 B
0.225
3.33 lRep3 P4 B
0.2116
1.25 Rep4 P5 A
Rep2 P 5 A
0.26
3.18 iRep3 P5 A
0.2058
2.76 Rep4 P5 A
Rep2 P5 A
0.2146
2.55 ,Rep3 P5 A
0.2084
3
Rep4 P5 A
Rep2 PEI A
0.2359
3.07 Rep3 P5 A
0.1673
2.8
Re@ P5A
Rep2 P5 A
0.2568
3.01
Rep3 P5 A
0.2171
2.82 Rep4 P5 B
Rep2 P5 B
0.2001
2.86
Rep3 P5 B
0.1964
2.26 Rep4 P5 B
Rep2 P5 B
0.1944
0.311
Rep3 P5 B
0.2007
2.12
Rep4 P5 B
Rep2 P5 B
‘0.1746
2.95 Rep3 P5 B
0.1673
1.91 Rep4 P5 B
Jep2 P5 B
0.1527
3.04 Rep3 P5 B
0.2147
2.14 Rep4 P6 A
Rep2 P6 A
0.1868
2.12 Rep3 P6 A
0.19
1.78 Rep4 P6 A
Rep2 P6 A
0.2087
2.65 Rep3 P6 A
0.1705
2.06 Rep4 P6 A
Rep2 Pô A
0.2209
2.35 Rep3 P6 A
0 2117
1.91
Rep4 P6 A
Rep2 P6 A
0.2186
2.73 Rep3 P6 A
0.2312
2.12 Rep4 P6 B
0.23jl3
2.09
Rep2 P 6 B
0.2087
2.68 Rep3 P6 B
0.2381
2.01
Rep4 P6 B
2.48
Rep2 P6 B
0.2257
2.66 Rep3 P6 B
0.2307
1.87 Rep4 P6 B
2.67
RepX P6 B
0.219
2.7
Rep3 P6 B
0.2184
1.94 Rep4 P6 B
2.72

---

173
Rep2 P6 B
0.2459
2.86 Rep3 P6 B
0.2284
1.69 Rep4 P7 A
0.2186
2.81
Rep2 P7 A
0.2043
2.18 Rep3 P7 A
0.1959
2.03 Rep4 P7 A
0.2331
2.49
Rep2 P7 A
0.1863
2.37 Rep3 P7 A
0.2038
2.31 Rep4 P7 A
0.1819
2.39
Rep2 P7 A
0.2306
2.18 Rep3 P7 A
0.1938
2.58 Rep4 P7 A
0.1724
2.57
Rep2 P7 A
0.2152
2.95 Rep3 P7 A
0.2375
2.08 Rep4 P7 B
0.1944
2.56
Rep2 P7 B
0.2083
2.55 Rep3 P7 B
0.211
2.15 Rep4 P7 B
0.2156
2.37
Rep2 P7 B
0.1895
2.25 Rep3 P7 B
0.2049
2.12 Rep4 P7 B
0.2164
2.22
Rep2 P7 B
0.2043
2.07 Rep3 P7 B
0.1554
2.15 Rep4 P7 B
0.1782
2.4
Rep2 P7 B
0.1712
2.17 Rep3 P7 B
0.2504
2.23 Rep4 PI0 A
0.1992
2.2
Rep2 PI0 A
0.2474
2.17 Rep3 PlO A
0.2098
2.31 Rep4 Pi0 A
0.2145
2.76
Rep2 PlO A
0.2398
2.12 Rep3 PlO A
0.2199
2.29 Rep4 PI0 A
0.2044
1.88
Rep2 PI0 A
0.2432
2.07 Rep3 PI0 A
0.2235
2.32 Rep4 PI0 A
0.2376
1.76
Rep2 Pi0 A
0.2454
2.01 Rep3 PI0 A
0.2261
2.4 Rep4 Pi0 B
0.1944
:2.16
Rep2 Pi0 B
0.2335
2.17 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2239
2.28 Rep4 PlO B
0.2065
1.89
Rep2 PlO B
0.224
2.02 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2209
2.8 Rep4 PI0 B
0.2038
1.9
Rep2 Pi0 B
0.1943
2.65 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2119
3.16 Rep4 PI0 B
0.2442
1.92
Rep2 PlO B
0.2383
1.44 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2112
2.89 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1326
3.46
Rep2 PI2 A
0.2058
2.13 Rep3 P12 A
0.2087
2.2 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1484
2.75
Rep2 P12 A
0.1989
3
Rep3 PI2 A
0.1318
2.54 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1514
3.93
Rep2 PI2 A
0.2024
3.07 Rep3 P12 A
0.1938
2.87 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1724
3.16
Rep2 Pi2 A
0.1906
3.34 Rep3 P12 A
0.1664
2.54 Rep4 PI2 B
0.1758
3.52
Rep2 P12 B
0.1846
3.29 Rep3 P12 B
0.2295
2.66 Rep4 PI2 B
0.1443
2.8
Rep2 Pi2 B
0.2177
3.29 Rep3 PI2 B
0.1675
2.57 Rep4 PI2 B
0.2087
3.68
Rep2 P12 B
0.1947
3.08 Rep3 PI2 B
0.16
2.99 Rep4 PI2 B
0.1667
3.51
Rep2 P12 B
0.2028
3.09 Rep3 PI2 B
0.1939
2.41 Rep4 PI3 A
0.2216
2.04
Rep2 P13 A
0.1873
3.24 Rep3 P13 A
0.1983
2.16 Rep4 Pi3 A
0.2055
1.77
Rep2 Pi 3 .A
0.2248
2.96 Rep3 PI3 A
0.2151
2.33 Rep4 PI3 A
0.1855
2.08
Rep2 P13 A
0.2205
2.73 Rep3 P13 A
0.2126
2.18 Rep4 PI3 A
0.2124
1.76
Rep2 P13 A
0.1663
2.97 Rep3 Pi3 A
0.2422
2.2 Rep4 PI3 B
0.2331
1.76
Rep2 PI3 B
0.2051
3.18 Rep3 Pi3 B
0.2077
1.66 Rep4 P13 B
0.2318
1.96
Rep2 P13 B
0.2264
3.3 Rep3 Pi3 B
0.2223
‘1.68 Rep4 P13 B
0.2132
1.9
Rep2 PI3 B
0.1357
3.08 Rep3 PI3 B
0.1848
i .63
Rep4 PI3 B
0.2279
1.83
Rep2 P13 B
0.2037
3.25 Rep3 PI3 B
0.21 Il
1.77 Rep4 PI4 A
0.184
2.57
Rep2 PI4 A
0.196
2.71 Rep3 PI4 A
0.21
2.35 Rep4 Pi4 A
0.1672
2.34
Rep2 Pi4 A
0.1903
2.82 Rep3 Pi4 A
0.1364
1.9
Rep4 P14 A
0.1979
2.4
Rep2 P14 A
0.2193
2.87 Rep3 PI4 A
0.1712
2.21 Rep4 PI4 A
0.1706
2.65
Rep2 P14 A
0.1922
2.61 Rep3 PI4 A
0.2085
‘1.94 Rep4 P14 B
0.2558
2.29
Rep2 P14 B
0.1885
2.73 Rep3 PI4 B
0.2204
2.22 Rep4 P14 B
0.2065
2.36
Rep2 P14 B
0.213
2.67 Rep3 P14 B
0.1952
2.41 Rep4 P14 B
0.1599
2.32
Rep2 PI4 B
0.1941
2.62 Rep3 Pi4 B
0.1787
I .88
Rep4 Pi4 B
0.213
2.27
Rrip2 PI4 B
0.2421
2.7 Rep3 P14 B
0.1721
2.53 Rep4 PI5 A
0.1948
2.41
Rep2 P15 A
0.2399
2.23 Rep3 P15 A
0.236
2 . 1 1 Rep4Pl5A
0.2117
2.92
Rep2 PI5 A
0.1877
2.44 Rep3 PI5 A
0.206
2.28 Rep4 PI5 A
0.1897
3.25
Rep2 P15 A
0.2025
3.54 Rep3 PI5 A
0.1868
2.1
Rep4 PI 5 A
0.1887
2.82
Rep2 Pi5 A
0.1606
2.43 Rep3 PI5 A
0.1825
2.43 Rep4 Pi5 B
0.2395
3.26
Rep2 P15 B
0.1682
2.87 Rep3 P15 B
0.2122
3.47 Rep4 P15 B
0.155
3.31
Rep2 P15 B
0.2272
2.9 Rep3 PI5 B
0.1782
2.25 Rep4 PI5 B
0.2295
3.113
Rep2 P15 B
0.2359
2.85 Rep3 PI5 B
0.2392
1.96 Rep4 Pi5 B
0.1957
3.34
Rep2 PI5 B
0.1763
2.77 Rep3 P15 B
0.1947
2.03

---

174
Table F. Total nitrogen in the IPM plots
Samples
Soi1 wt (g) N (%) !Samples
Soil wt (g) N (%) Samples
N (%)
Rep2 PI A
0.2184
0.3 Rep3 PI A
0.2296
0.26 Rep4 PI A
0.2
Rep2 Pl A
0.1903
0.31 Rep3 PI A
0.2039
0.29 Rep4 PI A
0.22
Rep2 PI A
0.2342
0.28 Rep3 PI A
0.1988
0.28 Rep4 PI A
0.34
Rep2 PI A
0.1973
0.33 Rep3 Pl A
0.2278
0.28 Rep4 PI A
0.2
Rep2 PI B
0.1932
0.29 Rep3 PI B
0.1758
0.26 Rep4 Pl B
0.2
Rep2 Pi B
0.2173
0.32 Rep3 Pl B
0. ‘I 996
0.3 Rep4 Pl B
0.19
Rep2 Pi B
0.2104
0.25 Rep3 PI B
0.2184
0.27 Rep4 Pl B
0.18
Rep2 PI B
0.2078
0.27 Rep3 PI B
0.2303
0.28 Rep4 Pl B
0.18
Rep2 P2: A
0.186
0.29 Rep3 P2 A
0.2204
0.22 Rep4 P2 A
0.26
Rep2 P2: A
0.2309
0.23 Rep3 P2 A
0.2442
0.27 Rep4 P2 A
0.29
Rep2 P21 A
0.2122
0.22 Rep3 P2 A
0.194
0.28 Rep4 P2 A
0.28
Rep2 P2: A
0.2224
0.28 Rep3 P2A
0.1783
0.28 Rep4 P2 A
0.27
Rep2 P2: B
0.2109
0.27’ Rep3 P2 B
0.2035
0.28 R.ep4 P2 B
0.31
Rep2 PX B
0.2172
0.27 lRep3 P2 B
0.2203
0.27 Rep4 P2 B
0.26
Rep2 P2 B
0.1799
0.22 Rep3 P2 B
0.2422
0.24 Rep4 P2 B
0.37
Rep2 P2: B
0.1978
0.25 Rep3 P2 B
0.2351
0.24 Rep4 P2 B
0.33
Rep2 P3 A
0.2407
0.18 Rep3 P3 A
0.2408
0.19 Rep4 P3 A
0.31
Rep2 P3 A
0.2429
0.2 lRep3 P3 A
0.2474
0.2 Rep4 P3 A
0.4
Rep2 P3 A
0.2673
0.23 Rep3 P3 A
0.1796
0.26 Rep4 P3 A
0.4
Rep2 P3 A
0.236
0.23 lRep3 P3 A
0.2261
0.26 Rep4 P3 A
0.29
Rep2 P3 B
0.2424
0.17 lRep3 P3 B
0.2014
0.78 Rep4 P3 B
0.3
Rep2 P3 B
0.2498
0.22 lRep3 P3 B
0.2274
0.26 Rep4 P3 B
0.38
Rep2 PC; B
0.248
0.25 lRep3 P3 B
0.2287
0.22 Rep4 P3 B
0.33
Rep2 P3 B
0.2459
0.26 lRep3 P3 B
0.2262
0.2 Rep4 P3 B
0.43
Rep2 P4. A
0.1684
0.49 lRep3 P4 A
0.2031
0.24 Rep4 P4 A
0.27
Rep2 P4. A
0.1591
0.53 lRep3 P4 A
0.2603
0.18 Rep4 P4 A
0.33
Rep2 P4. A
0.198
0.49 lRep3 P4 A
0.2312
0.25 Rep4 P4 A
0.28
Rep2 P4. A
0.2152
0.44 lRep3 P4 A
0.1943
0.29 Rep4 P4 A
0.31
Rep2 P4. B
0.2187
0.47 lRep3 P4 B
0.1924
0.26 Rep4 P4 B
0.3
Rep2 P4. B
0.2381
0.44 IRep3 P4 B
0.2216
0.22 Rep4 P4 B
0.32
Rep2 P4 B
0.2247
0.48 lRep3 P4 B
0.2577
0.25 Rep4 P4 B
0.3
Rep2 P41 B
0.225
0.42 lRep3 P4 B
0.2116
0.24 Rep4 P4 B
0.29
Rep2 PEI A
0.26
0.42 lRep3 P5 A
0.2058
0.44 Rep4 P5 A
0.35
Rep2 P5 A
0.2146
0.34 lRep3 P5 A
0.2084
0.46 Rep4 P5 A
0.3
Rep2 PEI A
0.2359
0.44 #Rep3 P5 A
0.1673
0.44 Rep4 P5 A
0.36
Rep2 PEi A
0.2568
0.43 Rep3 P5 A
0.2171
0.5 Rep4 P5 A
0.34
Rep2 PEi B
0.2001
0.46 Rep3 P5 B
0.1964
0.37 Rep4 P5 B
0.41
Rep2 PEi B
0.1944
0.45 Rep3 P5 B
0.2007
0.35 Rep4 P5 B
0.43
Rep2 PEi B
0.1746
0.49 Rep3 P5 B
0.1673
0.43 Rep4 P5 B
0.11’34
0.45
Rep2 PEi B
0.1527
0.51 Rep3 P5 B
0.2147
0.32 Rep4 P5 B
0.1972
0.41
Rep2 P6 A
0.1868
0.35 Rep3 P6 A
0.19
0.31 Rep4 P6 A
0.2’ 99
0.35
Rep2 P6 A
0.2087
0.41 Rep3 P6 A
0.1705
0.37 Rep4 P6 A
0. Ii’26
0.35
Rep2 P6 A
0.2209
0.33 Rep3 P6 A
0.2117
0.32 Rep4 P6 A
10.2~.09
0.33
Rep2 P6 A
0.2186
0.43 Rep3 P6 A
0.2312
0.31 Rep4 P6 A
0.2313
0.34
Rep2 P6 B
0.2087
0.43 Rep3 P6 B
0.2381
0.32 Rep4 P6 B
‘0.2’ 59
0.39
Rep2 P6 B
0.2257
0.38 Rep3 P6 B
0.2307
0.31 Rep4 P6 B
10.1$,03
0.42
Rep2 P6 B
0.219
0.41 Rep3 P6 B
0.2184
0.31 Hep4 P6 B
~O.ltil5
0.44

---

175
Rep2 P6 B
0.2459
0.42 Rep3 P6 B
0.2284
0.3 Rep4 P6 B
0.2186
0.39
Rep2 P7 A
0.2043
0.37 Rep3 P7 A
0.1959
0.34 Rep4 P7 A
0.2331
0.36
Rep2 P7 A
0.1863
0.4 Rep3 P7 A
0.2038
0.33 Rep4 P7 A
0.1819
0.41
Rep2 P7 A
0.2306
0.34 Rep3 P7 A
0.1938
0.37 Rep4 P7 A
0.1724
0.4
Rep2 P7 A
0.2152
0.41 Rep3 P7 A
0.2375
0.31 Rep4 P7 A
0.1944
0.4
Rep2 P7 B
0.2083
0.35 Rep3 P7 B
0.211
0.31 Rep4 P7 B
0.2156
0.35
Rep2 P7 B
0.1895
0.39 Rep3 P7 B
0.2049
0.34 Rep4 P7 B
0.2164
0.37
Rep2 P7 B
0.2043
0.33 Rep3 P7 B
0.1554
0.35 Rep4 P7 B
0.1782
0.36
Rep2 P7 B
0.1712
0.38 Rep3 P7 B
0.2504
0.32 Rep4 P7 B
0.1992
0.37
Rep2 PI0 A
0.2474
0.22 Rep3 PI0 A
0.2098
0.3 Rep4 PI0 A
0.2145
0.29
Rep2 PI0 A
0.2398
0.2
Rep3 PlO A
0.2199
0.25 Rep4 Pi0 A
0.2044
0.18
Rep2 Pi0 A
0.2432
0.21 Rep3 PlO A
0.2235
0.32 Rep4 PI0 A
0.2376
0.16
Rep2 PI0 A
0.2454
0.25 Rep3 PlO A
0.2261
0.29 Rep4 Pi0 A
0.1944
0.24
Rep2 PI0 B
0.2335
0.22 Rep3 PlO B
0.2239
0.27 Rep4 PI0 B
0.2065
0.19
Rep2 PlO B
0.224
0.26 Rep3 PlO B
0.2209
0.31 Rep4 PI0 B
0.2038
0 . 1
Rep2 PI0 B
0.1943
0.3 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2119
0.33 Rep4 PI0 B
0.2442
0.14
Rep2 PI0 B
0.2383
0.17 Rep3 PI0 B
0.2112
0.29 Rep4 PI0 B
0.1326
0.47
Rep2 P12 A
0.2058
0.19 Rep3 PI2 A
0.2087
0.32 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1484
0.31
Rep2 P12 A
0.1989
0.32 Rep3 PI2 A
0.1318
0.26 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1514
0.4
Rep2 PI2 A
0.2024
0.26 Rep3 P12 A
0.1938
0.34 Rep4 P12 A
0.1724
0.42
Rep2 PI2 A
0.1906
0.32 Rep3 PI2 A
0.1664
0.44 Rep4 PI2 A
0.1758
0.42
Rep2 Pi2 B
0.1846
0.37 Rep3 PI2 B
0.2295
0.27 Rep4 PI2 B
0.1443
0.34
Rep2 PI2 B
0.2177
0.44 Rep3 P12 B
0.1675
0.26 Rep4 PI2 B
0.2087
0.37
Rep2 PI2 B
0.1947
0.91 Rep3 P12 B
0.16
0.38 Rep4 P12 B
0.1667
0.41
Rep2 PI2 B
0.2028
0.39 Rep3 P12 B
0.1939
0.3 Rep4 P12 B
0.2216
0.25
Rep2 P13 A
0.1873
0.32 Rep3 PI3 A
0.1983
0.22 Rep4.Pl3 A
0.2055
0.16
Rep2 PI 3 A
0.2248
0.36 Rep3 P13 A
0.2151
0.27 Rep4 PI3 A
0.1855
0.3
Rep2 PI3 A
0.2205
0.33 Rep3 PI3 A
0.2126
0.26 Rep4 P13 A
0.2124
0.26
Rep2 PI3 A
0.1663
0.41 Rep3 PI3 A
0.2422
0.22 Rep4 Pi3 A
0.2331
0.18
Rep2 P13 B
0.2951
0.34 Rep3 PI3 B
0.2077
0.18 Rep4 PI3 B
0.2318
0.22
Rep2 PI3 B
0.2264
0.34 Rep3 P13 B
0.2223
(3.18 Rep4 P13 B
0.2132
0.22
Rep2 PI3 B
0.1357
0.56 Rep3 PI3 B
0.1848
0.22 Rep4 PI3 B
0.2279
0.22
Rep2 PI 3 B
0.2037
0.3 Rep3 Pi3 B
0.2111
0.21 Rep4 P13 B
0.184
0.48
Rep2 Pi4 A
0.196
0.37 Rep3 Pi4 A
0.21
0.26 Rep4 P14 A
0.1672
0.28
Rep2 Pi4 A
0.1903
0.29 Rep3 PI4 A
0.1364
0.29 Rep4 P14 A
0.1979
0.28
Rep2 PI4 A
0.2193
0.32 Rep3 P14 A
0.1712
0.27 Rep4 PI4 A
0.1706
0.29
Rep2 P14 A
0.1922
0.28 Rep3 P14 A
0.2085
0.24 Rep4 PI4A
0.2558
0.23
Rep2 PI4 B
0.1885
0.26 Rep3 PI4 B
0.2204
0.22 Rep4 PI4 B
0.2065
0.26
Rep2 PI4 B
0.213
0.3 Rep3 P14 B
0.1952
0.29 Rep4 PI4 B
0.1599
0.27
Rep2 PI4 B
0.1941
0.29 Rep3 P14 B
0.1787
0.23 Rep4 PI4 B
0.213
0.26
Rep2 P14 B
0.2421
0.29 Rep3 P14 B
0.1721
0.23 Rep4 PI4 B
0.1948
0.32
Rep2 P15 A
0.2399
0.27 Rep3 PI5 A
0.236
0.23 Rep4 P15 A
0.2117
0.3
Rep2 PI5 A
0.1877
0.29 Rep3 Pi5 A
0.206
0.21 Rep4 P15 A
0.1897
0.37
Rep2 P15 A
0.2025
0.4 Rep3 PI5 A
0.1868
0.21 Rep4 PI5 A
0.1887
0.32
Rep2 PI5 A
0.1606
0.29 Rep3 PI5 A
0.1825
0.27 Rep4 PI5 A
0.2395
0.34
Rep2 PI5 B
0.1682
0.27 Rep3 P15 B
0.2122
0.32 Rep4 P15 B
0.155
0.35
Rep2 PI 5 B
0.2272
0.38 Rep3 PI5 B
0.1782
0.29 Rep4 PI5 B
0.2295
0.33
Rep2 P15 B
0.2359
0.35 Rep3 PI5 B
0.2392
0.24 Re@ PI5 B
0.1957
0.31
Rep2 P15 B
0.1763
0.34 Rep3 P15 B
0.1947
0.36 Rep-4 PA5 B

---

176
1
Table G. Dissolved organic carbon on the IPM plots
/
Samples
Soil wt(g) Water(ml) Total C(ppm) Inorg.C(ppm) TOrg.C(ppm)
Rep2 PI3 A
10.0318
25
92.76
5.38
87.38
Rep2 PI3 A
10.0372
25
104.4
4.93
99.45
Rep2 Pi3 A
10.0169
25
77.63
5.12
72.52
I
Rep2 PI3 A
10.016
25
92.31
6.68
85.63
Rep2 PI3 B
10.0283
25
88.67
7.69
80.98
Rep2 PI3 B
10.0525
25
100.5
6.51
93.99
Rep2 Pi3 B
10:0304
25
84.22
11.4
72.82
Rep2 P13’ B
10.0348
25
77.02
6.51
70.51
Rep2 Pi2 A
10.0058
25
93.52
1.32
92.19
Rep2 PI2 A
10.0132
25
62.55
2.34
60.22
Rep2 Pi2 A
10.0211
25
94.41
1.23
93.18
Rep2 PI2 A
‘10.0173
25
90.74
1.29
89.45
Rep2 PI2 B
10.041
25
96.46
1.57
94.88
Rep2 PI2 B
10.0174
25
71.96
1.1
70.86
Rep2 PI2 B
10.0242
25
96.37
2.08
94.28
Rep2 P12 B
10.0422
25
99.08
2.8
96.22
Rep2 P2 A
10.0295
25
67.32
3.88
63.44
Rep2 P2 A
10.0047
25
65.47
3.44
62.03
Rep2 P2 A
10.0107
25
58.01
3.37
54.64
Rep2 P2 A
10.0075
25
55.54
2.73
52.82
Rep2 P2 13
Y 0.0354
25
66.43
6.71
59.72
Rep2 P2 B
10.0191
25
55.79
2.85
52.93
Rep2 P2 B
10.037
25
57.51
5.03
52.48
Rep2 P2 B
10.0374
25
60.26
3.09
57.17
Rep2 P14. A
10.0393
25
54.99
3.45
51.55
Rep2 P14 A
10.0038
25
112.3
6.52
105.7
Rep2 P14, A
10.0167
25
72.17
5.09
67.08
Rep2 Pi4 A
-lo.o155
25
78.95
3.29
75.66
Rep2 Pl4. B
10.0363
25
59.03
8.73
50.31
Rep2 P14 B
10.0253
25
63.2
14.3
48.9
Rep2 PI4 B
10.0394
25
37.85
7.74
30.11
Rep2 P14. B
10.0326
25
61.6
9.75
51.64
Rep2 PlO A
10.0274
25
53.32
4.45
48.88
Rep2 PlO A
10.011
25
65.01
4.49
60.52
Rep2 PlO A
.’
10.022
25
64.75
4.25
60.5
Rep2 PlCl B
10.0432
25
32.79
1.98
30.81
Rep2 PIO B
10.0408
25
56.89
2.73
54.76
Rep2 PICI B
10.0225
25
74.82
6.18
68.64
Rep2 PlCI B
10.0418
25
42.91
1.33
41.58
Rep2 Pl A
10.0485
25
77.6
7 35
70.25
Rep2 Pl A
10.0038
25
50.75
3 . 7
47.05
Rep2 Pl A
10.0127
25
83.73
3.88
79.85
Rep2 PI A
10.005
25
112.9
6.12
106.8
)
7- Rep2 PI B
10.0646
25
76.39
344
72.96
Rep2 Pl B
10.0319
25
40.96
2.81
38.14
Rep2 Pl B
10.0224
25
109.3
6.43
102.9

---

177
Rep2 PI5 A
10.0241
25
72.11
1.49
70.63
Rep2 PI5 A
10.0047
25
87.64
2.05
85.59
Rep2 PI5 A
10.0108
25
140.6
3.28
137.4
Rep2 PI5 A
10.0154
25
84.29
1.14
83.15
f
Rep2 PI5 B
10.0286
25
66.85
0.66
66.2
Rep2 PI5 B
10.0288
25
66.39
1.72
64.67
Rep2 PI5 B
10.8036
25
111.1
0.26
110.8
Rep2 PI5 6
10.0356
25
73.17
1.19
71.98
Rep2 P6 A
10.0032
25
87.19
4.39
82.8
Rep2 P6 A
10.0015
25
75.95
4.09
71.86
Rep2 P6 A
10.0035
25
87.36
3.77
83.59
<’ R e p 2 P6A
10.0088
25
109
4.19
104.9
Rep2 P6 B
10.0058
25
75.02
3.07
71.95
Rep2 P6 B
10.0852
25
98.52
4.56
93.97
Rep2 P6 B
10.0153
25
91.69
6.25
85.43
Rep2 P6 B
10.0354
25
82.49
3.72
78.77
Rep2 P5 A
10.0101
25
92.08
6.78
85.3
Rep2 P5 A
10.0338
25
75.29
9.58
65.71
Rep2 P5 A
10.0032
25
52.08
5
47.08
., Rep2 P5 A
10.0011
25
73.89
6.95
66.95
Rep2 P5 B
10.057
25
45.97
4.16
41.81
Rep2 P5 B
10.016
25
93.17
5.82
87.35
Rep2 P5 B
10.0043
25
49.68
5.7
43.99
Rep2 P5 B
10.0069
25
41.36
6.33
35.03
Rep2 P3 A
10.0128
25
95.97
5.8
90.17
Rep2 P3 A
10.0646
25
409.5
4.71
104.8
Rep2 P3 A
10.0191
25
85.01
3.46
81.55
Rep2 P3 A
10.0229
25
41.87
1.75
40.12
Rep2 P3 B
10.0743
25
171.4
12.32
159.1
Rep2 P3 B
10.0975
25
78.55
4.84
73.71
Rep2 P3 B
10.0548
25
87.2
4.34
82.87
Rep2 P3 B
10.0154
25
55.21
1.71
53.5
Rep2 P7 A
10.0345
25
32.02
1 . 1
30.92
Rep2 P7 A
10.0093
25 .
48.14
0.92
47.22
Rep2 P7 A
10.0019
25
33
6.43
26.57
Rep2 P7 A
10.0122
25
42.14
1.14
41
Rep2 P7 B
10.0205
25
28.54
5.64
22.9
Rep2 P7 B
10.01
25
30.82
4.53
26.29
Rep2 P7 B
10.016
25
53.57
1.36
52.21
Rep2 P7 B
-lO.Oll
25
48.79
0.93
47.87
Rep2 P4 A
10.0072
25
61.94
3.53
58.41
Rep2 P4 A
10.0141
25
25.2
2.59
22.61
Rep2 P4 A
10.0218
25
80.55
7.45
73.1
Rep2 P4 A
10.0092
25
58.07
6.02
52.05
Rep2 P4 B
10.0398
25
72.55
5.38
67.16
Rep2 P4 B
10.0016
25
63.33
5.47
57.86
Rep2 P4 B
10.0053
25
60.31
4.21
56.09
Rep2 P4 B
10.0079
25
59.6
5.47
54.13

---

178
Table G. Continued
Samples
Soi1 wt(g) I.,, , . . -. .^,
.
.
^,
.--

^,
vvareqrnl)
1 oial qppmj morg.qppmj I urg.c;(ppm)
Rep3 P13 A
10.0265
25
59.03
8.73
50.31
Rep3 PI3 A
10.05
25
63.2
14.2
48.9
<-
Rep3 PI3 A
10.0271
25
37.85
7.74
30.11
Rep3 PI3 A
10.0281
25
61.6
9.75
51.84
Rep3 P13 B
10.0374
25
49.93
9.08
40.85
Rep3 PI3 B
1 0.0048
25
50.19
17.71
32.48
Rep3 PI3 B
1 0.0052
25
34.9
9.23
25.67
Rep3 PI3 B
10.006
25
55.92
6.2
49.72
Rep3 PI;! A
0.0447
25
79.32
1.98
77.34
Rep3 PIL! A
0.0748
25
88.67
2.1
86.57
Rep3 Pl;! A
0.0158
25
58.87
2.35
56.77
‘,>
Rep3 PI:! A
10.0144
c
25
63.93
2.18
61.75
Rep3 PIL! B
10.0066
25
79.83
2.8
77.03
Rep3 P12 B
10.0253
25
82.59
3.01
79.58
Rep3 Pli! B
10.014
25
71.33
2.52
68.81
Rep3 P12 B
1 0.0329
25
76.92
2.33
74.59
Rep3 P2 ,A
1 0.0623
25
69.46
3.58
65.88
Rep3 P2 ,A
1 0.0475
25
49.16
3.37
45.79
Rep3 P2 ,A
1 0.0535
25
64.53
2.94
61.59
Rep3 P2,4
1 0.0827
25
50.89
2.26
48.63
Rep3 P2 B
1 0.0057
25
80.39
4.56
75.83
Rep3 P2 B
1 0.0908
25
52.92
1.75
51.17
Rep3 P2 B
1 0.0682
25
75.13
2.83
72.3
Rep3 P2 B
1 0.0312
25
73.15
2.27
70.88
Rep3 P14 A
1 0.0318
25
62.1
4.35
57.75
Rep3 P141 A
1 0.0117
25
68.35
5.62
62.73
Rep3 P14 A
10.0258
25
45.13
4.1
41.03
Rep3 P14L A
1.0422
25
62.72
3.49
59.23
Rep3 P14f B
10.0014
25
62.89
7.81
55.08
Rep3 Pl4, B
10.0113
25
81.02
10.21
70.81
Rep3 'PI41 B
10.0084
25
70.11
6.83
63.28
Rep3 PI41 B
10.0027
25
76.32
7.75
69.07
Rep3 PIC) A
10.043
25
69.53
4.63
64.9
Rep3 PI0 A
10.0242
25
86.04
5.64
80.4
Rep3 P10 A
10.0023
25
57.43
6.95
50.49
Rep3 Pi0 A
10.0131
25
76.19
4.12
72.07
Rep3 PIC) B
10.0139
25
43.76
4.37
39.38
Rep3 PlO B
10.0073
25
49.33
3.66
45.66
Rep3 PI0 B
10.0368
25
68.47
2.53
65.93
Rep3 PlCI B
10.0294
25
41.1
3.94
37.16
Rep3 PI ,A
10.0364
25
66.46
3.61
62.85
Rep3 Pl ,A
10.0708
25
55.65
2.33
53.32
Rep3 Pl A
10.0308
25
76.81
3.54
73.27
Rep3 Pl A
10.0602
25
64.34
2.39
61.95
Rep3 PI B
10.048
25
46.06
1.9
44.16
Rep3 Pl B
10.0654
25
38.21
1.8
36.41
Rep3 PI B
10.0388
25
56.85
2.65
54.2

---

179
Rep3 Pl B
10.0759
25
47.74
2.21
45.52
Rep3 P15 A
10.0098
25
11.95
0.54
99.92
Rep3 PI5 A
10.028
25
101.4
1.48
99.88
Rep3 PI5 A
10.0199
25
66.52
0 . 1
66.42
7 R e p 3 PI5A
10.0331
25
84.07
0.5
83.52
._
Rep3 Pi5 B
10.0201
25
81.62
1.37
80.25
Rep3 PI5 B
10.0269
25
84.68
1.53
83.15
Rep3 P15 B
10.0028
25
120.7
1.14
119.6
Rep3 PI5 B
10.0331
25
86.47
1.96
84.51
Rep3 P6 A
10.0202
25
98.56
4.96
93.6
Rep3 P6 A
10.0018
25
68.46
3.66
64.79
Rep3 P6 A
10.0184
25
78.12
1.38
76.74
:
Rep3 P6 A
10.0202
25
90.96
2.17
88.79
!.
Rep3 P6 B
10.0087
25
77.07
2.21
74.87
Rep3 P6 B
10.0149
25
116.4
2.56
113.8
Rep3 P6 B
10.0152
25
68.01
2.11
65.9
Rep3 P6 B
10.0193
25
72
3.34
68.66
Rep3 P5 A
10.008
25
39.28
5.38
33.9
Rep3 P5 A
10.0234
25
40.43
4.56
35.86
Rep3 P5 A
10.0521
25
59.66
6.4
53.26
Rep3 P5 A
10.0173
25
25.79
3.52
22.27
? Rep3 P5 B
10.0021
25
46.83
2.45
44.38
Rep3 P5 B
10.0422
25
70.22
7.02
63.2
Rep3 P5 B
10.0061
25
38.2
2.72
35.45
Rep3 P5 B
10.0458
25
47.77
3.02
44.75
Rep3 P3 A
10.0165
25
116.9
6.14
110.8
Rep3 P3 A
10.0075
25
82.92
3.43
79.49
Rep3 P3 A
10.0067
25
83.35
7.4
75.95
Rep3 P3 A
10.0441
25
89.97
4.54
85.43
Rep3 P3 B
10.066
25
71.22
3.05
68.17
Rep3 P3 B
10.022
25
27.1
3.03
24.07
Rep3 P3 B
10.0305
25
123
15.71
107.2
Rep3 P3 B
10.0047
25
55.03
7.32
47.71
Rep3 P7 A
10.0595
25
60.69
1.71
58.98
Rep3 P7 A
10.0577
25
20.52
0.86
19.66
Rep3 P7 A
10.0279
25
45.08
6.75
38.33
Rep3 P7 A
10.0367
25
44.34
5.69
38.65
‘. Rep3 P7 B
10.0053
25
50.24
2.8
47.43
Rep3 P7 B
10.0154
25
39.59
2.88
36.71
Rep3 P7 B
10.0071
25
49.66
2.49
47.17
Rep3 P7 B
10.0503
25
39.04
1.89
37.15
Rep3 P4 A
10.0224
25
62.43
5.64
56.98
Rep3 P4 A
10.0343
25
50.94
7.96
42.98
Rep3 P4 A
10.0397
25
33.34
3.56
29.98
\\
Rep3 P4 A
10.0223
25
51.45
6.71
44.74
Rep3 P4 B
10.0338
25
44.62
7.07
37.55
Rep3 P4 B
10.0134
25
41.6
5.17
36.43
Rep3 P4 B
10.0047
25
63.66
6.11
57.55
Rep3 P4 B
10.0065
25
77.24
8.09
69.15

---

180
Table G. Continued
Samples
Soi1 wt(g) Water(rnl) Total C(ppm) Inorg.C(ppm) TOrg.C(ppm)
Rep4 PI3 A
10.0066
25
40.97
4.6
36.37
Rep4 PI3 A
10.0043
25
88.67
14.54
74.13
Rep4 PI 3 A
10.0187
25
47.87
8.99
38.88
;
Rep4 PI3 A
10.0284
25
58.46
8.35
49.9
Rep4 P13 B
10.0144
25
49.43
10.92
38.5
Rep4 PI3 B
10.0363
25
72.59
13.89
58.71
Rep4 PI3 B
10.0027
25
71.33
6.11
65.22
Rep4 PI3 B
10.0265
25
77.26
7.96
69.66
Rep4 PI2 A
10.0086
25
124.6
4.21
120.4
Rep4 PI:! A
10.0083
25
84.24
1.92
82.27
Rep4 Pi2 A
10.0323
25
92.61
0.99
91.62
1
Rep4 PI:! A
10.014
25
105.9
2.3
103.6
Rep4 Pi:! B
10.0062
25
79.32
4.33
74.98
Rep4 Pi2 B
10.011
25
Il 3.3
2.85
109.4
Rep4 PI2 B
10.0087
25
59.55
1.66
57.89
Rep4 P12 B
10.008
25
58.63
2.48
56.15
Rep4 P2 A
10.0038
25
71.05
1.61
69.44
Rep4 P2 A
10.0412
25
57.75
1.35
56.4
Rep4 P2 A
10.0104
25
80.37
1.64
78.73
Rep4 P2 A
10.0986
25
93.86
7.02
86.84
3l
Rep4 P2 B
10.087
25
80.54
7.07
72.47
Rep4 P2 B
10.0179
25
99.27
7.27
92
Rep4 P2 B
10.0043
25
67.9
2.32
65.58
Rep4 P2 B
10.0125
25
58.16
2.09
56.08
Rep4 PI4 A
10.0212
25
80.13
6.51
73.62
Rep4 PI4 A
10.0116
25
82.34
9.72
72.59
Rep4 PI4 A
10.0185
25
78.12
5.31
72.81
Rep4 P14 A
10.0152
25
79.11
6.48
72.63
,.
Rep4 PI4 B
10.035
25
90.14
3.69
86.44
Rep4 PI4 B
10.0158
25
96.66
4.55
92.11
Rep4 PI4 B
10.0208
25
95.04
2.5
92.54
Rep4 PI4 B
10.0175
25
82.08
2.39
79.69
Rep4 PI0 A
10.0403
25
43.04
2.29
40.75
Rep4 PI0 A
10.0088
25
40.3
2.81
37.49
Rep4 Pi0 A
10.0131
25
76.5
6.7
69.8
Rep4 Pi0 A
10.0583
25
32.88
6.7
26.18
Rep4 PI0 B
10.0262
25
34.22
11.4
22.82
Rep4 PI0 B
10.0276
25
27.02
6.51
20.51
Rep4 PI0 B
10.0121
25
35.01
3.64
31.38
Rep4 Pi0 B
10.0398
25
72
3.71
68.29
Rep4 Pi A
10.0489
25
102.9
7.91
95.02
Rep4 Pl A
10.0279
25
87.66
6.67
80.99
Rep4 Pl A
10.0434
25
90.94
7.09
83.85
: Rep4 Pl A
10.0506
25
88.57
7.22
81.35
Rep4 PI B
10.0184
25
78.72
5.32
73.39
Rep4 Pl B
10.0054
25
95.07
6.36
88.72
Rep4 PI B
10.0818
25
68.46
4.73
63.73

---

181
Rep4 Pl B
10.09
25
107.6
9.57
98.01
Rep4 PI5 A
10.0161
25
96.28
0.35
95.94
Rep4 Pi5 A
10.0378
25
103.9
1.21
102.7
Rep4 PI5 A
10.0371
25
99.77
1.94
97.83
~
Rep4P15A
10.0247
25
98.28
1.16
97.13
Rep4 PI5 B
10.018
25
134.6
2.14
132.5
Rep4 PI5 B
10.0212
25
135.5
2.37
133.2
Rep4 PI5 B
10.0102
25
155.5
3.58
152
Rep4 Pi5 B
10.0253
25
102.4
2.37
100.1
Rep4 P6 A
10.0394
25
53.02
0.4
52.62
Rep4 P6 A
10.0078
25
49
98
48.02
Rep4 iP6 A
10.0284
25
62.31
0.61
61.7
Rep4 ‘P6 A
10.0493
25
42.68
0.99
41.68
‘1
Rep4 P6 B
10.0163
25
53.72
2.35
51.37
Rep4 P6 B
10.0299
25
43.57
0.96
42.61
Rep4 P6 B
10.0297
25
61.52
2.78
58.74
Rep4 P6 B
10.0198
25
70.67
1.89
68.84
Rep4 P5 A
10.0342
25
73.44
5.38
68.06
Rep4 P5 A
10.0232
25
62.29
5.68
56.61
Rep4 P5 A
10.0238
25
81.98
6.42
75.56
Rep4 P5 A
10.0124
25
48.77
3.55
45.21
, Rep4 P5 B
10.0505
25
74.24
6.14
68.1
: Rep4 P5 B
10.0058
25
62.11
4.24
57.88
Rep4 P5 B
10.0204
25
69.54
5.17
64.37
Rep4 P5 B
10.0057
25
66.11
4.69
61.42
Rep4 P3 A
10.0346
25
71.22
3.05
68.17
Rep4 P3 A
10.0762
25
27.1
3.03
24.07
Rep4 P3 A
10.0101
25
123
15.71
107.2
Rep4 P3 A
10.0173
25
55.03
7.32
47.71
! Rep4 P3 B
10.0011
25
103
7.88
95.11
Rep4 P3 B
10.0475
25
43.9
3.27
40.63
Rep4 P3 B
10.0172
25
11.9
6.93
93.97
Rep4 P3 B
10.0247
25
111.8
7.79
104
Rep4 P7 A
10.0164
25
57.82
2.15
55.67
Rep4 P7 A
10.0453
25
90.93
5.45
85.47
Rep4 P7 A
10.019
25
59.72
2.06
57.66
1, R e p 4 P7A
10.0135
25
50.14
1.85
48.29
Rep4 P7 B
10.0229
25
47.25
3.63
43.62
Rep4 P7 B
10.0463
25
61.52
2.73
58.79
Rep4 P7 B
10.0278
25
39.31
1.49
37.82
Rep4 P7 B
lolo;~g5
25
38.23
3.21
35.02
Rep4 P4 A
10.0068
25
49.87
5.22
44.69
Relp4 P4 A
10.059
25
84.69
9.06
75.03
Rep4 P4 A
10.0193
25
72.53
6.57
65.95
R e p 4 P4A
10.018
25
68.44
7.39
61.06
. Rep4 P4B
10.0546
25
86.38
7.77
78.61
Rep4 P4 B
10.0184
25
53.91
6.68
47.24
Rep4 P4 B
10.0168
25
62.27
6.02
56.25
Rep4 P4 B
10.0067
25
82.76
10.31
72.44

---

la2
Table H. Microbial biomass in the IPM plots
SAMPLE NO RESULT
IDENT
WEIGHT
NaOH
Kc
M.C. (ST,)
:02-c
ml HCL Fum./Unf.
(9)
w
J/g soi1
PI R2A
1
0.34547 fumigated
21.68
2
0.45
55
324.65
Pl R2A
2
0.26065 fumigated
20.08
2
0.45
55
225.37
PI R2A
3
0.10792 unfumigat.
20.56
2
0.45
55
/
Pl R2B
_-’
4
0.43904 fumigated
20.51
2
0.45
55
444.92
PI R2B
5
0.36134 fumigated
20.58
2
0.45
55
360.34
PI R2B
6
0.37529 fumigated
20.09
2
0.45
55
360.20
PI R2B
- - -
4
0.13106 unfumigat.
20.38
2
0.45
55
PI R3A
a
0.35733 fumigated
20.33
2
0.45
55
356.78
PI R3A
9
0.11253 unfumigat.
20.39
2
0.45
55
Pi R3B
10
0.39167 fumigated,
21.98
2
0.45
55
392.26
‘q
Pl R3B
II
0.22131 fumigated
22.9
2
0.45
55
156.08
Pl R3B
12
0.21604 fumigated
21.04
2
0.45
55
162.46
PI R3B
13
0.10068 unfurnigat.
21.15
2
0.45
55
PI R4A
14
0.29806 fumigated
21.93
2
0.45
55
247.28
PI R4A
15
0.23797 fumigated
21.04
2
0.45
55
173.12
PI R4A
26
0.11504 unfumigat.
20.65
2
0.45
55
!’
PI R4B
17
0.2456 fumigated
20.09
2
0.45
55
217.08
-27
PlR4B
18
0.19457 fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
i 38.02
PI R4B
19
0.19752 fumigated
20.04
2
0..45
55
146.24
Pl R4B
20
0.16809 fumigated
20.25
2
0.45
55
101.66
PI R4B
21
0.09861 unfurnigat.
20.79
2
0..45
55
P2R2A
22
0.42039 fumigated
20.03
2
0.45
55
452.11
P2R2A
23
0.5961 fumiciated
20.58
2
0.45
55
693.00
P2R2A
24
0.59365 fumigiated
20.63
2
0.45
55
687.80
P2R2A
25
0.34824 fumiglated
20.8
2
0.45
55
332.59
‘/
P2 R2A
26
0.11476 unfumigat.
20.04
2
0.45
55
P2R2B
27
0.51133 fumigiated
22.12
2
0.45
55
477.99
P2R2B
28
0.52352 fumigated
20.52
2
0.45
55
532.86
P2R2B
29
0.50011 fumigated
2’1.03
2
0.45
55
486.95
P2R2B
30
0.15449 unfurnigat.
20.06
2
0.45
55
P2R3A
31
0.65374 fumigated
20.05
2
0.45
55
733.22
P2R3A
32
0.6829 fumigated
20.64
2
0.45
55
754.12
P2R3A
33
0.62081 fumigated
20.67
2
0.45
55
664.02
P2R3A
34
0.75389 fumigated
20.61
2
0.45
55
857.28
‘?.
P2R3A
35
0.15758 unfurnigat.
20.05
2
0.45
55
P2R3B
36
0.75959 fumigated
21.73
2
0.45
55
800.38
P2R3B
37
0.893 fumigated
20.85
2
0.45
55
1023.75
P2R3B
38
0.74949 fumigated
20 23
2
0.45
55
844.94
P2R3B
39
0.93552 fumigated
20.74
2
0.45
55
1089.92
P2R3B
40
0.1726 unfumigat.
21 .a4
2
0.45
55
P2RiA
41
0.99011 fumigated
20.14
2
0.45
55
1183.71
P2R4A
42
0.83857 fumigated
21.96
2
0.45
55
881.14
/
P2R4A
42’
0.95686 fumigated
20.03
2
0.45
55
1141.03
CI
P2R4A
4::
0.83958 fumigated
20.96
‘ 2
0.45
55
924.61
P2R4A
45;
0.18551 unfumigat.
20.69
2
0.45
55
P2R4B
46
0.91406 fumigated
21 47
2
0.45
55
1004.74

---

183
Table H. Continued
SAMPLE
NO RESULT
IDENT WEIGHT
NaOH
KC
M.C. (%)
co2-c
ml HCI Fum./Unf.
(9)
meq
uglg soi1
P31R2A
1
0.86947 fumigated
20.76
2
0.45
55
1125.36
P3R2A
2
0.92254 fumigated
20.24
2
0.45
55
1231.96
P3R2A
3
0.82461 fumigated
20.33
2
0.45
55
1083.78
P3R2A
4
0.82832 fumigated
20.91
2
0.45
55
1058.97
P3R2A
5
0.08099 unfwmigat.
20.31
2
0.45
55
‘s
P3R2B
6
0.79295 fumigated
20
2
0.45
55
942.76
P3R2B
7
0.83188 fumigated
20.64
2
0.45
55
969.41
P3R2f3
8
0.76181 fumigated
20.21
2
0.45
55
887.31
P3R2B
9
0.98006 fumigated
20.26
2
0.45
55
1204.30
P3R2B
10
0.15659 unfumigat.
20.64
.
.~---
2
0.45
55
P3R3A
II
0.97415 fuhigated
20.05
2
0.45
55
1284.85
P3R3A
12
0.58221 fumigated
20.87
2
0.45
55
677.92
P3R3A
13
0.77228 fumigated
20.29
2
0.45
55
974.86
P3R3A
14
0.83104 fumigated
20.27
2
0.45
55
1061.71
P3R3A
15
0.10471 unfumigat.
20.72
2
0.45
55
,‘?
P3R3B
16
0.78523 fumigated
20.3
2
0.45
55
1029.96
!.*’
P3R3B
17
0.9143 fumigated
20.99
2
0.45
55
1178.30
P3R3B
18
0.80468 fumigated
20.48
2
0.45
55
1049.05
P3R3B
19
0.8405 fumigated
20.12
2
0.45
55
1120.57
P3R3B
20
0.07958 unfumigat.
20.7
2
0.45
55
P3R4A
21
0.63536 fumigated
20.74
2
0.45
55
738.17
P3 R4A
22
0.90564 fumigated
20.93
2
0.45
55
1114.09
P3R4A
23
0.5895 fumigated
20.19
2
0.45
55
690.98
P3R4A
24
0.65667 fumigated
20.38
2
0.45
55
782.19
P3R4A
25
0.11866 unfumigat.
20.33
2
0.45
55
-
P3R4B
26
0.70216 fumigated
20.34
2
0.45
55
885.92
i
P3R4B
27
0.43982 fumigated
20.84
2
0.45
55
493.68
P3R4B
28
0.79146 fumigated
20.27
2
0.45
55
1019.51
P3R4B
29
0.65267 fumigated
20.91
2
0.45
55
791.64
P3R4B
30
0.094 unfumigat.
20.95
2
0.45
55
P4R2A
31
0.65279 fumigated
20.79
2
0.45
55
292.09
P4R2A
32
1 .118 fumigated
20.95
2
0.45
55
947.81
P4R2A
33
0.64374 fumigated
20.7
2
0.45
55
280.41
P4 R2A
34
0.73899 fumigated
20.9
2
0.45
55
412.76
P4R2A
35
0.44784 unfumigat.
20.55
2
0.45
55
l
.?
P4R2B
36
0.65169 fumigated
20.34
2
0.45
55
515.85
‘L
P4R2B
37
0.49333 fumigated
20.04
2
0.45
55
289.44
P4R2B
38
0.47365 fumigated
20.72
2
0.45
55
251.79
P4R2B
39
0.71788 fumigated
20.44
2
0.45
55
609.28
P4R2B
40
0.29757 unfumigat.
20.67
2
0.45
55
P4R3A
41
0.70483 fumigated
20.08
2
0.45
55
885.80
P4R3A
42
0.2011 fumigated
20.23
2
0.45
55
141.45
.,
P4R3A
43
0.37478 fumigated
20.5
2
0.45
55
390.62
44
0.65165 fumigated
20.37
/
P4R3A
2
0.45
55
795.84
P4R3A
45
0.10452 unfumigat.
20.92
2
0.45
55
P4R3B
46
0.16698 fumigated
20.23
2
0.45
55
101.85

---

184
Table H. Continued
I
SAMPLE
NO RESULT
IDENT W E I G H T
NaOH
KG
M.C. (%)
jco2-c
ml HCI FumJUnf.
(9)
meq
/lglg soi1
P5R2A
,l
0.27828 fumigated
20.21
2
0.45
55
j
294.10
P5R2A
2
0.30174 fumig<ated
20.02
2
0.45
55
1
331.61
P5R2A
:3
0.2863 fumigated
20.9
2
0.45
55
j
295.76
P5R2A
4
0.22667 fumigated
20.28
2
0.45
55
1
217.68
P5R2A
5
0.07768 unfumigat.
20.09
2
0.45
55
\\
c-1
P5R2B
6
0.42026 fumigated
20.63
2
0.45
55
/
569.71
i,
P5R2B
7
0.20876 fumigated
20.38
2
0.45
55
j
269.21
P5R2B
8
0.20876 fumigeted
20.05
2
0.45
55
j
273.64
P5R20
9
0.32581 fumigated
20.27
2
0.45
55
j
441.77
P5R2B
10
0.02359 unfumigat.
20.13
2
0.45
55
I
P5R3A
11
0.30898 fumigated
20.38
2
0.45
55
/ 289.46
P5R3A
1 Z!
0.2361 fumigated
20.19
2
0.45
55
I
185.23
P5R3A
13
0.3613 fumigated
20.19
2
0.45
55
1
368.97
“r;,
P5R3A
14
0.47474 fumigated
20.23
2
0.45
55
j
534.39
P5R3A
15
0.10988 unfumigat.
20.31
2
0.45
55
I
P5R35
16
0.40366 fumigated
20.15
2
0.45
55
j
473.34
P5R3B
17
0.2196 fumigated
20.9
2
0.45
55
i
195.41
P5R3B
18
0.42143 fumigated
20.99
2
0.45
55
/
479.48
P5R3B
19
0.3332 fumigated
20.98
2
0.45
55
j
355.10
P5R3B
20
0.08176 unfumigat.
20.59
2
0.45
55
1
P5R4A
21
0.18037 fumigated
20.84
2
0.45
55
i
255.66
P5R4A
22
0.17276 fumiga tecl
20.66
2
0.45
55
1
246.98
P5R4A
23
0.12623 fumigated
20.09
2
0.45
55
1
185.36
P5R4A
24
0.11785 fumigated
20.35
2
0.45
55
i
170.79
.-
iF’5R4A
25
0.00055 unfumigat.
20.35
2
0.45
55
L
P5R4B
26
0.5275 fumigated
20.31
2
0.45
55
(
843.38
P5R4B,
27
0.5299 fumigated
20.87
2
0.45
55
/
1629.52
P5R46
28
0.4573 fumigated
20.2
2
0.45
55
!
543.91
P5R4B
29
0.61259 fumigated
20.27
2
0.45
55
j
769.03
P5R4B
30
0.08649 unfumigat.
20.79
2
0.45
55
I
P6R2A
31
0.59448 fumigated
20.7
2
0.45
55
/
707.13
P6R2A
32
0.65783 fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
j
801.68
P6 R2A
33
0.72951 fumigated
20.39
2
0.45
55
1
914.10
P6R2A
34
0.52818 fumigated
20.34
2
0.45
55
/
623.07
/
‘y P6R2A
35
0.10046 unfumigat.
20.77
2
0.45
55
P6R2B
36
0.61704 fumigated
20.59
2
0.45
55
(
‘735.03
P6R2B
37
0.64322 fumiga::ed
20.32
2
0.45
55
/
‘782.97
P6R2B
38
1.09998 fumigated
20.3
2
Cl.45
55
11450.42
P6R2B
39
0.90053 fumigated
20.79
2
0.45
55
j1,131.98
P6R2B
40
0.10626 unfumigat.,
20.44
2
0.45
55
I
P6R3A
41
0.52724 fumigated
20.56
2
0.45
55
(
617.22
P6R3A
42
0.96952 fumigated
20.42
2
0.45
55
1’263.21
5
P6R3A
43
0.92303 fumigaled
20.63
2
0.45
55
11183.58
P6R3A
44
0.97948 fumigaled
20.85
2
0.45
55
,jl251.31
P6R3A
45
0.09895 unfumigat.
20.46
2
0.45
55
I
P6R3B
46
0.98484 fumigated
20.5
2
0.45
55
,/1264.00
,

---

185
Table H. Continued
SAMPLE
NO RESULT
IDENT W E I G H T
NaOH
Kc
M.C. (%)
co2-c
ml HCI Fum./Unf.
(9)
meq
ug/g soi1
P7R2A
1
0.41237 fumigated
20.61
2
0.45
55
474.29
P7R2A
2
0.42254 fumigated
20.16
2
0.45
55
499.82
P7R2A
3
0.20929 fumigated
20.34
2
0.45
55
184.76
P7R2A
4
0.38232 fumigated
20.26
2
0.45
55
438.54
P7R2A
5
0.08246 unfumigat.
20.4
2
0.45
55
‘j/ P7R2B
6
0.39295 fumigated
20.26
2
0.45
55
431.36
P7R2B
7
0.3188 fumigated
20.09
2
0.45
55
325.65
P7R2B
8
0.46181 fumigated
20.3
2
0.45
55
531 .Ol
P7R2B
9
0.56593 fumigated
20.26
2
0.45
55
684.33
P7R2B
10
0.098 unfumigat.
20.39
2
0.45
55
P7R3A
11
0.50471 fumigated
20.8
2
0.45
55
580.20
P7R3A
12
0.58221 fumigated
20.74
2
0.45
55
692.60
P7R3A
13
0.37228 fumigated
20.47
2
0.45
55
397.86
P7R3A
14
0.43104 fumigated
20.59
2
0.45
55
480.10
P7R3A
15
0.09741 unfumigat.
20.62
2
0.45
55
7 z’ P7R3B
16
0.48523 fumigated
20.64
2
0.45
55
432.36
P7R3B
17
0.39143 fumigated
20.58
2
0.45
55
298.57
P7R3B
18
0.48046 fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
426.34
P7R3B
19
0.47958 fumigated
20.21
2
0.45
55
433.27
P7R3B
20
0.18405 unfumigat.
20.43
2
0.45
55
P7R4A
21
0.63536 fumigated
20.99
2
0.45
55
769.07
P7R4A
22
0.51866 fumigated
20.32
2
0.45
55
624.26
P7R4A
23
0.5895 fumigated
20.37
2
0.45
55
725.77
P7R4A
24
0.45667 fumigated
20.53
2
0.45
55
528.41
P7R4A
25
0.09054 unfumigat.
20.51
2
0.45
55
$
P7R4B
26
0.50216 fumigated
20.72
2
0.45
55
472.90
P7R4B
27
0.43982 fumigated
20.77
2
0.45
55
382.83
P7R4B
28
0.41094 fumigated
20.4
2
0.45
55
347.83
P7R4B
29
0.65267 fumigated
20.29
2
0.45
55
702.71
P7R4B
30
0.17146 unfumigat.
20.53
2
0.45
55
PI lOR2A
31
0.74784 fumigated
20.53
2
0.45
55
956.23
PllDR2A
32
1.118 fumigated
20.66
2
0.45
55
1481.08
PlOR2A
33
0.64374 fumigated
20.66
2
0.45
55
800.92
PlfDR2A
34
0.73899 fumigated
20.7
2
0.45
55
935.71
‘1
PlOR2A
35 0.085279 unfumigat.
20.28
2
0.45
55
Pl OR2B
36
0.65169 fumigated
20.4
2
0.45
55
729.64
PlOR2B
37
0.79757 fumigated
20.92
2
0.45
55
918.12
PllDR2B
38
0.77365 fumigated
20.74
2
0.45
55
891.92
PIOR2B
39
0.71788 fumigated
20.56
2
0.45
55
819.35
PlOR2B
40
0.14933 unfumigat.
20.87
2
0.45
55
PlOR3A
41
0.70483 fumigated
20.25
2
0.45
55
786.98
PlOR3A
42
0.62011 fumigated
20.25
2
0.45
55
663.02
PlOR3A
43
0.87478 fumigated
20.43
2
0.45
55
1026.52
5 PlOR3A
44
0.65165 fumigated
20.62
2
0.45
55
696.44
Pi OR3A
45
0.16698 unfumigat.
20.41
2
0.45
55
Pl OR3B
46
1.02387 fumigated
20.42
2
0.45
55
1336.39

---

Table H. Continued
S A M P L E N O R E S U L T I D E N T WEIGHT
NaOH
Kc
M.C. (%)
co2-c
ml HCI Fum./Unf.
(9)
meq
1g/g soil
Pi 2R2A
‘1
0.84784 fumigated
20.65
2
0.45
55
1094.16
PI 2R2A
2
1.118 fumigatcsd
20.57
2
0.45
55
1487.56
PI 2R2A
3
0.74374 fumigated
20.54
2
0.45
55
949.85
PI 2R2A
4
0.83899 fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
1084.09
PI 2R2A
!j 0.085279 unfurnigat.
20.79
2
0.45
55
3
P12R2B
6
0.75169 fumigated
20.89
2
0.45
55
854.37
PI 2R2B
7
0.89757 fumigated
20.74
2
0.45
55
1068.95
Pi 2R2B
8
0.87365 fumigated
20.55
2
0.45
55
Il 044.35
P12R2B
9
0.81788 fumigated
20.97
2
0.45
55
944.63
Pl2R2B
10
0.14933 unfurnigat.
20.6
2
0.45
55
PI 2R3A
II ‘1
0.80483 fumigated
20.95
2
0.45
55
902.11
P12R3A
12
0.72011 fumigated
20.54
2
0.45
55
797.91
PI 2R3A
13
0.87478 fumigated
20.2
2
0.45
55
1038.21
PI 2R3A
14
0.75165 fumigated
20.09
2
0.45
55
862.30
P12R3A
I
15
0.16698 unfurnigat.
20.6
2
0.45
55
.Ij
P12R3B
Îl6
1.02387 fumigated
20.57
2
0.45
55
1326.65
PI 2R3B
77
0.89744 fumigated
20.77
2
0.45
55
1133.52
Pl2R3B
II 8
0.81069 fumigated
20.62
2
0.45
55
‘IOl7.11
PI 2R3B
19
0.73636 fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
911.18
PI 2R3B
20
0.10286 unfurnigat.
20.44
2
0.45
55
PI 2R4A
2’1
0.75133 fumigated
20.84
2
0.45
55
904.67
P12R4A
22
0.79457 fumigated
20.77
2
0.45
55
969.40
PI 2R4A
23
0.8279 fumigated
20.81
2
0.45
55
‘1015.00
Pl2R4A
24
0.8748 fumigated
20.82
2
0.45
55
‘1081.25
?.I
Pl2R4A
2!j
0.11503 unfurnigat.
20.32
2
0.45
55
P12R4B
26
0.87913 fumigated
20.63
2
0.45
55
‘1061.32
P12R4B
2;7
0.85658 fumicgated
20.81
2
0.45
55
‘1020.04
PI 2R4B
28
0.70421 fumigated
20.66
2
0.45
55
808.92
Pl2R4B
29
0.83313 fumicgated
20.89
2
0.45
55
982.87
PI 2R4B
30
0.14017 unfumigat.
20.86
2
0.45
55
PI 3R2A
3’1
0.37878 fumkgated
20.43
2
0.45
55
415.53
PI 3R2A
32
0.38386 fumigated
20.96
2
0.45
55
412.20
PI 3R2A
33
0.34579 fumigated
20.72
2
0.45
55
362.53
P13R2A
34
0.29886 fumigated
20.62
2
0.45
55
296.86
‘ 1i
PI 3R2A
3!5
0.09227 unfumigat.
20.6
2
0.45
55
PI 3R2B
36
0.24227 fumigated
20.7
2
0.45
55
232.74
Pi 3R2B
3:7
0.25228 fumigated
20.9
2
0.45
55
244.71
PI 3R2B
38
0.2429 fumkgated
20.71
2
0.45
55
233.53
Pi 3R2B
3!3
0.37227 fumigated
20.5
2
0.45
55
422.91
P13R2B
40
0.07967 unfumigat.
20.53
2
0.45
55
PI 3R3A
41
0.22902 fumigated
20.45
2
0.45
55
216.39
P13R3A
42
0.3087 fumi!gated
20.72
2
0.45
55
327.51
PI 3R3A
43
0.22987 fumigated
20.38
2
0.45
55
218.37
P13R3A
44
0.22902 fumigated
20.44
2
0.45
55
216.50
P?3R3A
45
0.07967 unfumigat.
20.84
2
0.45
55
PI 3R3B
46
0.3194 fumigated
20.64
2
0.45
55
360.72

---

187 .
Table H. Continued
SAMPLE
NO
RESULT
IDENT WEIGHT
NaOH
Kc
M.C. (%)
co2-c
ml HCI
Fum./Unf.
(9)
meqlt
uglg soit
Pl4K2A
1
0.47878
fumigated
20.66
2
0.45
55
554.32
P14R2A
2
0.38386
fumigated
20.8
2
0.45
55
415.37
P14R2A
3
0.44579
fumigated
20.72
2
0.45
55
505.53
PI 4R2A
4
0.66661
fumigated
20.75
2
0.45
55
820.12
PI 4R2A
5
0.09227
unfumigat.
20.13
2
0.45
55
l
Pl4R2B
6
0.25228
fumigated
20.47
2
0.45
55
249.85
P14R2B
7
0.27561
fumigated
20.9
2
0.45
55
277.78
P14R2B
8
0.2429
fumigated
20.99
2
0.45
55
230.42
P14R2B
9
0.37227
fumigated
20.59
2
0.45
55
421.06
P14R2B
10
0.07967
unfumigat.
20.64
2
0.45
55
Pls4R3A
11
0.22902
fumigated
20.48
2
0.45
55
235.69
P14R3A
12
0.3194
fumigated
20.67
2
0.45
55
363.08
P14R3A
13
0.34434
fumigated
20.46
2
0.45
55
402.93
PlG4R3A
14
0.3696
fumigated
20.61
2
0.45
55
436.31
-1.
Pl4R3A
15
0.06611
unfumigat.
20.94
2
0.45
55
P1,4R3B
16
0.37529
fumigated
20.27
2
0.45
55
447.86
Pl4R3B
17
0.20353
fumigated
20.64
2
0.45
55
193.27
P14R3B
18
0.3669
fumigated
20.42
2
0.45
55
432.40
PI 4R3B
19
0.3845
fumigated
20.71
2
0.45
55
451.53
P14R3B
20
0.0689
unfumigat.
20.28
2
0.45
55
Pl4R4A
21
0.4243
fumigated
20.75
2
0.45
55
520.32
P14R4A
22
0.5895
fumigated
20.45
2
0.45
55
767.31
Pl4R4A
23
0.6504
fumigated
20.96
2
0.45
55
834.73
.,
P14R4A
24
0.53366
fumigated
20.95
2
0.45
55
670.03
,
P1.4R4A
25
0.05991
unfumigat.
20.18
2
0.45
55
Pl4R4B
26
0.47826
fumigated
20.8
2
0.45
55
529.30
Pl4R4B
27
0.53274
fumigated
20.45
2
0.45
55
617.30
Pl4R4B
28
0.6847
fumigated
20.76
2
0.45
55
824.96
Pl4R4B
29
0.53945
fumigated
20.7
2
0.45
55
619.45
P14R4B
30
0.10669
unfumigat.
20.75
2
0.45
55
P15R2A
31
0.7512
fumigated
20.84
2
0.45
:55
812.90
PI 5R2A
32
0.8429
fumigated
20.83
2
0.45
55
943.72
Pi 5R2A
33
0.9374
fumigated
20.35
2
0.45
55
II 03.58
‘3
Pi 5R2A
34
0.69613
fumigated
20.43
2
0.45
55
749.34
I
PI 5R2A
35
0.17945
unfumigat.
20.74
2
0.45
55
PI 5R2B
36
0.8976
fumigated
20.41
2
0.45
55
1 ‘l99.08
P15R2B
37
0.8342
fumigated
20.63
2
0.45
55
1095.23
Pi 5R2B
38
0.9587
fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
1275.90
PlSR2B
39
1.0703
fumigated
20.96
2
0.45
55
1411.75
P15R2B
40
0.07163
unfumigat.
20.16
2
0.45
55
Pl5R3A
41
0.66619
fumigated
20.57
2
0.45
55
847.95
Pl5R3A
42
0.8156
fumigated
20.54
2
0.45
55
1064.72
PI 5R3A
43
0.6588
fumigated
20.6
2
0.45
55
836.09
tt P15R3A
44
0.77002
fumigated
20.61
2
0.45
55
995.58
..Y
Pi 5R3A
45
0.07751
unfumigat.
20.96
2
0.45
55
P15R3B
46
0.7551 fumigated
20.65
2
0.45
55
907.89

---

188
Table 1. Carbohydrates in the IPM plots
Samples
Soil wt(g) % CH0 Samples
Soil wt(g) % CH0 Samples
Soil wt( 1) % CH0
Rep2 PI A
‘10.0085
1.25 Rep3 PI A
10.0205
i
1.15 Rep4 PI A 10.015r
1.15
Rep2 PI A
10.0065
1.81 Rep3 P’l A
10.0229
1.67
Rep4 PI A
10.0361
1.52
Rep2 PI A
10.01259 1.34 Rep3 P I A 10.0509
1.34 Rep4 PI A 10.084$
1.34
Rep2 Pl A
‘10.0388
1.55 Rep3 PI A
10.0875
1.55
Rep4 PI A
10.03741
1.55
Rep2 PI B
10.0379
1.11 Rep3 PI B
10.016
1.11
Rep4 PI B
10.0261
1.11
Rep2 PI B
‘10.1589
1.95 Rep3 Pl B
10.0375
2.04 Rep4 PI B 10.0223
2.04
Rep2 PI B
“I 0.2305
1.76 Rep3 PI B
10.0166
1.76
Rep4 PI B
10.0151
1.76
Rep2 Pi B
'10.0367
1.99
Rep3 PI B 10.0765
1.15
Rep4 PI B 10.015]
1.32
Rep2 P2 A
‘10.0846
2.12
Rep3 P2 A 10.0275
2.35
Rep4 P2 A 10.018/
1.67
Rep2 P2 A
‘10.0378
1.95
Rep3 P2 A 10.0279
1.95
Rep4 P2 A 10.018~
1.34
Rep2 P2 A
‘10.0256
1.99
Rep3 P2 A 10.0223
1.57
Rep4 P2 A 10.0794
1.55
Rep2 P2 A
‘10.1578
2
Rep3 P2 A 10.0157
2.01
Rep4 P2 A
10.087~
1.43
7
Rep2 P2 B
10.024
1.11
Rep3 P2 B 10.0151
1.11
Rep4 P2 B 10.079:
2.04
Rep2 P2 B
‘10.0238
1.54
Rep3 P2 B 10.0267
1.53
Rep4 P2 B 10.079;
1.76
Rep2 P2 B
‘10.0256
1.33
Rep3 P2 B 10.018
1.24
Rep4 P2 B 10.033:
1.15
Rep2 P2 B
10.4813
1.5
Rep3 P2 B 10.0795
1.78
Rep4 P2 B 10.052:
1.52
Rep2 P3 A
‘10.0276
2.53
Rep3 P3 A 10.0229
2.53
Rep4 P3 A 10.087
1.95
Rep2 P3 A
‘10.0256
2.36
Rep3 P3 A
10.087
2.36
Rep4 P3 A 10.026A
1.57
Rep2 P3 .A
10.0457
1.99
Rep3 P3 A 10.0797
2.04
Rep4 P3 A 10.087L
2.01
Rep2 P3 .A
‘10.1389
2.13
Rep3 P3 A 10.033
1.86
Rep4 P3 A 10.0544
1.97
) Rep2 P3 B
10.0532
2.07
Rep3 P3 B 10.0509
2.07
Rep4 P3 B 10.079ï
3.65
Rep2 P3 B
10.0157
2.03
Rep3 P3 B 10.0525
2.89
Rep4 P3 B 10.024E
3.27
Rep2 P3 B
‘10.0267
2.57
Rep3 P3 B 10.0264
1.87
Rep4 P3 B 10.020:
3.48
Rep2 P3 B
10.018
1.89
Rep3 P3 B 10.0874
? “89
Rep4 P3 B 10.016;
3.38
Rep2 P4 .A
‘10.0242
1.11
Rep3 P4 A 10.0875
1.53
Rep4 P4 A 10.033
2.89
Rep2 P4 .A
‘10.0795
1.53
Rep3 P4 A 10.0547
1.74
Rep4 P4 A 10.027:
3.48
Rep2 P4 .A
10.087
1.76
Rep3 P4 A 10.0248
1.54
Rep4 P4 A 10.015’
2.89
Rep2 P4 .A
‘10.0797
2
Rep3 P4 A 10.0797
2
Rep4 P4 A 10.022!
2.91
1.
Rep2 P4 B
10.055
1.25
Rep3 P4 B 10.0374
1.25
Rep4 P4 B 10.050<
2.89
Rep2 P4 B
10.033
1.81
Rep3 P4 B 10.0457
1.81
Rep4 P4 B 10.087:
1.87
Rep2 P4 B
10.0525
1.34
Rep3 P4 B 10.1389
1.‘14
Rep4 P4 B 10.037r
1.89
Rep2 P4 B
10.0264
1.95
Rep3 P4 B 10.0532
1.48
Rep4 P4 B 10.037~
2.18
Rep2 P5 ,A
10.0202
3.1
Rep3 P5 A 10.0085
3.1
Rep4 P5 A 10.026~
1.74
Rep2 P5 ,A
10.0874
2.53
Rep3 P5 A 10.0065
3.65
Rep4 P5 A 10.037~
1.54
Rep2 P5 ,A
‘10.0547
3.27
Rep3 P5 A 10.01259
3.27
Rep4 P5 A 10.016(
2
) Rep2 P5 ,A
‘I 0.0248
3.83
Rep3 P5 A 10.0388
3.48
Rep4 P5 A 10.076!
1.7
*
Rep2 P5 B
10.0188
2.38
Rep3 P5 B 10.0379
2.38
Rep4 P5 B 10.087d
1.81
Rep2 P5 B
10.0205
2.89
Rep3 P5 B 10.1589
2.89
Rep4 P5 B 10.027!
1.14
Rep2 P5 B
10.016
3.3
Rep3 P5 B 10.2305
3.48
Rep4 P5 B 10.022:
1.48
Rep2 P5 B
10.0275
2.78
Rep3 P5 B 10.0367
2.89
Rep4 P5 B 10.008!
1.42
Rep2 P6 ,A
‘10.0322
5.18
Rep3 P6 A 10.0846
5.18
Rep4 P6 A 10.054‘
7.26
Rep2 P6 A
10.0151
7.26
Rep3 P6 A 10.0378
7.26
Rep4 P6 A 10.037!
7.89
Rep2 P6 A
10.0229
8.74
Rep3 P6 A 10.0256
7.89
Rep4 P6 A 10.0841
6.58
) Rep2 P6 A
10.0509
6.6
Rep3 P6 A 10.1578
6.58
Rep4 P6 A 10.024
6.73
’
Rep2 P6 B
10.0194
4.89
Rep3 P6 B 10.024
5.42
Rep4 P6 B 10.024;
4.15
Rep2 P6 B
10.0875
4.15
Rep3 P6 B 10.0238
4.15
Rep4 P6 B 10.07E
7.15
Rep2 P6 B
10.0374
7.52
Rep3 P6 B 10.0256
7.15
Rep4 P6 B 10.053:
8.56

---

189
Rep2 Pfj B
_.-.
10.0166
8.01
Rep3 P6 B 10.4813
8.56
Rep4P6 B
10.0242
6.32
Rep2 P7 A
10.0765
3.3
Rep3 P7 A
10.0276
3.3
Rep4 P7 A
10.055
1.53
Rep2 P7 A
10,0279
2.12
Rep3 P7 A
10.0322
2.12
Rep4 P7 A
10.0202
1.24
Rep2 P7 A
10.0223
2.78
Rep3 P7 A
10.0151
2.56
Rep4 P7 A
10.0188
1.78
.,) Rep2 P7A
10.0085
2.53
Rep3 P7 A
10.0229
2.48
Rep4 P7 A
10.0322
1.42
Rep2 P7 B
10.0379
2
Rep3 P7 B 10.0509
2.57
Rep4 P7 B
10.0194
2.36
Rep2 P7 B
10.0846
2.03
Rep3 P7 B 10.0194
1.96
Rep4 P7 B
10.052
2.04
Rep2 P7 B
10.024
2.38
Rep3 P7 B 10.0875
2.14
Rep4 P7 B
10.0264
1.86
Rep2 P7 B
i 0.0276
3 . 1
Rep3 P7 B 10.0374
2.96
Rep4 P7 B
10.18
2.2
Rep2 PlO A
10.0532
2.08
Rep3 PI 0
10.0166
2.08
Rep4 PI0
10.0765
2.12
Rep2 PI0 A
10.0242
1.11
Rep3 PI0
10.0765
1.11
Rep4 PI0
10.845
2.56
Rep2 PlO A
10.055
1.53
Rep3 Pi0
10.0279
1.65
Rep4 PI0
10.0478
2.48
Rep2 PI0 A
10.0202
1.25
Rep3 PI0
10.0223
1.25
Rep4 PI0
10.256
2.62
( Rep2 PIOB
10.0085
1.89
Rep3 Pi0
10.0085
1.89
Rep4 PI0
10.0525
1.96
Rep2 PlO B
10.0065
2
Rep3 PI0
10.0379
2
Rep4 PI0
10.0264
2.14
Rep2 PlO 0;
10.01259
1.76
Rep3 PI0
10.0846
1.76
Rep4 PI0
10.0286
2.96
Rep2 PlO B
10.0388
1.28
Rep3 PI0
10.024
1.33
Rep4 PlO
10.0546
2.41
Rep2 PI2 A
10.0379
3.56
Rep3 PI2
10.0276
4.25
Rep4 P12
10.0247
4.96
Rep2 PI2 A
10.1589
4.96
Rep3 PI2
10.0532
4 . 9 6 Rep4 PI2
10.2305
3.99
Rep2 PI2 A
10.2305
3.99
Rep3 P12
10.0242
3.99
Rep4 P12
10.0367
4.87
Rep2 P12 A
10.0367
4.56’
Rep3 Pi2
10.055
4.87
Rep4 PI2
10.0846
4.52
‘/ Rep2 Pi2 B
10.0846
2.98
Rep3 PI2
10.0202
3.98
Rep4 PI2
10.0378
3.58
Rep2 PI2 B
10.0378
3.58
Rep3 PI2
10.0085
3.58
Rep4 Pi2
10.0256
4.01
Rep2 PI2 B
10.0256
4.01
Rep3 PI2
10.0065
4.01
Rep4 Pi2
10.1578
3.78
Rep2 P12 B
10.1578
3.78
Rep3 P12
10.01259
3.78
Rep4 PI2
10.024
3.84
Rep2 P13 A
10.024
2.08
Rep3 Pi3
10.0388
2.08
Rep4 Pi3
10.0238
1.96
Rep2 PI3 A
10.0238
1.96
Rep3 PI3
10.0379
1.96
Rep4 PI3
10.0256
2.53
Rep2 P13 A
10.0256
2.53
Rep3 P13
10.0279
2.53
Rep4 Pi3
10.4813
1.26
Rep2 PI3 A
10.4813
1.18
Rep3 Pi3
10.0223
1.26
Rep4 PI3
10.0065
1.96
,) Rep2 PI3 B
10.0276
2.14
Rep3 P13
10.0157
2.14
Rep4 PI3
10.03259
1.87
’
Rep2 PI3 B
10.0188
1.87
Rep3 PI 3
10.0151
1.87
Rep4 PI3
10.0388
2.34
Rep2 P13 B
10.0322
2.46
Rep3 PI 3
10.0267
2.34
Rep4 PI3
10.0379
1.61
Rep2 PI3 B
10.0194
1.61
Rep3 PI 3
10.018
1.61
Rep4 P13
10.1589
1.99
Rep2 PI4 A
10.0085
2.53
Rep3 P14
10.0795
2.33
Rep4 P14
10.2305
2.18
Rep2 PI4 A
10.0379
2.18
Rep3 PI4
10.0229
2.18
Rep4 PI4
10.0367
1.99
Rep2 PI4 A
10.0846
1.99
Rep3 Pi4
10.087
1.99
Rep4 PI4
10.0846
2.86
Rep2 PI4 A
10.024
2.86
Rep3 P14
10.0797
2..86
Rep4 P14
10.0378
2.34
’ Rep2Pl4 B
10.0276
3.14
Rep3 PI4
10.033
3..14
Rep4 PI4
10.0256
2.34
Rep2 P14 B
10.0532
2.34
Rep3 PI4
10.0509
2.34
Rep4 PI4
10.1578
1.85
Rep2 PI4 B
10.0242
1.86
Rep3 P14
10.0525
1..85
Rep4 Pi4
10.024
2.13
Rep2 PI4 B
10.055
2.07
Rep3 P14
10.0264
2.13
Rep4 PI4
10.0238
2.37
Rep2 PI5 A
10.0202
5.23
Rep3 Pi5
10.0085
5.23
Rep4 P15
10.0256
3.63
Rep2 Pi5 A
10.0188
2.36
Rep3 PI5
10.0379
3.63
Rep4 PI5
10.4813
3.14
Rep2 Pi5 A
10.0322
3.14
Rep3 P15
10.0846
3.14
Rep4 P15
10.0276
4.15
, Rep2 PISA
10.0194
4.08
Rep3 PI5
10.024
4.15
Rep4 PI5
10.016
4.04
’ Rep2 PI5 B
10.0205
3.26
Rep3 PI5
10.276
3.26
Rep4 PI5
10.0275
3.15
Rep2 PI5 B
10.016
3.15
Rep3 P15
10.0532
3.15
Rep4 P15
10.0151
3.25
Rep2 PI5 B
10.0275
2.87
Rep3 Pi5
10.0242
3.25
Rep4 P15
10.0229
2.87
Rep2 PI5 B
10.0151
2.47
Rep3 P15
10.0188
2.87
Rep4 P15
10.0509
3.13

---

190
Table .t. FDA hydrolysis on the IPM plots
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce Fluoresc. Samples
Soit (g)
Absorbce d: luoresc.
Rep2 Pi .A
2.5319
0.377
7847.9
Rep2 P7 A
2.5009
0.238
15076.27
Rep2 PI .A
2.5261
0.457
9490.86 Rep2 P7 A
2.5097
0.231
,/4950.34
Rep2 PI .A
2.513
0.32
6743.34 Rep2 P7 A
2.5058
0.52
1 0 8 5 7 . 2 1
-?’ Rep2 PI .A
2.5022
0.401
8433.1
Rep2 P7 A
2.518
0.246
1 5 2 2 2 . 3 2
Rep2 PI B
2.5219
0.329
6902.61
Rep2 P7 B
2.5147
0.266
15637.17
Rep2 PI B
2.5269
0.338
7071.67 Rep2 PJ B
2.5034
0.233
,i4986.38
Rep2 Pl B
2.5457
0.291
6072.32 Rep2 P7 B
2.5069
0.23
14918.03
Rep2 P2 .A
2.5219
0.259
5478.69 Rep2 P7 B
2.5019
0.233
14989.37
Rep2 P2 ,A
2.5114
0.277
5869128
Rep2 PlO-A
2.5168
0.279
i5897.45
Rep2 P2 ,A
2.5177
0.363
7606.9
Rep2 Pi0 A
2.5086
0.265
'5630.43
. Rep2 P2 A
2.5193
0.266
5626.88 Rep2 PI0 A
2.5131
0 . 2 5 6 /,5436.63
i’
Rep2 P2 B
2.5081
0.439
9190.5
Rep2 PIO A
2.5132
0.275
P;;.;;
',)
Rep2 P2 B
2.5059
0.337
7110.46 Rep2 Pi0 B
2.5061
0.217
1
Rep2 P2 B
2.5115
0.331
6972.05 Rep2 Pi0 B
2.508
0.189
4077.23
Rep2 P2 B
2.5372
0.349
7265.37 Rep2 PI0 B
2.5017
0.222
14764.2
Rep2 P3 A
2.5074
0.25
5326.23 Rep2 PI0 B
_... _-- -
2.5209
- ._ _
0.239
i5073.86
- - -
Rep2 P3 A
2.5156
0.453
9448.6
Rep2 PI2 A.
2.5009
0.468
13811.83
Rep2 P3 A
2.517
0.367
7690.54 Rep2 PI2 A
2.5157
0.377
b898.44
Rep2 P3 A
2.5157
0.474
9876.46 Rep2 PI2 A
2.5033
0.375
17896.58
7
Rep2 P3 IB
2.5172
0.552
11460.19 Rep2 P12 A
2.5169
0.508
110564.74 ';
Rep2 P3 B
2.5313
0.435
9025.2
Rep2 PI2 B
2.5049
0.434
13099.84
Rep2 P3 B
2.5284
0.503
10415.24 Rep2 PI2 B
2.5109
0.354
17443.63
Rep2 P3 IB
2.5328
0.394
8189.43 Rep2 PI2 B
2.5071
0.446
19337.4
Rep2 P4 A
2.531
0.378
7870.96 Rep2 P12.B
2.5094
0.392
13224&91
Rep2 P4 A
2.5134
0.442
9232.35 Rëp2 PI3 A
2.5.
0.343
'17250.36
Rep2 P4 A
2.517
0.45
9382.2
Rep2 Pi3 A
2.5238
0.306
d3429.91
Rep2 P4 A
2.5135
0.386
8089.04 Rep2 Pi3 A
2.5127
0.302
b376.65
‘*- Rep2 P4 IB
2.5053
0.445
9323.63 Rep2 PI3 A
2.5018
0.308
'5527.46
_
Rep2 P4 IB
2:5128
0.373
7825.89 Rep2 P13 B
2.5121
0.424
3869.55
Rep2 P4 B
2.504
0.488
10209.42 Rep2 Pl3 B
2.5286
0.331
1,6924.9
Rep2 P4 iB
2.5287
0.196
4185.87 Rep2 PI3 B
2.5101
0.378
17936.5
Rep2 P5 A
2.5116
0.694
14371.25 Rep2 P13 B
2.5053
0.332
‘im9..78
Rep2 P5 A
2.5148
0.55
11444.9 ‘-E~P?4-ïï-‘
.2.5126
0.303
(3397.32
Rep2 P5 A
2.508
0.479
9981.99 Rep2 Pi4 A
2.5193
0.333
3991.19
- Rep2 P5A
2.5192
0.551
11481.78 Rep2 PI4 A
2.5279
0.283
I5952.73
Rep2 P5 B
2.5144
0.63
13039.46 Rep2 P14 A
2.521
0.29
jYll.46
Rep2 P5 IB
2.5004
0.535
11126.11
Rep2 PI4 B
2.5273
0.277
.'5832.35
Rep2 P5 IB
2.5154
0.567
11844.94 Rep2 PI4 B
2.5287
0.367
:(654.96
Rep2 P5 B
2.5179
0.316
6655.32 Rep2 PI4 B
2.5072
0.34
'/168.16
Rep2 P6 A
2.5026
0.253
5401.83 Rep2 PI4 B
15841.17
._-...- .- - -
2.5147
0.276
Rep2 P6 A
2.5112
0.5
10461.83 Rep2 Pi5 A
2.5075
0.349
'j7351.43 -
Rep2 P6 A
2.5223
0.362
7606.16 Rep2 P15 A
2.5177
0.252
15345.2
;p: Rep2 P6 A
2.5063
0.345
7226.94 Rep2 PI5 A
2.5451
0.294
I3134.22
.-
Rep2 P6 B
2.502
0.422
8849.14 Rep2 PI5 A
2.5326
0.261
5496.05
Rep2 P6 B
2.5064
0.478
10012.55 Rep2 PI5 B
2.5092
0.274
2813.09
Rep2 P6 B
2.5134
0.381
8009.62 Rep2 P15 B
2.5016
0.304
i3445.95
Rep2 P6 B
2.5148
0.359
7538.27 Rep2 P15 B
2.5052
0.205
14409.43

---

191
Table J. Continued
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce Fluoresc. Samples
Soil (g) Absorbce Fluoresc.
Rep3 PI A
2.5017
0.289
6138.11 Rep3 P6 B 2.5063
0.265
5647.09
-.-. ^.
Rep3 PI A
2.5285
0.231
4896.3 Rep3 P7 A
215208
0.216
4606
Rep3 Pl A
2.5041
0.253
5394.71 Rep3 P7 A 2.5111
0.202
4337.78
2.5301
h:
Rep3 PI A
0.245
5177.07 Rep3 P7 A 2.5127
0.253
5376.25
?
ii Repâ PI B
2.5158
0.247
5247.28 Rep3 P7 A 2.5088
0.21
4505.34
Rep3 PI B
2.5186
0.198
4243.39 Rep3 P7 B 2.5074
0.267
5674.04
Rep3 PI B
2.5176
0.247
5243.53 Rep3 P7 B 2.5158
0.253
5369.62
Rep3 PI B
2.5177
_-_-- -.
0.236
5019.18 Rep3 P7 B 2.5287
0.23
4875.63
Rep3 P2 A
2.5188
0.332
6972.21 Rep3 P7 B 2.5104
0.26
5524.22
RepJ P2 A
2.5249
0.322
6752.19 ‘Rep3 PI0
2.5047
0.275
5844.07
Rep3 P2 A
2.5134
0.342
7191.29 Rep3 PlO
2.5108
0.295
6238.45
:; RepJ P2A
2.5035
0.272
5785.34 Rep3 Pi 0
2.5163
0.273
5776.3
Rep3 P2 B
2.5008
0.274
5832.61 Rep3 PlO
2.5029
0.301
6381.12
,>
Rep3 P2 B
2.5093
0.238
5076.87 Rep3 PI0
2.5231
0.298
6269.03
i
RepJ P2 B
2.5242
0.293
6164.69 Rep3 PI0
2.5163
0.268
5674.36
Rep3 P2 B
2.5144
0.239
SP&298 Rep3 PlO
2.5248
0.239
5066.03
Rep3 P3 A
2.518
0.361
7565.25 Rep3 Pi0
2.5041
._.__ ~~-- -. .--
0.323 _
6828.76
-.._ -.- .._. - .
._.---
Rep3 P3 A
2.5243
0.412
8582.82 Rep3 PI2
2.508
0.344
7247.69
Rep3 P3 A
2.5042
0.389
8180.54 Rep3 Pi2
2.5205
0.345
7232.1
? Rep3 P3 A
2.5185
0.33
6932.3 Rep3 PI2
2.5077
0.281
5959.76
Rep3 P3 B
2.5076
0.384
8067.16 Rep3 Pi2
2.5011
0.422
8867.54
;:
Rep3 P3 B
2.5049
0.453
9488.96 Rep3 P12
2.503
0.378
7959.01
‘-
Rep3 P3 B
2.505
0.306
6478.16 Rep3 PI2
2.505
0.253
5392.77
Rep3 P3 B
2.506
0.575
11982.24 Rep3 PI2
2.5031
0.252
5376.37
_ Rep3 P4 A
2.5022
0.204
4394.21 Rep3 P12
2.7039
0.242
5169.78
Rep3 P4 A
2.5229
0.191
4093.82 Rep3 PI 3
2.5099
0.333
7oij.37
,, Rep3 P4 A
2.5209
0.252
5338.41 Rep3 Pi3
2.5066
0.21
4509.3
: Rep3 P4 A
2.5089
0.211
4525.61 Rep3 P13
2.5126
0.27
5723.55
Rep3 P4 B
2.5079
0.228
4875.15 Rep3 PI3
2.5068
0.268
5695.87
-.
Rep3 P4 B
2.5015
0.27
5734.28 Rep3 PI3
2.5064
0.233
4980.41
c-
Rep3 P4 B
2.5121
0.2
4313.41 Rep3 P13
2.5074
0.197
4241.88
Rep3 P4 B
2.5316
0.209
4479
Rep3 PI 3
2.5194
0.23
4893.63
Rep3 P5 A
2.5065
0.421
8788
Rep3 PI3
2.5129
0.212
4538.82
Rep3 P5 A
2.5056
0.402
8439.1 Rep3 PI4
2.5183
0.276
5832.82
.. Rep3 P5A
2.5128
0.342
7213.68 Rep3 PI4
2.5115
0.241
5133.7
Rep3 P5 A
2.5073
0.319
6723.46 Rep3 PI4
2.5255
0.277
5836.51
Rep3 P5 B
2.5169
0.281
5960.71 Rep3 P14
2.5103
0.266
5515.23
,,’
Rep3 P5 B
2.5099
0.294
6202.95 Rep3 Pi4
2.5044
0.183
3960.19
Rep3 P5 B
2.5065
0.334
7037.81 Rep3 Pi4
2.5009
0.269
5729.82
Rep3 P5 B
2.5044
0.359
7559.03 Rep3 PI4
2.5026
0.263
5602.93
Rep3 P6 A
2.5213
0.337
7085.3 Rep3 PI4
2.219
0.324
6800.9
Rep3 P6 A
2.5281
0.347
7270.5 Rep3 PI5
2.5252
0.344
7-l 98.32.
Rep3 P6 A
2.5049
0.318
6062.47 Rep3 PI5
2.5193
0.29
6115.59
2 Rep3 P6A
2.5142
0.289
6130.26 Rep3 PI 5
2.5043
0.29
6 1 5 2 . 2 2 -
Rep3 P6 B
2.5053
0.202
4332.43 Rep3 PI5
2.5109
0.329
6932.85
Rep3 P6 B
2.5098
0.282
5985.95 Rep3 P15
2.5189
0.342
7175.59
Rep3 P6 B
2.5012
0.19
4094.75 Rep3 PI5
2.5033
0.399
8388.41

---

192
Table J. Continued
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce Fluoresc. Samples
Soil (g)
Absorbce Flu Nresc.
Rep4 Pl A
2.5046
0.263
5598.46 Rep4 P6 B
2.5096
0.294
62 3.93
Rep4 PI A
2.5045
0.215
4615.49 Rep4 P7 A 2.5332
0.253
53 2.74
Rep4 PI A
2.531
0.265
5580.6 Rep4 P7 A
2.5154
0.26
55 3.24
. .
Rep4 Pl A
2.5086
0.221
4730.65 Rep4 P7 A 2.5024
0.271
57 7.38
; Rep4 Pi B
2.5276
0.268
5649
Rep4 P7 A
2.5076
0.256
54 8.56
.-”
Rep4 Pl B
2.5236
0.219
4661.87 Rep4 P7 B 2.5051
0.25
5: 3.12
Rep4 PI B
2.521
0.242
5134.71 Rep4 P7 B
2.52
0.254
53 1.03
Rep4 P1 B
-_e.
2.531
0.204
4344.21 Rep4 P7 B
2.528
0.249
52 2.54
Rep4 P2 A
2.5018
0.329
6958.07 Rep4 P7 B
__..----- -2.52_Q5
.--4222. -.
-
47 MifL _..... _. _ - _
Rep4 P2 A
2.5236
0.301
6328.78 Rep4 P+I0
2.5096
0.245
52 9.36
Rep4 P2 A
2.5178
0.344
7219.48 Rep4 P+I0
2.5026
0.249
53 5.95
”
Rep4 P2 A
2.5082
0.27
5733.59 Rep4 PI0
2.506
0.191
41 1.43
Rep4 P2 B
2.5241
0.299
6286.87 Rep4 Pi0
2.5067
0.221
47 4.23
t
Rep4 P2 B
2.5117
0.318
6705.98 Rep4 PlO
2.5097
0.23
49 2.54
Rep4 P2 B
2.513
0.353
7416.99 Rep4 PI0
2.5162
0.268
56 4.59
Rep4 P2 B
2.5154
0.239
5084.96 Rep4 PI0
2.5105
0.242
51 6.18
Rep4 P3 A
2.513
0.433
9050.1
Rep4 PlO
2.5089
.--- --
0.24
__._..
51 ci!3 _____- ‘,_. -.
Rep4 P3 A
2.5261
0.481
9977.85 Rep4 P12
2.52
0.291
61 4.25
Rep4 P3 A
2.5145
0.341
7167.75 Rep4 P12
2.5087
0.265
56 0.21
; Rep4 P3A
2.5111
0.611
12693.36 Rep4 Pi2
2.5109
0.3
63 0.36
Rep4 P3 IB
2.5177
0.354
7423.52 Rep4 PI2
2.5216
0.305
64 5.17
7
Rep4 P3 IB
2.5122
0.448
9359.29 Rep4 PI2
2.5088
0.273
57 3.57
Rep4 P3 B
2.5094
0.325
6855.22 Rep4 Pi2
2.5154
0.315
66 4.93
Rep4 P3 B
2.5235
0.496
10293.16 Rep4 P12
2.5228
0.279
58 3.42
Rep4 P4 A
2.502
0.228
4829.51 Rep4 PI2
2.5149
0.295
62 8.28
Rep4 P4 A
2.5085
0.124
2754.28 Rep4 Pi3
2.5086
0.212
4! 16.6
Rep4 P4 A
2.5238
0.209
4485.43 Rep4 P13
2.5019
0.185
40 5.16
Rep4 P4 A
. .
2.5013
0.216
4600.52 Rep4 P33
2.5155
0.225
47 9.24
3
Rep4 P4 B
2.5148
0.21
4518.85 Rep4 PI3
2.5136
0.247
52 1.87
l
Rep4 P4 B
2.5309
0.219
4678.19 Rep4 PI3
2.5057
0.2
43 .6.18
Rep4 P4 B
2.5166
0.271
5702.44 Rep4 PI3
2.5184
0.203
4: 15.58
Rep4 P4 8
2.5142
0.281
5938.69 Rep4 Pi3
2.5061
0.185
3s 38.44
Rep4 P5 A
2.5254
0.301
6377.3
Rep4 P13
2.5104
-_---- “.
0.199
.- --..--. 4; ‘7.68
- --. -. _. ” . ..--
Rep4 P5 A
2.5033
0.251
5308.58 Repzypï4- 2.5097
0.296
6; Si.62
Rep4 P5 A
2.536
0.308
6523.55 Rep4 Pi4
2.5148
0.275
5t zo.54
. .
Rep4 P5 A
2.5398
0.366
7612.7
Rep4 PI4
2.5187
0.262
5: 16.75
Rep4 P5 B
2.5143
0.212
4526.39 Rep4 PI4
2.5145
0.282
5: 54.05
?)
Rep4 P5 B
2.5206
0.236
5025.97 Rep4 PI4
2.5085
0.333
7( z1.29
Rep4 P5 B
2.5091
0.212
4524.95 Rep4 PI4
2.5058
0.281
5: 54.28
Rep4 P5 B
2.5008
0.258
5486.19 Rep4 P14
2.5007
0.239
5’ 14.85
Rep4 P6 ,A
2.5034
0.316
6679.49 Rep4 PI4
.._.- -m.-.
2.5274
0.301
. . . __ .
6: 19.26
._I ..-. ,
Rep4 P6 .A
2.5267
0.446
9351.2
Rep4 PI 5
2.5329
0.338
-7i 54.92
Rep4 P6 A
2.5262
0.324
6787.98 Rep4 PI5
2.5066
0.36
7! 79.19
‘Y R e p 4 P6A
2.5034
0.426
8860.66 Rep4 PI 5
2.5155
0.349
7: l8.05 ,‘,,q
Rep4 P6 B
2.5151
0.415
8715.95 Rep4 PI5
2.5384
0.257
51 1 2 . 6 6
Rep4 P6 B
2.5149
0.359
7533.18 Rep4 PI5
2.5208
0.31
6! 18.96
Rep4 P6 B
2.5165
0.396
8288.52 Rep4 PI5
2.5015
0.38
8 ~04.8

---

193
Table K. B-Glucosidase activity on the IPM plots
Samples
Soi! (g)
Absorbce
P-nitrph.
Samples
Soil (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph.
Rep2 PI A
1.0231
0.687
52.45
Rep2 P7 A
1.0481
0.683
50.90
Rep2 PI A
1.0168
0.65
49.97
Rep2 P7 A
1.0242
0.92
69.90
Rep2 PI A
1.0124
0.702
54.14
Rep2 P7 A
1.0348
0.719
54.23
Rep2 PI A
1.0045
0.645
50.20
Rep2 P7 A
1.0283
0.762
57.80
i:
Rep2 PI B
1.029
0.648
49.23
Rep2 P7 B 1.0274
0.771
58.52
Rep2 PI B
1.022
0.668
51.07
Rep2 P7 B 1.0197
0.644
49.38
Rep2 Pl B
1.0166
0.659
50.66
Rep2 P7 B 1.0238
0.655
50.01
Rëp2 P2 A
1.029
0.563
42.87
Rep2 P7 B 1.0135
0.673
51.88
Rep2 P2 A
1.0479
0.551
41.22
.Rep2 PI0
1.0186
0.743
56.91
Rep2 P2 A
1.0097
0.481
37.44
Rep2 PI0
1.0437
0.769
57.46
Rep2 P2 A
1.0384
0.484
36.63
Rep2 PI0
1.0301
0.765
57.92
Rep2 P2 B
1.0256
0.447
34.31
Rep2 PI0
1.0258
0.835
6 3 . 4 1 ;)
Rep2 P2 B
1.0224
0.496
38.11
Rep2 PI0
1.0324
0.944
7 1 . 1 3 -
Rep2 P2 B
1.0398
0.46
34.81
Rep2 PI0
1.625
0.981
74.42
Rep2 P2 B
1.0125
0.463
35.97
Rep2 PI 0
1.0193
0.921
70.31
Rep2 P3 A
1.0189
0.538
41.41
Rep2 PI0
1.0128
0.732
56.40
Rep2 P3 A
1.0225
0.634
48.49
Rep2 PI2
1.0411
1.183
88.20
Rep2 P3 A
1.043
0.558
41.93
Rep2 PI2
1.0145
1.224
93.62
Rep2 P3 A
1.0251
0.699
53.25
Rep2 PI2
1.0364
1.833
Rep2 P3 B
1.023
0.897
68.25
Rep2 PI2
1.0221
1.813
136.86 i
137.27
Rep2 P3 B
1.0185
0.791
60.54
Rep2 PI2
1.0225
1.407
106.66
Rep2 P3 B
1.0238
0.694
52.94
Rep2 PI2
1.0258
1.643
124.02
Rep2 P3 B
1.0261
0.897
68.04
Rep2 PI2
1.017
1.623
123.58
Rep2 P4 A
1.0157
0.742
57.00
Rep2 PI2
1.0242
1.683
127.22
Rep2 P4 A
1.0265
0.713
54.22
Rep2 P’l3
1.0261
1.04
78.77
Rep2 P4 A
1.0132
0.735
56.61
Rep2 PI3
1.0337
0.946
71.19
Rep2 P4 A
1.0194
0.757
57.92
Rep2 PI3
1.0298
1.071
8 0 . 8 0 _\\
Rep2 P4 B
1.0249
0.623
47.55
Rep2 PI 3
1.0344
1.075
80.74
Rep2 P4 B
1.0398
0.634
47.68
Rep2 PI3
1.0264
0.948
71.85
Rep2 P4 B
1.0279
0.62
47.19
Rep2 PI3
1.0183
1.185
90.33
Rep2 P4 B
1.0173
0.637
48.97
Rep2 PI3
1.0463
1.236
91.66
Rep2 P5 A
1.0456
0.614
45.95
Rep2 PI3
1.0539
1.193
87.86
Rep2 P5 A
1.0315
0.523
39.79
Rep2 PI4
1.0255
1.294
97.87
Rep2 P5 A
1.012
0.46
35.76
Rep2 PI4
1.0383
0.974
72.95
Rep2 P5 A
1.0211
0.498
38.31
Rep2 PI4
1.0235
1.157
87.76
.:
Rep2 P5 B
1.0164
0.561
43.25
Rep2 PI4
1.0383
0.926
69.39
Rep2 P5 B
1.0128
0.557
43.10
Rep2 PI4
1.0254
1.135
85.95
Rep2 P5 B
1.0271
0.693
52.69
Rep2 PI4
1.0412
1.09
81.32
Rep2 P5 B
1.0291
0.324
25.00
Rep2 PI4
1.0345
1.116
83.78
Rep2 P6 A
1.0142
1.425
108.90
Rep2 PI4
1.0345
1.785
133.54
Rep2 P6 A
1.0342
1.203
90.28
Rep2 PI5
1.0379
0.908
68.09
Rep2 P6 A
1.0215
1.053
80.10
Rep2 PI5
1.0354
1.13.
84.75
Rep2 P6 A
1.02
1.073
81.73
Rep2 PI5
1.024
1.705
128.90
;
Rep2 P6 B
1.0238
1.34
101.49
Rep2 PI 5
1.0358
0.865
65.03
-"
Rep2 P6 B
1.032
1.425
107.02
Rep2 PI5
1.0398
0.97
72.55
Rep2 P6 B
1.0227
1.254
95.13
Rep2 P15
1.051
1.455
107.29
Rep2 P6 B
1.0223
1.29
97.88
Rep2 PI5
1.0391
1.139
85.11

---

194
Table K. Continued
Samples
Soil (g) Absorbce P-nitrph. Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-r itrph.
Rep3 Pl A
1.0208
0.615
47.14
Rep3 P6 B
___. -...-
? 9146
0.769
5 1.l.j
Rep3 Pl A
1.0275
0.616
46.91
Rep3 P7 A
1.0117
0.782
6 1.26
Rep3 PI A
1.0301
0.6
45.59
Rep3 P7 A
1.0139
0.849
6 1.22
1
Rep3 Pl A
1.0133
0.609
47.03
Rep3 P7 A
1.039
0.722
58 ..24
i!, Rep3 Pl !3
1.0334
0.662
50.06
Rep3 P7 A
1.0185
1.019
7 '.77 :,
Rep3 Pl 5
1.0409
0.669
50.22
Rep3 P7 B
1.0388
0.779
5 1.47 (
Rep3 Pl B
1.0148
0.634
48.86
Rep3 P7 B
1.0274
0.725
5 1.07
Rep3 Pl IB
1.0222
0.654
50.01
Rep3 P7 B
1.0219
0.645
4 1.35
Rep3 P2 A
1.0378
0.616
46.44
Rep3 P7 B
1.0244
0.801
6' 1.94
Rep3 P2 A
1.0232
0.642
49.06
Rep3 PlO
1.0269
0.792
61 1.42
Rep3 P2 A
1.012
0.683
52.72
Rep3 PI0
1.0371
0.906
6' '.99
_ Rep3 P2,4
1.0255
0.647
49.32
Rep3 PI0
1.0365
1.072
81 1.35
:' Rep3 P2 B
1.0309
0.639
48.47
Rep3 PlO
1.011
0.964
7, ,.16
Rep3 P2 B
1.0097
0.617
47.81
Rep3 PI0
1.0288
1.139
8 1.97
Rep3 P2 IB
1.0148
0.618
47.64
Rep3 PlO
1.0304
1.208
9 1.98
Rep3 P2 B
1.0406
0.555
41.80
Rep3 PI0
1.0401
1.182
8 1.21
Rep3 P3 A
1.0295
0.747
56.61
Rep3 PlO
.- .
1.0278
1.219
9 1.04
Rep3 P3 A
1.0203
0.788
60.21
Rep3 P12
1.0312
0.784
5 1.27
Rep3 P3,4
1.0305
0.836
63.20
Rep3 Pi2
1.0147
1.315
IC 3.51
Rep3 P3,4
1.024
0.646
49.32
Rep3 PI2
1.0207
1.355
IC 2.93
i
Rep3 P3 B
1.0249
0.931
70.68
Rep3 P12
1.0216
1.633
Ii 3.78 I'
Rep3 P3 IB
1.0142
0.713
54.88
Rep3 PI2
1.0237
1.226
9: '.93
Rep3 P3 !B
1.021
0.799
61 .OO
Rep3 PI2
1.023
1.493
II 3.08
Rep3 P3 IB
1.0284
0.702
53.30
Rep3 PI2
1.0437
1.413
IC 1.94
Rep3 P4 A
1.0188
0.392
30.39
Rep3 PI2
1.0167
0.915
7 1.03
Rep3 P4,4
1.0138
0.389
30.31
Rep3 PI 3
1.0461
0.886
6 1.93
Rep3 P4 A
1.0359
0.412
31.37
Rep3 PI3
1.0364
0.801
6 1.24
! Rep3 P4,4
1.0166
0.388
30.15
Rep3 PI 3
1.0303
0.76
5 '.53
Rep3 P4 B
1.031
0.419
32.04
Rep3 PI 3
1.0263
0.869
6 1.93
Rep3 P4 B
1.0211
0.403
31.15
Rep3 PI 3
1.0364
0.778
5 1.53
Rep3 P4 !B
1.0217
0.413
31.88
Rep3 PI3
1.0446
0.722
5 L95
Rep3 P4 B
1.0251
0.398
30.65
Rep3 PI 3
1.0487
0.643
4 '.94
Rep3 P5 A
1.0181
0.324
25.27
Rep3 PI 3
1.0314
0.691
5 1.32
Rep3 P5,4
1.0327
0.316
24.32
Rep3 PI4
1.0383
1.052
7 1.73
Rep3 P5 A
1.0426
1.054
78.55
Rep3 PI4
1.0339
1.043
7 3.40
y,‘ Rep3 P5 A
1.0307
1.066
80.36
Rep3 PI4
1.04
1.219
c 1.96
" Rep3 P5 IB
1.0255
0.871
66.13
Rep3 PI4
1.0151
1.034
ï 3.17 )-
Rep3 P5 B
1.018
0.845
64.65
Rep3 PI4
1.0365
1.455
II 18.79
Rep3 P5 B
1.0165
0.795
60.96
Rep3 PI4
1.0354
0.98
7 3.60
Rep3 P5 B
1.0306
.__..-
1 *o-57
79.69
Rep3 PI4
1.0383
1.157
E 3.51
Rep3 P6,4
1.0235
1.2
91.00
Rep3 PI4
1.0268
1.267
C 5.73
Rep3 P6 A
1.0394
0.925
69.25
Rep3 PI 5
1.0426
1.605
1 9.22
,_ Rep3P6A
1.0209
1.041
79.24
Rep3 PI5
1.0362
1.415
1' 15.85
R e p 3 'P6A
1.0332
0.722
54.54
Rep3 PI5
1.0258
1.385
18 14.67 '
Rep3 P6 B
1.0237
0.987
74.97
Rep3 PI5
1.0406
1.375
1 12.44 '-
Rep3 P6 B
1.0353
0.926
69.59
Rep3 PI5
1.0297
1.225
5 2.32
Rep3 P6 B
1.0171
1.25
95.35
Rep3 PI 5
1.0566
1.325
5 7.25

---

195
Tabk K. Continued
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph. Samples !Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph.
Rep4 Pl A
1.0152
0.561
43.31
Rep4 P6 B 1.0143
1.189
90.99
Rep4 PI A
1.0258
0.531
40.61
Rep4 P7 A 1.0181
0.797
61.02
Rep4 PI A
1.0034
0.536
41.90
Rep4 P7 A 1.0342
0.814
61.33
Rep4 PI A
1.0239
0.544
41.66
Rep4 P7 A
1.0299
0.826
62.49
Rep4 Pl B
1.0312
0.573
43.53
Rep4 P7 A
1.0417
0.698
52.32
Rep4 PI B
1.0297
0.503
38.36
Rep4 P7 B 1.0469
0.864
64.27 “
Re@ Pl B
1.0047
0.506
39.55
Rep4 P7 B 1.0148
0.658
50.68
Repdr Pl B
1.0503
0.461
34.53
Rep4 P7 B 1.0243
0.647
49.38
Rep4 P2 A
1.0145
0.675
51.98
Rep4 P7.S
_---
1. .0231
0.757
57.71
Rep4 P2 A
1.0171
0.678
52.08
Rep4 Pi0
1.0331
0.805
6 0 . 7 3
Rep4 P2 A
1.0375
0.577
43.56
Rep4 PlO
1.0247
0.84
63.86
Rep4 P2 A
1 .Q468
0.584
43.69
Rep4 Pi0
1.027
0.97J
73.98
Rep4 P2 B
1.0174
0.677
51.99
Rep4 Pi0
1.0126
0.823
63.33 .'
Rep4 P2 B
1.01366
0.677
51.02
Rep4 Pi0
1.0195
1.066
81.24
Rep4 P2 B
1.0194
0.67
51.36
Rep4 PI 0
1.0229
0.834
63.52
Rep4 P2 B
1.0248
0.548
41.92
Rep4 PI0
1.0219
0.862
65.69
Rep4 P3 A
1.0215
0.857
65.34
Rep4 Pi0
1.0208
0.837
63.87
Rep4 P3 A
1.0163
0.505
39.02
Rep4 P12
1.0205
1.743
132.21
Rep4 P3 A
1.0206
1.02
77.68
Rep4 P12
1.0303
1.863
139.91
Rep4 P3 A
1.0116
0.932
71.68
Rep4 PI2
1.0403
1.643
122.30 .
Rep4 P3 B
1.0186
1.17
89.17
Rep4 Pi2
1.0255
1.693
127.81 <'
Rep4 P3 B
1.0277
0.795
60.30
Rep4 Pi2
1.0296
1.453
109.37
Rep4 P3 B
1.0471
0.87
64.69
Rep4 P12
1.0291
1.643
123.63
Reprl P3 B
1.0247
0.837
63.63
Rep4 PI2
1.0358
1.401
104.85
Rep4 P4 A
1.0172
0.443
34.29
Rep4 PI2
1.0275
1.297
97.91
Rep4 P4 A
1.0248
0.429
32.99
Rep4 PI3
1.0466
0.69
51.49
Rep4 P4 A
1.0298
0.427
32.68
Rep4 PI3
1.0275
0.993
75.14
Rep4 P4 A
1.0346
0.346
26.50
Rep4 PI3
1.0274
0.824
62.49
Rep4 P4 B
1.0167
0.417
32.34
Rep4 P13
1.0307
0.62
47.06 '
Rep4 P4 B
1.0115
0.424
33.04
Rep4 PI3
1.0312
0.782
59.13
Rep4 P4 B
1.0292
0.404
30.98
Rep4 PI3
1.0233
0.846
64.39
Rep4 P4 B
1.0156
0.419
32.53
Rep4 PI3
1.0575
0.859
63.26
Rep4 P5 A
1.0318
0.884
66.70
Rep4 Pi 3
1.0317
0.741
56.04
Rep4 P5 A
1.0425
0.882
65.87
.Rep4 P14
1.0258
1.325
100.17
Rep4 P5 A
1.0393
0.998
74.66
Rep4 PI4
1.0443
1.305
96.92
Rep4 P5 A
1.0254
0.83
63.06
Rep4 P14
1.0402
1.337
99.67
Rep4 P5 B
1.0208
1.129
85.89
Rep4 PI4
1.0213
1.537
1 1 6 . 5 8
Rep4 P5 B
1.0316
0.882
66.56
Rep4 Pi4
1.0335
1.168
87.73
Rep4 P5 B
1.0162
0.956
73.17
Rep4 PI4
1.027
1.199
90.61
Rep4 P5 B
1.0118
0.956
73.49
Rep4 PI4
1.0312
1.168
87.93
Rep4 P6 A
1.0194
1.229
93.55
Rep4 PI4
1.0367
1.347
100.75
Rep4 P6 A
1.0126
1.031
79.13
Rep4 PI5
1.0298
1.347
101.42
Rep4 P6 A
1.0379
1.108
82.91
Rep4 PI5
1.0284
1.475
111.14
Rep4 P6 A
1.0227
1.124
85.35
Rep4 P15
1.0462
1.29
95.64 ,.
Rep4 P6 B
1.0307
1.585
119.10
Rep4 PI5
1.0485
1.585
117.08 --
Rep4 P6 B
1.0173
1.2
91.55
Rep4 PI5
1.0379
1.207
90.25
Rep4 P6 B
1.022
1.498
113.57
Rep4 PI5
1.0211
1.455
110.43

---

196
Table L. Arylsulfatase activity in the IPM plots
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorb(:e
P-nitrph.
Samples
Soil (g)
Absorbce
-nitrph.
Rep2 PI A
1.0496
0.312
15.75
Rep2 P6 B
1.0378
1.272
33.39
Rep2 Pi A
1.0415
0.286
14.60
Rep2 P7 A
1.0375
0.627
3-l .51
Rep2 PI A
1.0267
0.319
16.46
Rep2 P7 A
1.0318
0.71
35.81
Rep2 P-l A
1.0375
0.365
18.56
Rep2 P7 A
1.0214
0.688
35.07
Rep2 PI B
1.028
0.3
15.49
Rep2 P7 A
1.0339
0.5
25.32
Rep2 P-i B
1.0402
0.31
15.80
Rep2 P7 B
1.0221
0.64
32.64
Rep2 PI B
1.026
0.341
17.57
Rep2 P7 B
1.0308
0.559
28.33
Rep2 PI B
1.0301
0.49
24.92
Rep2 P7 B
1.0211
0.677
34.53
Rep2 P2 A
1.0375
0.95
47.48
Rep2 P7 B
1.0295
0.437
22.29
Rep2 P2 A
1.0299
0.694
35.08
Rep2 PIOA
1.0366
0.596
30.01
Rep2 P2 A
1.0409
0.61
30.57
Rep2 PI0 A
1.022
0.576
29.43
Rep2 P2 A
1.0315
0.466
23.69
Rep2 PI0 A
1.0231
0.396
20.37
Rep2 P2 B
1.302
0.551
22.12
Rep2 PI0 A
1.021
0.486
24.94
Rep2 P2 B
1.0396
0.881
43.98
Rep2 PI0 B
1.0389
0.384
19.47
Rep2 P2 B
1.0336
0.978
49.05
Rep2 PlO B
1.0464
0.424
21.29
Rep2 P2 B
1.0229
0.301
15.61
Rep2 PI0 B
1.0483
0.42
21.06
Rep2 P3 A
1.0362
1.519
75.71
Rep2 Pi0 B
1.0299
0.519
26.37
Rep2 P3 A
1.0367
1.529
76.17
Rep2 P12 A
1.0282
1.546
77.65
Rep2 P3 A
1.0349
1.759
87.71
Rep2 PI2 A
1.0317
1.766
38.33
Rep2 P3 A
1.0331
1.854
92.58
Rep2 Pi2 A
1.0312
1.866
33.34
Rep2 P3 B
1.0365
1.459
72.72
Rep2 P12 A
1.024
1.456
73.46
Rep2 P3 B
1.0214
1.529
77.31
Rep2 PI2 B
1.0403
1.209
SO.13
Rep2 P3 B
1.019
1.779
90.08
Rep2 PI2 B
1.0323
1.546
77.34
Rep2 P3 B
1.0112
1.529
78.09
Rep2 P12 B
1.0393
1.185
59.00
Rep2 P4 A
1.0267
0.417
21.35
Rep2 PI2 B
1.0337
2.015
00.51
Rep2 P4 A
1.0335
0.479
24.29
Rep2 P13 A
1.028
0.409
20.93
Rep2 P4 A
1.0234
0.483
24.73
Rep2 PI3 A
1.0312
0.347
17.78
Rep2 P4 A
1.0268
0.646
32.79
Rep2 P13 A
1.0357
0.522
26.37
Rep2 P4 B
1.0176
0.48
24.72
Rep2 P13 A
1.0427
0.489
24.57
Rep2 P4 B
1.0314
0.51
25.88
Rep2 PI3 B
1.0314
0.505
25.63
Rep2 P4 B
1.0347
0.6
30.26
Rep2 P13 B
1.0212
0.403
20.76
Rep2 P4 B
1.023
0.461
23.64
Rep2 P13 B
1.0385
0.403
20.42
Rep2 P5 A
1.0343
0.674
33.94
Rep2 PI3 B
1.0316
0.536
27.17
Rep2 P5 A
1.0288
0.611
30.98
Rep2 P14 A
1.0483
1.799
88.54
Rep2 P5 A
1.0282
0.979
49.36
Rep2 Pi4 A
1.0262
1.918
96.40
Rep2 P5 A
1.0232
0.533
27.24
Rep2 PI4 A
1.0402
1.182
58.80
Rep2 P5 B
1.0351
0.854
42.84
Rep2 P14 A
1.0132
1.669
85.03
Rep2 P5 B
1.0407
1.386
68.83
Rep2 P14 B
1.0174
1.419
72.07
Rep2 P5 B
1.0438
0.769
38.30
Rep2 Pi4 B
1.0421
0.938
46.68
Rep2 P5 B
1.0258
1.0125
51.15
Rep2 PI4 B
1.0184
0.676
34.57
Rep2 P6 A
1.0403
0.734
36.70
Rep2 P14 B
1.0339
1.133
56.73
Rep2 P6 A
1.0236
0.914
46.32
Rep2 PI5 A
1.0142
1.589
80.90
Rep2 P6 A
1.0368
1.025
51.23
Rep2 PI5 A
1.0439
1.419
70.24
Rep2 Pô A
1.01
1.686
86.16
Rep2 Pi5 A
1.0231
1.336
67.51
Rep2 P6 B
1.03
1.786
89.47
Rep2 PI5 A
1.0256
1.659
83.50
Rep2 P6 B
1.0147
1.911
97.14
Rep2 PI5 B
1.0307
1.815
90.85
Rep2 P6 B
1.041
1.945
96.36
Rep2 PI5 B
1.0371
1.669
83.07

---

197
Table L. Continued
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph. Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph.
Rep3 PI A
1.0233
0.527
26.94
Rep3 P6 B 1.0437
0.523
26.21
Rep3 PI A
1.0193
0.588
30.11
Rep3 P7 A 1.0305
0.777
39.19
Rep3 PI A
.0254
0.534
27.23
Rep3 P7 A 1.0205
0.677
34.55
Rep3 Pl A
.0196
0.551
28.24
Rep3 P7 A 1.0243
0.779
39.53
Rep3 Pl E3
.0232
0.588
30.00
Rep3 P7 A
1.0369
0.593
29.85
Rep3 PI B
.0351
0.497
25.14
Rep3 P7 B 1.0298
0.321
16.51
Rep3 PI B
.0422
0.812
40.48
Rep3 P7 B
1.0324
1.086
54.48
Rep3 Pl B
.0'395
0.62
31.11
Rep3 P7 B
1.0273
0.747
37.82
Rep3 P2 A
1 .a404
0.78
38.97
Rep3 P7 B 1.0276
1.516
76.20
Rep3 P2 A
1.0314
0.607
30.70
Rep3 PI0
1.0226
0.638
32.52
Rep3 P2 A
1.0404
0.726
36.31
Rep3 PI0
1.0252
0.629
31.99
Rep3 P2 A
1.0202
0.691
35.27
Rep3 PlO
1.0307
0.49
24.90
Rep3 P2 B
1.0243
0.591
30.12
Rep3 PI0
1.0245
0.739
37.52
Rep3 P2 B
1.0252
0.568
28.94
Rep3 PlO
1.0419
2.045
101.20
Rep3 P2 B
1.0282
0.575
29.20
Rep3 PI0
1.0264
1.172
59.09
Rep3 P2 B
1.0224
0.851
43.22
Rep3 PI0
1.0299
1.163
58.44
Rep3 P3 A
1.025
1.579
79.54
Rep3 PI0
1.0398
1.26
62.67
Rep3 P3 A
1.0299
1.26
63.28
Rep3 PI2
1.0201
0.673
34.36
Rep3 P3 A
1.0283
0.839
42.37
Rep3 P12
1.029
0.458
23.35
Rep3 P3 A
1.0289
1.439
72.26
Rep3 PI2
1.0444
0.746
37.15
Rep3 P3 B
1.041
0.791
39.49
Rep3 Pi2
1.0317
1.646
82.36
Rep3 P3 B
1.0372
0.427
21.63
Rep3 P12
1.0265
0.675
34.25
Rep3 P3 B
1.0154
1.285
65.44
Rep3 PI2
1.0365
0.814
40.80
Rep3 P3 B
1.0248
0.445
22.79
Rep3 P12
1.0264
0.776
39.30
Rep3 P4 A
1.0131
0.3
15.71
Rep3 PI2
1.0363
1.008
50.41
Rep3 P4 A
1.0202
0.293
15.25
Rep3 P13
1.0387
0.431
21.80
Rep3 P4 A
1.0328
0.292
15.02
Rep3 PI3
1.0201
0.49
25.16
Rep3 P4 A
1.0384
0.248
12.76
Rep3 P13
1.0232
0.405
20.82
Rep3 P4 B
1.0295
0.2
10.48
Rep3 PI3
1.0348
0.397
20.19
Rep3 P4 B
1.0375
0.165
8.67
Rep3 P13
1.0343
0.326
16.68
Rep3 P4 B
1.0439
0.244
12.50
Rep3 PI3
1.0306
0.342
17.54
Rep3 P4 B
1.0178
0.223
11.76
Rep3 P13
1.0307
0.319
16.39
Rep3 P5 A
1.0411
1.779
88.17
Rep3 PI3
1.0269
0.331
17.05
Rep3 P5 A
1.0313
1.977
98.86
Rep3 PI4
1.0482
0.599
29.82
Rep3 P5 A
1.0287
1.379
69.28
Rep3 Pl4
1.0289
0.615
31.18
Rep3 P5 A
1.0199
1.659
83.97
Rep3 P14
1.02
0.844
42.97
Rep3 P5 B
1.0292
1.619
81.21
Rep3 PI4
1.0309
1.439
72.12
Rep3 P5 B
1.0268
0.933
47.13
Rep3 PI4
1.0208
0.733
37.36
Rep3 P5 B
1.0245
1.213
61.26
Rep3 PI4
1.0233
1.285
64.94
Rep3 P5 B
1.0254
0.798
40.44
Rep3 P14
1.031
0.254
13.15
Rep3 P6 A
1.0205
0.424
21.83
Rep3 P14
1.0409
1.315
65.32
Rep3 P6 A
1.0353
0.747
37.53
Rep3 PI5
1.0219
0.823
41.83
Rep3 P6 A
1.0404
1.376
68.36
Rep3 PI5
1.0357
0.69
34.69
Rep3 P6 A
1.0454
0.328
16.60
Rep3 PI5
1.0212
0.68
34.68
Rep3 P6 B
1.034
1.916
95.57
Rep3 PI 5
1.0169
1.834
93.04
Rep3 P6 B
1.0385
1.616
80.34
Rep3 Pi5
1.0313
1.479
74.08
Rep3 P6 B
1.0249
0.866
43.86
Rep3 PI5
1.0452
0.786
39.09

---

198
Table L. Continued
Samples
Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-nitrph. Samples Soi1 (g)
Absorbce P-n ph.
Rep4 Pl A
1.0401
1.78
88.30 Rep4 P7 A
1.0361
0.592
!9.82
Rep4 Pl A
1.0415
0.45
22.67 Rep4 P7 A
1.0359
0.658
33.10
Rep4 PI A
1.0232
0.453
23.23 Rep4 P7 A
1.0361
0.417
Z3.16
Rep4 PI A
1.0258
0.655
33.27 Rep4 P7 A
1.0293
0.565
Z8.67
Rep4 Pl B
1.0361
0.424
21.50 Rep4 P7 B
1.0495
0.511
Z5.48
Rep4 Pl B
1.022
0.851
43.24 Rep4 P7 B
1.036
0.507
,5.62
Rep4 Pl B
1.0443
0.432
21.73 Rep4 P7 B
1.0327
0.549
z7.79
Rep4 P2 A
1.0471
0.609
30.34 Rep4 P7 B
1.0385
0.425
!A .50
Rep4 P2 A
1.0345
0.346
17.67 Rep4 PlO
1.026
0.569
Z8.97
Rep4 P2 A
1.026
1.162
58.62 Rep4 PI0
1. .0283
1.706
35.62
Rep4 P2 A
1.0292
0.466
23.74 Rep4 P-10
I .0347
0.872
13.75
Rep4 P2 B
1.0305
1.52
76.18 Rep4 PI0
1.027
0.322
16.60
Rep4 P2 B
1.0302
0.379
19.39 Rep4 PlO
1.0315
0.833
Il.94
Rep4 P2 B
1.024
0.648
32.98 Rep4 PlO
1.0284
1.536
77.14
Rep4 P2 B
1.0237
0.478
24.47 Rep4 PI0
1.0342
0.534
27.00
Rep4 P3 A
1.0464
1.849
91.15 Rep4 PlO
1.0435
0.819
10.77
Rep4 P3 A
1.0324
0.764
38.48 Rep4 P12
1.036
1.031
31.56
Rep4 P3 A
1.0299
1.609
80.66 Rep4 PI2
1.0459
1.056
52.30
Rep4 P3 A
1.0258
0.814
41.22 Rep4 PI2
? .0331
0.596
30.11
Rep4 P3 B
1 .'0296
1.135
57.07 Rep4 PI2
1.0348
0.872
43.74
Rep4 P3 B
1.0361
1.851
92.16 Rep4 P12
1.032
0.928
16.64
Rep4 P3 B
1.0206
1.41
71.39 Rep4 PI2
1.035
0.2038
10.61
Rep4 P3 B
1 .'0189
1.409
71.46 Rep4 P12
1.0222
0.797
10.52
Rep4 P4 A
1.0168
1.849
93.81 Rep4 PI2
1.0393
1.656
32.25
Rep4 P4 A
1.0291
1.659
83.22 Rep4 PI3
1.0258
1.031
52.08
Rep4 P4 A
1.0381
1.509
75.08 Rep4 P13
1 SO356
1.056
32.82
Rep4 P4 A
1.0217
1.509
76.29 Rep4 PI3
.0284
0.596
30.25
Rep4 P4 B
1.0473
1.659
81.77 Rep4 P13
.0343
0.872
43.76
Rep4 P4 B
1.043
1.852
91.60 Rep4 P13
.0324
0.928
46.63
Rep4 P4 B
1.0203
1.889
95.50 Rep4 PI3
.0298
2.038
32.04
Rep4 P4 B
1.0348
1.639
81.77 Rep4 P13
.0475
0.797
39.54
Rep4 P5 A
10.269
1.254
6.32 Rep4 P13
1.032
1.656
32.83
Rep4 P5 A
1.0217
1.649
83.32 Rep4 PI4
1.036
0.502
25.37
Rep4 P5 A
1.0472
1.556
76.73 Rep4 PI4
1.0253
1.203
30.71
Rep4 P5 A
1.0152
1.476
75.1 i Rep4 P14
1.0184
0.802
40.92
Rep4 P5 B
1.0431
1.696
83.92 Rep4 P14
1.0219
0.423
21.75
Rep4 P5 B
1.0307
1.716
85.92 Rep4 PI4
1.0258
0.549
27.97
Rep4 P5 B
1.0312
1.476
73.94 Rep4 PI4
1.0297
0.574
29.11
Rep4 P5 B
1.0356
1.286
64.22 Rep4 PI4
1.0414
0.581
29.13
Rep4 P6 A
1.0442
1.0361
51.41 Rep4 P14
1.0254
0.709
35.99
Rep4 P6 A
1.0283
1.0359
52.19 Rep4 P15
1.0185
1.819
92.14
Rep4 P6 A
1.0211
1 .0361
52.57 Rep4 PI5
1.0257
0.749
37.98
Rep4 P6 A
1.0305
1 .0293
51.75 Rep4 P15
1.0145
0.404
20.95
Rep4 P6 B
1.0226
.0495
53.17 Rep4 P15
1.0332
1.308
65.46
Rep4 P6 B
1.0278
1.036
52.22 Rep4 P15
1.0293
0.388
19.85
Rep4 P6 B
1.0276
1 .0327
52.07 Rep4 PI5
1.0392
1.479
73.52
Rep4 P6 B
1.0261
1 .0385
52.44 Rep4 PI5
1.0214
0.752
38.29

---

Table M. Analysis of variante of the soi1 physical properties.
Source of variation
df
Mean Square
Bulk Density Soil Penetrability Infiltration Rate Sealing Index
Block
2
0.005 *
0.022 ns
400.431 ns
14.411 ns
Crop rotation
3
0.005 ns
0.563 ns
225.633 ns
30.972 ns
Tillage
2
0.005 ns
22.743
1271.582 **
? ? ?
126.236 *
C r o p rotationxTillage 6 0 . 0 1 7 n s
1.679 ns
173.658 ns
17.060 ns
Experimental Error 22
0.004 ns
1.063 **
140.613 **
33.230 **
Sampling Error
36
0.003
0.305
37.922
5.194
*^ Significant at 1% probability; * significant at 5% probability; ns = not signifrcant.

---

200
Table N. Analysis of varianice of the soi1 chemical properties.
-i
Source of variation df -
Mean Square
--
-
Total Carbon Total Nitrogen Dissolveld C rganic C
Block
2 - 1.22 ns
0.01 ns
630.3: ns
Crop rotation
3
0.11 ns
0.03 **
1045.; 1*
Tillage
2
0.54 ns
0.01 ns
- **
3
C r o p rotationxl-illage 6
0.38 ns
0.01 ns
352! .7L ns
Experimental Error 22
0.41 **
0.01 **
278.0
**
Sampling Error
36
0.04
0.001
89.C 3
** Significant at 1% prabability;; * significant at 5% probability; ns = r-rot si Jnificant.
Table 0. Analysis of varianice of the soil biological properties.
Source of variation df -
Mean Square
-
Gicrobial Activity
Enzyme Activity Carb lhydrates
Block
2
30865.04 ns
17620962.74 **
0. 101 ns
Crop rotation
3
‘140629.09 ns
6781324.30 *
.68 **
Tillage
2
21241125.83 **
1 7 7 1 0 4 4 4 . 5 0 * * 4 5.56 **
C r o p rotationxTillage 6
68719.91 ns
3718809.36 ns
1.38 **
Experimental Error 22
50148.57 **
2215673.76 **
( .09 ns
Sampling Error
36
15998.25
430235.57
0.09
-
-
** Significant at 1% probability;, * significant at 5% proba bility; ns = net s gnificant.

---

VITA

---

201
VITA
Mateugue Diack was born in January 7 1955, and grew up in a small town
until graduating from High School, in Louga, Republic of Senegal, West Africa.
He is a Citizen of the same country. He began his higher education at the
University Institute of Technology of Dakar, Senegal.
In July 1977, he obtained
an associate degree in Chemical Engineering. He then worked for 12 years as
a research assistant in Soil Chemistry/Soil Fertility in an agricultural research
tenter in Senegal. He is married since 1985 and has three children. In August
1991, he came to Purdue University, West Lafayette. IN and obtained a BS
degree in International Agronomy in August 1992. In December 1994, he
obtained a MS degree in Agronomy (Soi1 Microbiology, Soil Erosion), under the
guidance of Dr. Diane E. Stott. His Ph.D. research, completed in May 1997, is
presented in this thesis. He is currently a member of the American Society of
Agronomy, American Soil and Water Conservation, Soi1 Quality Group of
America and Sigma Xi - scientific research society.
He was recipient of an
Agronomy Department Award (1992) recognizing student for excellency and a
Leonard B. Clore Scholarship (1992) for outstanding achievement.

---