Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Review

Approaches to model the impact of tillage implements on soil physical and T

nutrient properties in different agro-ecosystem models
⁎
Ganga Ram Maharjana, , Anne-Katrin Prescherb,c, Claas Nendelb, Frank Ewerta,b,
Cho Miltin Mboha, Thomas Gaisera, Sabine J. Seidela
a
University of Bonn, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES), Crop Science Group, Katzenburgweg 5, 53115 Bonn, Germany
b
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
c
Thünen-Institute of Forest Ecosystems, Alfred-Möller-Str. 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tillage is a primary field operation aiming to modify the soil structure to favour agronomic and soil related
Agro-ecosystem model processes such as soil seed contact, root proliferation, water infiltration, incorporation of residues, break down of
Tillage operation soil organic matter and land forming. The modification of the soil physical and chemical properties especially in
Bulk density the upper soil layers after a tillage operation can be huge. The application of field-scale crop growth models is a
Soil organic matter
widely accepted tool for process understanding but also to support an efficient and sustainable crop production.
Residue decomposition
Nutrients
Agro-ecosystem models are composed of different sub-modules for certain processes related to crop growth and
soil-nutrient and water dynamics in response to atmospheric conditions. In this study, the approaches to simulate
the impact of tillage on soil physical properties and on vertical distribution of organic matter and nutrients
implemented in 16 different agro-ecosystem models (APEX, APSIM, CropSyst, DAISY, DayCent, DNDC, DSSAT,
EPIC, HERMES, HYDRUS-1D, LPJmL, MONICA, SALUS, SPACSYS, STICS, and SWAT) are reviewed. Some of the
reviewed agro-ecosystem models simulate the tillage effects on soil bulk density, soil settlement, soil texture
redistribution, and several soil hydraulic properties. To some extent, the changes in soil porosity, soil aggregates,
and the soil organic matter content are considered. Most models simulate the incorporation or/and redistribu-
tion of organic matter, residues or/and nutrients in the soil. None of the models consider the changes in bio-
chemical properties such as changes in soil microbial biomass and activity or redistribution of weed seeds after a
tillage operation. This study indicates the urgent need to improve the tillage components in crop modelling due
to its obvious impact on various soil and nutrient processes and consequently, on crop growth and yield.

1. Introduction pest suppression and the incorporation of residues (Amézketa, 1999;

The global population growth has led to intensive farming systems
aiming to achieve a high level of food security (Connor and Mínguez,
2012; Foley et al., 2011; Robinson and Sutherland, 2002). However,
intensive agriculture is often accompanied by negative environmental
impacts like freshwater pollution through nitrate leaching, fade of
biodiversity and increase of soil erosion (Uri et al., 1998; Foley et al.,
2011; Stoate et al., 2009). The efficient use of the plant available nu-
trients for agricultural production is of prime importance to diminish
the negative impacts on the environment caused by unsustainable
cropping systems (Cassman et al., 2003; Foley et al., 2011). Tillage is a
primary field operation in cropping systems and has been part of most
agricultural systems throughout history (Köller, 2003). Its objectives
include seed bed formation, soil aeration, soil evaporation reduction,
improving plant water availability, fracturing of soil crusts, weed and
Köller, 2003). Furthermore, tillage operations aim to improve the plant
root penetration and soil nutrient redistribution for an efficient nutrient
uptake while reducing nutrient leaching (Wang et al., 2015). Tillage is
defined as a physical manipulation of the soil (Köller, 2003) involving
the disturbance of soil aggregates and soil structure, the compaction of
soil, as well as the redistribution of organic matter and microbial ac-
tivity (Bronick and Lal, 2005). On the short-term, tillage was found to
generally reduce soil bulk density in the topsoil or tilled layer (Dam
et al., 2005; Tebrügge et al., 1999; Unger, 1992; Wang et al., 2015) and
to increase soil porosity, followed by a natural reconsolidation (Pelegrin
et al., 1990). The breaking up of soil crusts and dense layers and the
increased porosity associated with tillage, were found to increase hy-
draulic conductivity and infiltration (Lampurlanés and Cantero-
Martínez, 2006; Schwen et al., 2011; Unger, 1992). The incorporation
of crop residues with tillage generally also reduces soil bulk density due

⁎
Corresponding author. Present address: YARA- Crop Nutrition Research and Development, Hanninghof 35, 48249 Dülmen, Germany.
E-mail addresses: gmaharja@uni-bonn.de, ganga.ram.maharjan@yara.com (G.R. Maharjan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.009
Received 6 August 2017; Received in revised form 19 February 2018; Accepted 11 March 2018
Available online 23 March 2018
0167-1987/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G.R. Maharjan et al.
to the formation of voids between the aggregates and clods (Allmaras
et al., 1996; Guėrif et al., 2001). Below the tilled layer, different studies
showed no differences in bulk density between tillage treatments (Wang
et al., 2015) or a stronger compaction in the subsoil, countervailing the
mean bulk density of the soil profile (Dimassi et al., 2013). In addition,
soil compaction due to heavy traffic and plough pan development may
occur below the tillage layer impeding root growth and soil water
movement (Kay and VandenBygaart, 2002; Sheaffer and Seguin, 2003).
Despite this, long-term studies suggest that different tillage systems do
not affect the long-term average bulk density and total porosity
(Blanco-Canqui et al., 2017; Green et al., 2003). At the end, the effect of
tillage on soil hydraulic properties is controversially discussed, as it
depends highly on the site-specific pedo-climatic conditions and man-
agement (Green et al., 2003).
Regarding aggregate stability, tillage showed a reducing impact
(Bottinelli et al., 2017; Roldán et al., 2005; Tebrügge et al., 1999). In
comparison to other land uses, croplands under conventional tillage
hold a higher proportion of aggregates of > 10 mm than meadows or
forests and substantially lower amounts in the favourable aggregate size
classes 2–3 mm and 3–5 mm (Ćirić et al., 2012). Massive aggregation
has a negative impact on soil structure by increasing bulk density while
decreasing water retention capacity (Boix-Fayos et al., 2001). Soil
structure characterized by the structure coefficient, Ks was also found
to be lower under cultivated croplands than under forests or meadows
(Ćirić et al., 2012). The effect of tillage on aggregate size and stability
varies in different soils since the process of aggregation is driven by
different factors depending on soil type and texture (Bronick and Lal,
2005; Ćirić et al., 2012).
Next to physical soil properties, tillage also affects biochemical
properties. Different studies found that tillage has a negative impact on
soil microbial biomass, community structure and enzymatic activities
(Álvaro-Fuentes et al., 2013; Roldán et al., 2005; Willekens et al.,
2014). Álvaro-Fuentes et al. (2013) observed significant differences for
tillage and depth in microbial biomass carbon and soil enzyme activities
finding a reduction in the surface layer with tillage, but an increase in
the 10–25 cm layer and no difference below the 25 cm soil depth.
Depending on the local site conditions and requirements, different
tillage types and methods are used (Morris et al., 2010). Historically,
conventional tillage is the common soil tillage practice which is char-
acterized by the complete inversion of soil through ploughing. In con-
trast, conservation tillage (minimum tillage) includes non-inversion
tillage practices and no-tillage (El Titi, 2003). In comparison to con-
ventional tillage, conservation tillage and no-tillage were found to in-
crease soil bulk density and penetration resistance across the tillage
layer (Chassot et al., 2001; Deubel et al., 2011; Villamil and Nafziger,
2015), to increase soil water content (Alvarez and Steinbach, 2009;
Deubel et al., 2011; Villamil and Nafziger, 2015), to reduce erosion (Uri
et al., 1998), to improve soil structure (Ćirić et al., 2012; Dal Ferro
et al., 2014) and to increase microbial component and cation exchange
capacity (Derpsch et al., 2010). However, the impact on soil physical
properties due to conservation tillage varies significantly with soil type
and texture (Green et al., 2003; Strudley et al., 2008; Morris et al.,
2010). Hansen and Djurhuus (1997) observed no significant effect of
tillage on nitrate leaching on coarse sand, but the authors observed
significant effect on nitrate leaching on sandy loam after tillage. The
impact of tillage on saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration
rate also varies significantly with soil type (Alvarez and Steinbach,
2009; Arvidsson et al., 2013; Gomez et al., 1999; Vogeler et al., 2009).
The tillage impact on nutrient redistribution and availability on
plant nutrient uptake is much less covered in the literature compared to
the impact on soil physical properties. In general, tillage improves the
decomposition of crop residues by facilitating contact between plant
tissue and soil aggregate surfaces, the primary biome of soil micro-
organisms (Bronick and Lal, 2005; Cambardella and Elliott, 1992). In
addition, tillage distributes organic matter in the soil and thus improves
the availability of nutrients for plant growth through the formation of
211
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
clay-humus complexes and the increase of charged surfaces for nutrient
binding.
In conjunction with this, several researchers observed an increase of
soil organic matter (SOM) and carbon (SOC) with conservation tillage
practices in the top soil layer (Unger, 1992; Pinheiro et al., 2015;
Powlson et al., 2012; Schjønning and Thomsen, 2013; Vogeler et al.,
2009). In the lower soil layers no difference or a decrease in SOC with
conservation tillage were found, suggesting a balanced budget across
the soil profile (Álvaro-Fuentes et al., 2013; Roldán et al., 2005). In
special cases, conservation tillage can achieve same effect in a different
way, e.g. by reducing the exposition of unmineralised peat (organic
soil) to the atmosphere and thereby decreasing total C loss (Gambolati
et al., 2005). In the upper 10 cm soil layer, accumulation of consider-
able amounts of total nitrogen, phosphorus (P) and potassium with
conservation tillage was observed (Calegari et al., 2013; Spiegel et al.,
2007). However, Calegari et al. (2013) found in the same soil profile
higher availability of Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K) below the
10 cm layer. The presence of higher amount of nutrients in the very top
soil (0–5 cm) under conservation tillage is also supported by different
long-term experiments (Gómez-Rey et al., 2012; Ji et al., 2015; López-
Fando and Pardo, 2012). On the other hand, Roldán et al. (2005) ob-
served no tillage impact on available P. Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions
and nitrate (NO3−) leaching can be reduced by the application of
conservation tillage methods compared to conventional tillage in the
cropping system (Del Grosso et al., 2001; Benoit et al., 2015), but N2O
emissions were also found to be increased following conservation til-
lage depending of soil aeration status (Rochette, 2008). Consequently,
the understanding of nutrient availability and crop nutrient uptake for
agricultural production requires in-depth knowledge of different and
complex interacting processes among soil, plant and environment.
Several mathematical simulation models have been developed to
simulate crop development and growth at the field and regional scale
on the basis of numerous biophysical and chemical processes. Besides
being separated in sub-modules for crop phenology, biomass accumu-
lation and yield formation, most crop models also exhibit different
mechanistic sub-modules for soil nutrient and water dynamics and field
management, which upgrade crop models into full agro-ecosystem
models with abilities to also contribute to soil fertility and groundwater
issues. However there are distinctions between crop models and agro-
ecosystem models. Crop models and agro-ecosystem models can be
interchangeably used to simulate crop growth and development in-
cluding other environmental processes. Hereafter, all models are am-
biguously referred to in this study as agro-ecosystem models or models.
The different approaches of some models to representatively describe
SOM turn-over in the virtual soil has been reviewed (Manzoni and
Porporato, 2009) and tested in Smith et al. (1997). Soil moisture dy-
namics and SOM turn-over with its subsequent N release from miner-
alisation are essential simulation steps for a meaningful simulation of
crop responses to its environment. Tillage affects both, which makes a
reasonable representation of tillage impact on the soil–crop system
mandatory for e.g. investigating climate change adaptation and miti-
gation options for agriculture. In some agro-ecosystem models, tillage
sub-modules are implemented and connected to other sub-modules
(water balance, nutrient cycle and crop growth), accounting for the
impact of changes in the soil physical and nutrient properties. However,
these sub-modules are often not well documented and the model user
has no good basis to judge on the model’s ability to simulate tillage
effects, e.g. in supporting the discussion of conservation tillage versus
ploughing.
On the basis of the mathematical pool concept that almost all of
these models use (Campbell and Paustian, 2015), in theory the accu-
mulation of SOM in the uppermost layer under conservation tillage
practices leads to faster SOM decomposition and, consequently, to an
increase of carbon (C) losses from the total soil profile as compared to
conventional ploughing. Experiments on fields with a legacy of less
than 10 years of no-till practice report the opposite (Mangalassery et al.,
G.R. Maharjan et al.
2014; Tanveer et al., 2013), suggesting conservation tillage being a
general C-saving option. Long-term tillage experiments have rarely
been investigated on their total CO2 emissions, but the few analyses
that exist point in the same direction (Omonode et al., 2007; Ussiri and
Lal, 2009). This leads to the assumption that tillage affects the system in
a way that a pure temperature and moisture-dependent decomposition
approach (Campbell and Paustian, 2015) is not sufficient to describe its
impact. Apparently, there are more feedback relations that determine
the final effect of tillage on the soil–crop system which need to be
considered in such models. In order to capture the current state of the
art, the main objective of the study is to review agro-ecosystem models
and their methodological approaches to account for different tillage
implementations and to simulate the effects of tillage on the soil phy-
sical and nutrient properties.
2. Overview of agro-ecosystem models
Crop growth models are a simplified representation to represent the
agro-ecosystem and as such they are based on simplifying assumptions.
Different models have various levels of complexity to consider agro-
ecological processes of crop growth, water and nutrient dynamics for
different soil and climatic conditions (Manzoni and Porporato, 2009).
To review the methodological approaches of tillage implementations,
only agro-ecosystem models with options for tillage operation were
chosen. Table 1 is providing an overview over the considered agro-
ecosystem models.
The different agro-ecosystem models reviewed in this study are used
at different spatial scales from field level to global application. The
agro-ecosystem models APSIM, CropSyst, DAISY, DayCent, DNDC,
DSSAT, EPIC, HERMES, MONICA, SALUS, SPACSYS, and STICS are one-
dimensional models with water and nutrient flowing through a multi-
layered soil profile, to which crop growth and development respond in
simulation. However, these models are often applied to different spatial
simulation units, ranging from fields to the global scale by aggregation
of point-based simulations. In exception to this, APEX and SWAT are
hydrological models which are applied at watershed level. HYDRUS
simulates water, heat, and solute movement in one, two- and three-
dimensional variably saturated media. The model LPJmL is applied at
global level with spatial resolution of 0.5° (50 km) grid cell.
All the considered models are able to represent the main above-
ground and below-ground processes in agro-ecosystems. There have
been numerous reviews on comparison and analysis of different agro-
ecosystem models and implemented biophysical processes (Kumudini
et al., 2014; Van Ittersum et al., 2003; Vanuytrecht and Thorburn,
2017). However, a review on the different methodological approaches
to simulate tillage operations is lacking. This study has reviewed tillage
modelling approaches implemented into various agro-ecosystem
models (Table 1). The implemented tillage implements include the
plough (deep, soil-turning tillage), harrow (soil-breaking tillage at
various depths) and cultivator (shallow, aggregate-crushing tillage),
often in various sub-categories, such as mouldboard plough, chisel
plough, manure injector, harrow tine, rotary hoe, bedder, discer, tine,
disc harrow and others.
In the following, the reviewed approaches to simulate the tillage
impact on soil physical properties, soil organic matter and nutrients are
presented. Fig. 1 shows which soil properties are affected by tillage in
the models. A summary of the presented equations can be found in
Appendix A in Supplementary material.
3. Approaches to model the effects of tillage implements on soil
physical properties
The accurate modelling of the soil physical properties is crucial for
reliable predictions of the soil water dynamics. Some of the reviewed
agro-ecosystem models simulate the tillage effects on soil bulk density
(5 out of 15) and soil texture redistribution (1 out of 15). Hereby, five
212
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
approaches to simulate the impact on soil bulk density are distinguished
and described in the following section.
3.1. Effects on soil bulk density and soil settlement
The effects of tillage on the soil bulk density and soil settlement of
tilled soil due to subsequent rainfall are both considered by five models,
namely APEX, DSSAT, EPIC, SALUS and STICS. Moreover, in DSSAT
bulk density decreases, when crop residues as soil organic matter are
added to the soil (see Eq. (21)). A change in aggregate stability to water
erosion (which is correlated to the mixing of soil organic matter by
tillage) is only considered by SALUS (see Eq. (5)).
3.1.1. Approach 1
The approach of the parameterization of the tillage depth and the
mixing efficiency of the tillage implements for the simulation of
changes in bulk densities after tillage operations are considered in the
APEX and the EPIC model (Eq. (1)). The database for different tillage
implements is provided with appropriate tillage implement parameters.
The tillage components in APEX and EPIC model are designed to mix
nutrients and crop residues within the tillage depth (see Chapter 4) and
for simulating the changes in bulk density. The mixing efficiency of the
assigned tillage implements ranges from 0 (no mixing) to 1 (100%
mixing) depending on the type/operation of the tillage implement. The
change in bulk density within the tillage depth/plough layer is simu-
lated for each tillage operation by using the following equation:
BDT (l) = BDC (l)−(BDC (l)−0.667 × BDol ) × EF (1)
−3
where BDT(l) (ton m ) is the bulk density at the day after tillage in the
respective soil layer l, BDc(l) is the current bulk density in soil layer l at
the day before the tillage event, BDol is the bulk density of the soil when
it has completely settled after tillage, EF is the mixing efficiency of
tillage operation (0–1). APEX and EPIC have further considered the
amount of rainfall to model soil settlement after tillage due to sub-
sequent rainfall event. The settlement of the tilled soil to update the
impact on bulk density is considered by the following equations:
Ol − 1 ⎛ 2 × SANl ⎞⎟
SZl = ⎜1.0 +
Zl0.6 ⎝ SANl + exp(8.597−0.075 SANl ) ⎠ (2)
BDT (l)i = BDT (l)i − 1 + (BDol−BDT (l)i − 1)
SZl
× ⎜⎛ ⎞⎟
SZ
⎝ l + exp(3.375−0.008835 SZl ) ⎠ (3)
where SZl is a scaling factor for soil layer l, Ol-1 is the percolation rate
into the overlaying soil layer (mm d−1), Z is the layer thickness (m), i is
the number of days after the tillage event and SANl is the percentage of
sand in the layer. Eqs. (2) and (3) cause fast settling when rainfall is
large, soils are sandy and have been tilled recently. Settling under these
conditions is faster at the soil surface that allows simulation of long
term deep chiselling effects. The settling is relatively slow for soils with
a low sand content, especially in low rainfall areas. Other functions of
the tillage component in EPIC also include simulating ridge height,
interval and surface roughness after tillage with a ridge cultivator.
3.1.2. Approach 2
The tillage implementation in SALUS is represented by tillage date,
tillage implement and tillage depth. The soil properties in the model
that vary with tillage are bulk density (g cm−3) and subsequently the
soil water content at saturation (cm3 cm−3) (see Chapter 3.3).
The related soil physical properties (e.g. bulk density) are user in-
puts which are then dynamically changed with subsequent precipita-
tion events. The soil properties change form an initial value to a settled
value following an exponential curve which is a function of cumulative
rainfall kinetic energy since the last tillage operation (Basso et al.
2006).
 G.R. Maharjan et al.

Table 1
Overview of models considered for the review. The acronym and full name of the model, the version that was reviewed, a key reference for the model, the scale, the dimension (D), the number of tillage implements considered in the model (No) and
the considered variables are given.

Acronym Name Version Reference Scale D No. Considered variables

APEX Agricultural Policy/Environmental extender Version:0604 Williams et al. (2012) field 1D 72 Tillage depth, Fraction mixing efficiency, Ridge height, Ridge interval,
Fraction machine efficiency
APSIM Agricultural Production Systems Simulator Version:7.7 Holzworth et al. (2003) field 1D 31 Fraction incorporated, Tillage depth
Build date: 11-Dec-2014
Build number: r3615
CropSyst Cropping Systems simulation model CropSyst Suite 4 Stockle and Nelson (1993) field 1D 66 Surface residue, Shallow residue
Version:4.19.06
DAISY – Version 5.18 (Sep 24 2013) Abrahamsen and Hansen field 1D, 2D 5 Tillage depth, Mixing efficiency
(2000)
DayCent daily version of the CENTURY ecosystem model DayCent 4.5 Del Grosso et al. (2001) field 1D – –
DNDC Denitrification-Decomposition Version: 9.5 Li et al. (1992) field 1D 5 Tillage depth

213
DSSAT The Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Version: 4.6.1.0 Tsuji et al. (1994) field 43 Tillage depth
Transfer
EPIC Environmental Policy Integrated Climate Version: 0810 Sharpley and Williams (1990) field 72 Tillage depth, Fraction mixing efficiency, random roughness, Surface
roughness factor
HERMES – Version: 2.01 Kersebaum (1995) field – Tillage depth
HYDRUS-1D* – – Mallmann et al. (2014) field 1D
LPJmL Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land Bondeau et al. (2007) global – –
MONICA Model for Nitrogen and Carbon in Agro-ecosystems Version 2.0 Nendel et al. (2011) field 2 percentage of residue incorporation for slowly and rapidly decomposing
residue, tillage depth
SALUS System Approach to Land Use Sustainability – Basso et al. (2006) field 34 percentage of residue incorporation for fragile and non-fragile residue
SPACSYS – Version: 4.0 Wu et al. (2007) field 3D – Tillage depth
STICS Simulateur multidiscplinaire pour les Cultures JavaStics Version: 1.31/ Brisson et al. (1998) field – Tillage depth,
Standard Stics Version:8.41
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool Version: 2009 Neitsch et al. (2011) Watershed 2D 77 mixing depth, mixing efficiency

* HYDRUS-1D was modified in Mallmann et al. (2014).

Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
G.R. Maharjan et al. Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221

Fig. 1. Modelled impacts of tillage on soil properties (*soil hydraulic parameter include saturated hydraulic conductivity, actual soil water content, soil water content at saturation, at
field capacity, and at wilting point).

Xvar = Xstl + (Xtill −Xstl ) × EXP (−RSLT × SUMKE ) (4) (AS, 0.0–1.0). Water aggregate stability (AS) is correlated to soil or-
ganic matter (Tisdall and Oades, 1982):
where Xvar represents the dynamic soil property, Xtill is its value just
after a tillage operation, Xstl is the settled value of the property, RSTL is AS = 0.005 × OC (l) (5)
the rate change of the soil property (per J cm−2 of rainfall kinetic en-
RSLT = 10 × (1−AS ) (6)
ergy), and SUMKE is the cumulative rainfall kinetic energy since the last
tillage operation (J cm−2). In SALUS, the rate of change of the soil where OC (l) is the percentage organic carbon content of soil layer l.
property is assumed to be a function of soil water aggregate stability The soil aggregate stability value of 1 represents the greatest stability

214
G.R. Maharjan et al.
while a value of 0.0 represents no stability to destructive forces. A re-
lationship was used to estimate the cumulative rainfall kinetic energy
SUMKE from cumulative rainfall.
SUMKEt = 0.00217 * CRAINt (7)
As proposed in the CROPGRO-Soybean model (Andales et al., 2000),
where SUMKEt is cumulative rainfall kinetic energy from the start of
simulation to time t (J cm−2) and CRAINt is the cumulative growing-
season rain (mm).
The kinetic energy for any day after the last tillage operation is the
difference between the current value of cumulative kinetic energy
(SUMKEt) and the value at the time of the latest tillage operation
(SUMKEt=last tillage date) calculated by
SUMKE = SUMKEt − SUMKEt = last tillage date (8)
The kinetic energy of rainfall is decreased in the presence of soil
surface cover from residue left after tillage and crop canopy. Therefore,
the decrease of energy reaching the soil surface is proportional to the
coverage of soil surface (SOILCOV).
SOILCOV = CANCOV + FC *(1−CANCOV ) (9)
where CANCOV is canopy coverage, FC is the fraction of soil surface
covered by the remaining residue and is calculated by:
FC = 1.0−EXP (−AM * MULCH ) , as AM is the area covered per unit dry
weight of residue (ha kg−1), MULCH is residue remains after tillage
RINP
calculated by MULCH = RESAMT *(1.0− 100 ) , RINP is percent of sur-
face residue incorporated by the tillage operation (model is provided
with data base of RINP for different types of tillage operations).
In addition, the effect of rainfall intensity decreases with soil depth.
The decrease of the effect was assumed exponential with depth (Z, cm).
Hence the effect of rainfall kinetic energy is estimated as:
SUMKE (l) = (1−SOILCOV )* SUMKE * EXP (−0.15 * Z ) (10)
Where SUMKE (l) is the effective kinetic energy for soil layer l (J cm−2),
SOILCOV is the fraction of the soil surface covered, SUMKE is the cu-
mulative kinetic energy from Eq. (9) and Z is the depth of soil layer l
(cm). The change of bulk density in the model is used to update soil
water content at saturation (cm3 cm−3) (see Chapter 3.3).
3.1.3. Approach 3
DSSAT considers the properties of soil structural dynamics for every
soil layer which might have been affected after a tillage operation. The
tillage routines in DSSAT model are based on the CERES-Till model for
maize (Dadoun 1993) and refined by Andales et al. (2000) for the
CROPGRO-Soybean model. The tillage type and operation time is pro-
vided to implement the tillage routine for subsequent changes in dif-
ferent soil parameters. A database of percentage changes of soil curve
number, residue incorporated, soil surface disturbed, mixing efficiency,
change in bulk density, change in soil hydraulic conductivity and the
tillage depth for different tillage implements is provided and can be
modified based on tillage implements and soil conditions. The mixing
parameter of the tillage implement is executed to redistribute soil
constituent mainly soil organic matter, carbon, nitrogen and phos-
phorus (see Chapter 4).
The changes in soil bulk density to each soil layer are simulated in
DSSAT by the following equation:
BD%(implement ) ⎞ ⎞
BDT (l) = ⎛BDC (l)* ⎛1.0 +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎠ (11)
where, BDT(l) is the bulk density after tillage for the soil layers effected
by tillage, BDc(l) is the current bulk density of the soil layer which is
considered to decrease after tillage, and BD%(implement) is the per-
centage change for the specific tillage implement. The model is pro-
vided with a database of negative percentage change of bulk density
(BD%(implement)) which can change to positive percentage change if
the type of tillage operation can increase the bulk density. In DSSAT,
215
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
the addition of crop residue or the change in total soil organic matter
affects the soil bulk density (see Eq. (21) in Chapter 4). As in approach
2, settling of tilled soil by rainfall and irrigation is estimated by as-
suming its kinetic energy (Eqs. (7) and (8)) and damping effect of soil
cover due to residue is also considered as in Eqs. (9) and (10).
3.1.4. Approach 4
In STICS, the use of tillage implements causes soil fragmentation
which generally results in a reduction of the bulk density of the top soil.
The depth to which tillage implements affect soil structure depends on
the type of implement. It may be very superficial (0–10 cm; e.g. im-
plements designed to remove stubbles) or affect the whole topsoil
horizon (10–30 cm; e.g. the mouldboard plough). STICS assigns a top-
soil bulk density associated with the use of each tillage implement (e.g.
1.1 g cm−3 for the Chisel plough and 1.3 g cm−3 for the mouldboard
plough). The modification of the bulk density leads to a modification of
the topsoil thickness, the infiltration capacity and the redistribution of
soil water and nitrogen with the assumption that the distribution is
homogenous within the concerned horizon (Chapter 4).
The temporal variation of the bulk density of the soil layers within
the tillage depth is not simulated in the SWAT model. At the start of the
simulation, the user can manually define the soil bulk density in SWAT
within the affected soil layer due to tillage implementation while a
temporal variation of bulk density is not considered. In CropSyst, the
functioning of the tillage operation is only to incorporate the residue
within tillage depth, but it lacks a routine to consider the temporal
variation of the bulk density of the tilled soil. The application of tillage
implementation in the APSIM model includes the incorporation of soil
organic matter into soil layers down to the tillage depth (Chapter 4).
The incorporated soil organic matter is to update respective soil nu-
trient pool. There is no update of soil physical characteristics due to
tillage operations. DAISY model is provided with a list of tillage im-
plements. The tillage operations in DAISY homogenize the top soil in-
cluding the soil water content (Chapter 3.5), soil temperature, organic
or inorganic matter (Chapter 4) and pesticides, if defined as a soil
turning operation. The HERMES and MONICA models act accordingly.
In all three models the change of bulk density after tillage operation is
not considered. The STICS model has an option to activate the variation
in the soil properties due to tillage. However the algorithms to account
the variation of soil physical properties were not documented in STICS.
The LPJmL model uses soil structure, which is related to soil bulk
density, as a static value at coarse spatial resolution for global simu-
lations. The tillage operation in SPACSYS does not model the change in
bulk density while the soil organic matter and residues are uniformly
distributed in the litter pool down to the tillage depth (Chapter 4).
DNDC characterizes soil physical parameters for 12 different soil tex-
ture classes (Li et al., 1992) which are not affected by tillage operation.
3.2. Effects on soil texture
Amongst the reviewed models, changes of the soil texture within the
tillage depth are considered only in SWAT and HYDRUS. The redis-
tribution of the soil particles is important if layers with different tex-
tural composition are included in the tillage depth. The algorithm to
simulate the changes in soil texture after tillage in SWAT model is
considered as explained in Appendix B in Supplementary material. The
change of the soil texture after a tillage operation modelled by SWAT is
exemplarily shown in Appendix C in Supplementary material. The re-
distribution of the soil texture after tillage is only important for sites
with non-homogeneous top-soils which are tilled for the first time. At a
site with frequent tillage practice, single tillage events do not have an
impact on the soil texture.
3.3. Effects on soil hydraulic properties
Some models simulate the impact of tillage on the saturated
G.R. Maharjan et al.
hydraulic conductivity and on the soil water content at saturation, field
capacity and at wilting point. In the SALUS model, the saturated hy-
draulic conductivity (cm day−1) and the soil water content at saturation
(cm3 cm-3) may vary after tillage. The change of bulk density in the
model is used to update the soil water content at saturation (SAL(T)) for
each layer using the following equation relating porosity and soil bulk
density:
BD (l)
SAL (T ) = 0.92 * ⎛1.0− T ⎞
⎝ 2.66 ⎠ (12)
−3
Where BDT(l) is the bulk density of layer l (g cm ) updated after tillage
operation, soil particle density is assumed to be 2.66 g cm−3. Only 92%
of the total porosity is assumed to be effective due to air entrapment
(Dadoun, 1993).
In DSSAT, a database is used which provides changes in soil hy-
draulic conductivity for different tillage implements and soil condi-
tions. The saturated water content of each soil layer changes with up-
dated bulk density after tillage and is calculated by
BD (l)
θs (l) = 0.95 * ⎛1.0− T ⎞
⎝ 2.66 ⎠ (13)
where, θs (l) is the saturated soil water content of the soil layer l by
assuming that soil particles have a density of 2.66 g cm−3 and soil space
of 95% is occupied by water. A similar method is applied in Eq. (14)
while assuming 92% of soil pores filled by water.
In DSSAT, the effect of tillage on the saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity is estimated as
K %(implement ) ⎞
KT (l) = K 0 (l)* ⎛1.0 +
⎝ 100 ⎠ (14)
KT (l) is the saturated hydraulic conductivity after tillage of soil layer l,
K0(l) is the initial hydraulic conductivity for the layer l and K%(imple-
ment) is the proportional change in hydraulic conductivity to the spe-
cific tillage implement. The impact of an addition of soil organic matter
on the soil water content at field capacity and at wilting point is pre-
sented in Eqs. (21)–(23).
MONICA uses empirical modifiers for the soil hydraulic properties.
Categorised in five classes, SOM above 1.5% increases field capacity,
plant-available water and air capacity using modifiers from a table
presented by Wessolek et al. (2009).Values between these nodes are
interpolated. In cases where tillage events alter the SOM values, the soil
hydraulic properties change accordingly.
3.4. Effects on soil surface roughness and run-off curve number
Tillage affects soil surface roughness. In particular, ploughing sig-
nificantly increases soil surface roughness resulting in an increase in
soil evaporation. However, the soil water balance of tilled soils is
usually positive because deep ploughing results in an increase in the
soil infiltration capacity. In EPIC the changes in surface roughness by
tillage operations are defined in the database for the respective tillage
operation and can be modified by the user. The estimation of curve
number in STICS, SWAT, APEX models is not directly affected by tillage
event. The runoff curve numbers in these models are obtained by using
the SCS hydrology handbook (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service 1972) considering soil type, land use and man-
agement.
3.5. Effects on actual soil water content
The soil water content after tillage in HYDRUS-1D as modified in
Mallmann et al. (2014) simply homogenizes the surface layer subjected
to tillage. The water content within tillage depth is integrated to assign
the average water content to this entire soil layer as follows:
216
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
∫ (θ (Y )* dY )
θ =
D (15)
3 −3
where, θ (Y ) is the soil water content (cm cm ) at a depth Y at time of
tillage, D is the depth (cm) of tillage and θ , is the average soil water
content (cm3 cm−3) over tillage depth after tillage.
The HERMES, MONICA, EPIC and DAISY models use similar ap-
proaches to update the soil water content in the tilled soil layers. The
soil water content in APEX and SWAT is not affected by the tillage
operation.
4. Approaches to model the effects of tillage on soil organic matter
and nutrients
4.1. Effect on soil organic matter and nutrients contents
The impacts of tillage operations on soil organic matter and nu-
trients include the incorporation of residues into the soil, the nutrient
redistribution in the tilled soil layers, and hence the changes in avail-
ability of nutrients for the plants.
The soil organic matter and nutrients are redistributed within the
tillage depth. Depending on the model, the variety of the soil con-
stituent such as nitrate, phosphorous, carbon, or residues are redis-
tributed after each tillage operation.
4.1.1. Approach 1
The models APEX and EPIC have a similar approach to consider the
change in SOM and nutrients due to tillage. The equation associated to
the final content of different materials in the affected soil layer is as
follows.
M
Zl−Zl − 1
Xl = (1−EF ) Xol + ⎛
PD ⎠
⎞ EF ∑ Xok
⎝ k=1 (16)
where Xl is the amount of the material in layer 1 after mixing in kg
ha−1, EF is the mixing efficiency of the tillage operation (0–1) and
distributed uniformly within the tillage/plow depth D (m), Xo is the
amount of the material before mixing (kg ha−1), Z is the depth to the
bottom of the plow layer in m and M is the total number of soil layer
effected by tillage depth. The value of X refers to amount of different
soil nutrients fractions such as organic nitrogen and nitrate or different
phosphorus fractions (all in (kg ha−1) which are updated in the soil
layers affected by tillage.
4.1.2. Approach 2
The redistribution of the soil components in the DSSAT model is
considered by the following equation:
M%
XM (l) = X0 (l)
100 (17)
where, X0(l) in the initial soil constituent representing soil nutrients,
carbon and organic carbon among others. XM(l) is the proportion of the
mixed constituent, M% is the mixing percentage and the remaining
XU(l) is unmixed soil constituent. XU(l) is calculated as the remaining
portion of X0(l), and XM(l) is added to the total amount to be mixed
(over all layers affected by tillage), ∑XM. The mixed portion is then
added back into each layer to give XT(l), the amount of the soil com-
ponent after the tillage event in a soil layer l,
Z (l)
XT (l) = ∑ XM * D
+ XU (l)
(18)
where, Z(l) (cm) is the thickness of the layer l. Z(l) is reduced if only a
portion of a layer is tilled. D (cm) is the tillage depth. The units for soil
components (X) vary according to soil property
Surface residues are incorporated separately in routines for soil
organic matter, recognizing separate components of carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus. Thus for carbon, the incorporated residue carbon, RT,
G.R. Maharjan et al.
is allocated from the total residue mass, R0, as:
R%
RT = R 0 *
100 (19)
where R% is the portion of R0 incorporated, as specified for the im-
plement. RT (kg ha−1) is then allocated uniformly through the soil
layers up to tillage depth D (cm).
The soil organic matter (SOM) pool is divided into two fresh organic
matter (FOM) pools and three soil organic matter pools. Once the sur-
face and soil residues are uniformly distributed after tillage, the fresh
organic matter of soil organic matter pools are updated. The fresh or-
ganic matter is divided into a structural and a metabolic pool depending
on the lignin content of the residue. The SOM consists of microbial or
active material (SOM1), recalcitrant material (SOM2) (i.e. decomposed
from SOM1) and inert material and stabilized microbial material
(SOM3). The fresh organic matters (FOM) and humic organic matter
(i.e. SOM1, SOM2, SOM3) are summed up to the total organic matter
content. The carbon content of the total organic matter is partition into
carbon content of SOM1, SOM2 and SOM3. The stable organic carbon
in SOM3 [g(C) (100 g(soil))−1] is estimated by
StableC = 0.015 *(Clay + Silt ) + 0.069 (20)
Where Stable C is the stable organic C (SOM3), Clay is the soil clay
content, and Silt is the soil silt content, all in units of mass percent or [g
(soil component) (100 g(soil))−1].
The carbon content in other two pools in SOM1 and SOM2 are as-
sumed to be 5% and 95% of the remaining total organic carbon.
The addition of crop residue as soil organic matter decreases the soil
bulk density. The decrease of bulk density in each soil layer in DSSAT is
considered by the following equation:
100
BD =
( SOM %
BDSOM ) (
+
100 − SOM %
BDmineral ) (21)
where BD, BDmineral, and BDSOM are the bulk densities of the soil, mi-
neral soil and SOM components, respectively, all in g cm−3. SOM% is
the total soil organic matter content [mass percentage or g(dry organic
matter) (100 g(soil))−1]. The value for bulk density of the mineral soil
component is estimated by the Eq. (22) based on initial values for initial
BD and initial total SOM percentage by the following equation:
100− SOM %init
BDmineral =
( )−( 100
BDinit
SOM %init
BDSOM ) (22)
where SOM%init and BDinit are the initial SOM content [g(dry organic
matter) (100 g(soil))−1] and initial bulk density (g cm−3) of the soil. It
is assumed that the bulk densities of organic matter and mineral soil
components remain unchanged throughout the simulation. The overall
soil BD is updated daily based on Eq. (21) using the static values of
BDmineral and BDSOM and the current SOM content. Hence the mod-
ification of BD due to addition of soil organic matter is the base value
onto which the tillage effect on BD is subsequently considered as de-
scribed in Chapter 3.1 (Approach 3).
In DSSAT, the changes to the soil water holding capacity (field ca-
pacity and wilting point) on a daily basis are due to changes in SOM and
BD by following the relationship:
∂θ ∂θ
Δθ = Δ(SOM ) + *Δ(BD)
∂ (SOM ) ∂ (BD) (23)
where Δθ represents the overall change in water content at either field
capacity or wilting point due to changes in SOM content (%) and BD
(g cm−3), ∂θ and ∂θ are the rates of change of θ with respect to
∂ (SOM ) ∂ (BD)
SOM and BD; and Δ (SOM) and Δ (BD) are the changes in SOM and BD
over a fixed time period. The values of the differential coefficients are
provided by DSSAT as an input database. Then, the soil water holding
limit is updated as follows.
217
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
θ′ ( θLL or θDUL) = θ0 + Δθ (24)
′
where θ is the updated water holding limit for either θLL or θDUL and θ0
is the corresponding original water holding limit at the reference BD
and SOM quantities.
The SALUS model consider similar approaches to the DSSAT model
for modelling the effect of tillage on SOM, residue incorporation, and
nutrient redistribution (Basso et al., 2006; Senthilkumar et al., 2009). In
addition to crop growth and water balance modules, SALUS also in-
cludes SOM and nutrient cycling modules. The SALUS model considers
two fresh organic matter pools (structural and metabolic) to represent
difficult and easily decomposable crop residues based on lignin and N
content. The SALUS model also considers a surface SOM pool associated
with conservation tillage. Similar to the DSSAT model, the SALUS
model simulates SOM and N mineralization or immobilization from
three carbon pools. These carbon pools are characterized by their
turnover rates and C:N ratios.
4.1.3. Approach 3
The soil tillage module for HYDRUS-1D as developed in Mallmann
et al. (2014) developed a new model for HYDRUS-1D to simulate tillage
impact on soil properties (water content and non-reactive solute). The
tillage module firstly integrates water content over the tillage depth to
assigns the average water content to the entire soil layer as in Eq. (15).
Then a similar method is applied to homogenize for a nonreactive so-
lute over the tillage depth as follows.
∫ θ (Y ) C (Y )* dY
C =
θD (25)
3 −3
where, θ (Y ) , is the water (cm cm ) at a depth Y at time of tillage,
C(Y) is the liquid phase concentration (mmol cm−3) at a depth Y at time
of tillage, θ is the average water content (cm3 cm−3) over the tillage
depth after tillage and C is the average liquid phase concentration
(mmol cm−3) over the tillage depth after tillage.
4.1.4. Approach 4
The nutrients are redistributed in the CropSyst model based on the
extent of the incorporation of the crop residue after the tillage im-
plementation. The CropSyst model has a defined database for each
primary tillage and secondary tillage implement with the respective
residue percentage left on the soil surface. The nutrients in the soil are
not directly affected by a tillage event in CropSyst. The redistribution of
the residues and the decomposition of the residues indirectly change
the amount of soil nutrients in the nutrient pool.
Residuesurface × Tillagesurface
Residuesurface =
100 (26)
−2
where Residuesurface (kg m ) is the surface residue. Tillagesurface (%) is
the percentage of residues remaining on the surface after the tillage
operation (tillage database). Shallow incorporated residue is accumu-
lated when a portion of the surface residue is buried. The total shallow
incorporated residue after each tillage operation is estimated by:
Residuesurface × Tillageshallow
Residueshallow = Residueshallow +
100 (27)
where Residueshallow (kg m−2) is the incorporated residue.
Tillageshallow (0–1) is the fraction of surface residue that is buried at
5–8 cm by the tillage operation. The status of other nutrients after til-
lage is not defined in the model’s documentation.
4.1.5. Approach 5
The soil nutrients as soil constituent that ranges from soil organic to
inorganic constituent in SWAT model is subjected to change due to
tillage operation. The algorithm to simulate changes in soil constituent
after tillage operation in SWAT model is considered as follows.
G.R. Maharjan et al.
soilconstituentT (l) = soilconstituent (l) *(1−thtill (l))
+ solconstituent (l) * thtill (l) * (1. − emix ) + smix (1) * thtill (l) *
where, soil_constituent_T is soil nutrients (organic, inorganic, residue)
after tillage, smix is amount of soil constituent in soil profile that is
being redistributed between mixed layers, integer as smix(1) (integer in
smix parenthesis range from 1 to 11 to represent soil constituents)
correspond to soil nitrate which is 0 for the absence of tillage operation
and estimated as follows for the presence of tillage operation. thtill(l)
fraction of soil layer that is mixed, D is the depth of tillage depth, Z
thickness of soil layer.
smix (1) = smix (1) + thtill (l)* emix * solconstituent (l)
Z = sollayer (l) − sollayer (l−1)
if sol_layer(l) > D < ol_layer(l − 1),
D −sollayer (l−1))
thtill (l) =
(sollayer (l) − sollayer (l−1))
Where soil_layer(l) is the depth of soil layer in mm, l is to represents soil
layers in the soil profile.
4.1.6. Approach 6
In APSIM, the tillage effect on soil organic matter is by adding
surface organic matter into the fresh organic matter pool of the tilled
soil layers. The nutrients related to the surface organic matter — ni-
trogen and carbon — are incorporated over the tillage depth after the
tillage event. The method for incorporation of the surface organic
matter into the fresh organic matter pool of the tilled soil layers is not
available in the model documentation.
4.1.7. Approach 7
In MONICA and HERMES, tillage operations with non-turning
character have no impact on soil properties or state variables, as above-
surface residues are transferred into the top soil layer as soon as they
appear. Soil-turning operations lead to an averaging of soil water and
nutrient contents over the given tillage depth, as well as of the contents
of the two SOM pools (HERMES, MONICA), the two soil microbial
biomass pools and all pools that contain added organic matter from
previous amendments (MONICA). Processes that involve a response to
surface-layer residues, such as reduced soil evaporation or seed emer-
gence, are not implemented.
The STICS, DAISY, LPJmL models have not explicitly documented
the nutrient and organic matter redistribution after tillage. However,
the models consider different nutrient turnover processes to account for
different biophysical processes of nutrient uptake, nitrification and
denitrification, among others. Mineral fertilizer, manure and plant re-
sidues are the main source of nutrients. The approach of soil tem-
perature and moisture-dependent decomposition rates for manure and
plant residues affecting nutrient mineralization/immobilization and
thus plant nutrient availability is common in all agro-ecosystem
models. The residue management in the LPJmL model considers residue
inputs (as litter) and residue outputs (removal of 90% of above ground
biomass at harvest) only in the carbon cycle. LPJmL does not yet con-
sider other nutrient cycles. In the DNDC model, tillage can redistribute
the organic matter leading to uniform concentrations within the tilled
layer. The fraction of a resistant humus pool in the DNDC model is
transferred into labile humus due to tillage which enhances rapid de-
composition. The decomposition rate of the organic matter is de-
creasing with time after tillage. The DayCent model considers tillage as
a disturbance event which affects both the quantity of litter and the
nutrient concentration in the litter which in turn affects the soil organic
matter pool of the model.
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
4.2. Effect on decomposition of organic matter
Z
D
In general practice, the implementation of tillage can accelerate the
(28) decomposition of organic matter. The break-down of bigger aggregate
into smaller units during tillage increases the surface area of the ag-
gregates and provides better access to habitats for soil microbes and
facilitates the intrusion of oxygen which is required in the process of
soil organic matter decomposition. According to our analysis, the de-
composition rate of organic matter is not directly impacted by tillage
implement in any of the investigated agro-ecosystem models. In ex-
ception, DSSAT considers the impact of tillage on the decomposition
rate of organic matter by modifying the cultivation factor (CF, Eq. (32))
to 1.6 and accelerate the decomposition of organic matter in different
(29) pools for the period of 30 days after tillage operation (Porter et al.,
2010). The decomposition rate of the metabolic component of organic
(30) matter is not affected by tillage (Parton et al., 1994 and Gijsman et al.,
1998).
kt = k 0 * TF * WF * CF * TXF (32)
−1
(31) where K0 is base decomposition rate (day ), Kt is the modifier rate
constant (day−1), TF is the temperature factor, WF is the water factor,
CF is the cultivation factor.
The decomposition rates and nutrient mineralisation in the agro-
ecosystem models are updated daily and calculated as a function of the
C:N ratio of crop residue, temperature and soil water content. Tillage
effects are indirectly considered via the incorporation/re-distribution of
crop residue due to tillage operations and changes in bulk densities
which leads to changes in soil water content. However, the agro-eco-
system models (Table 1) are lacking detailed algorithms and parameters
of tillage effects on soil aggregate surfaces and microbial activity to
simulate direct impact of tillage on the decomposition of organic
matter.
The overview of the parameters or variables which are affected by
tillage operation, considered in different agro-ecosystem models are
presented in Table 2. The tillage module in different agro-ecosystem
models are intended to simulate the effect of tillage operation. None of
the single model considers all the parameters or variables to simulate
the effect of tillage in the respective modelling platform. The detail
extent of the tillage module in different crop model is based on the
model structure and their object to simulate different management
impact on the environmental processes.
5. Summary and conclusions
This study presents different modelling approaches to account for
the effects of tillage on the soil properties implemented in the crop si-
mulation models APEX, APSIM, CropSyst, DAISY, DayCent, DNDC,
DSSAT, EPIC, HERMES, HYDRUS, LPJmL, MONICA, SALUS, SPACSYS,
STICS, and SWAT. In the field, tillage operations influence various soil
physical properties including the soils’ infiltration rate, evaporation,
aeration, bulk density, porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil
aggregate size and stability, structure, or soil compaction. Some of the
reviewed models simulate the tillage effects on soil bulk density, soil
settlement, soil texture redistribution, and several soil hydraulic prop-
erties (saturated hydraulic conductivity, actual soil water content and
soil water content at saturation, at field capacity and at wilting point).
To some extent, the changes in soil aggregation and in soil surface
roughness are considered. The models covering most of the mentioned
processes are the models DSSAT, HYDRUS, SALUS and STICS.
Moreover, tillage operations often influence the soil organic matter and
soil nutrient contents in the tilled soil layers (incorporation of nutrients
and residues, nutrient redistribution and availability). All of the pre-
sented models except LPJmL simulate the incorporation or/and redis-
tribution of organic matter, residues or/and nutrients in the soil. None
of the presented models explicitly considers tillage effects on soil bio-
chemical properties (e.g. on microbial biomass and activity, community
218
G.R. Maharjan et al. Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221

capacity, θWP for soil water content at wilting point, and update OM stands for an update of the fresh organic matter pool. √ (Eq) means this parameter or variable is affected by tillage and the model equation(s) is/are available, √ (no Eq) means this
Overview of the directly affected variables and parameters by tillage. BD stands for soil bulk density, Ks for saturated hydraulic conductivity, θa for actual soil water content, θs for soil water content at saturation, θFC for soil water content at field
structure, or enzymatic activities). This review study presents the dif-

√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
parameter or variable is affected by tillage but the model equations were not available, and × means that this parameter or variable is not affected by tillage in the model. IND stands indirect impact (depends on update of other variables). ferent methodological approaches allowing the reader to select the

√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
SWAT
appropriate models to simulate the tillage effect on the soil properties

×
×
×

×
×
according to their research scope. Further studies may conduct an
√ (no Eq)

Eq)
Eq)

Eq)
Eq)
Eq)
analysis of the tillage approaches implemented in the different models
STICS

√ (no
√ (no

√ (no
√ (no
√ (no
by conducting simulation runs and analysis of model outputs.
IND
×
×

×
×
Soil tillage is probably the most important management event in
SPACSYS

agriculture, being applied in very different manners in all agricultural

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
systems across farm sizes, cropping systems, climates and cultures. It
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
serves many purposes and can be adjusted fairly easily to the different
situations and needs of an agricultural production system. By tillage,
IND/√ (Eq)
√ (no Eq)

√ (no Eq)

√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
farmers facilitate stubble decomposition and seed bed preparation,
√ (IND)
SALUS

√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

control pests and diseases, prevent evaporation, turn moist soil layers
×

×
up to the surface for sowing, crack surface crusts, stimulate organic
matter mineralisation, and much more. Tillage therefore provides one
√ (no Eq)
MONICA

of the most important measures for the farmer to adapt the production
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

system to variable weather conditions by changing the tillage mode or

×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×

timing. Especially for moisture-saving soil management, tillage options

√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)

such as mulching, strip tillage or conservation tillage, are under dis-

LPJmL

cussion, but so far with little scientific evidence for support (Horel
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2010; Steiner, 1989). Also stubble man-
HYDRUS-1D*

agement and OM mineralisation are in focus (Hou et al., 2016), often

√ (no Eq)

discussed in relation with the trade-offs between the different goals of

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

tillage (Kong et al., 2009). From a global perspective, carbon seques-

×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×

tration options dominate the discussion (Powlson et al., 2014), in most

cases boiling the complex issue down to the question of conservation
Eq)

Eq)
Eq)
Eq)
HERMES

tillage versus ploughing. However, carbon sequestration provides little

√ (no

√ (no
√ (no
√ (no

intrinsic motivation for farmers to adjust their management, and if they

×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×

do, sequestered carbon remains highly exposed to the risk of reversion,

√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)

as soon as the fields are taken over by a different farmer with a different
√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

management philosophy. Tillage options that improve the direct eco-

EPIC

×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×

nomic return of the production system are therefore much more ac-
cepted. Practitioners of modern agriculture often try different tillage
√ (no Eq)
DSSAT

methods that they observe from fellow farmers of other countries,

√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

sometimes learning after a while that in different climates and soils

×

×
×
×

×
×

these promising methods have a completely different effect (Pittelkow

√ (no Eq)

et al., 2014) and fail to achieve what the farmers expected to improve.
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
DNDC

Some of these trade-offs of tillage effects could be tested with dy-

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

namic agro-ecosystem models (e.g. Corbeels et al., 2016), which are so

far well established to investigate climate change effects on crop growth
√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
DayCent

and development, also in response to some important soil processes,

such as water and nitrogen provision, and management, such as sowing
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

dates, crop sequences and irrigation (e.g. Nendel et al., 2014). How-
Eq)

Eq)
Eq)
Eq)

ever, this review shows that the minority of available models are fit for
DAISY

√ (no

√ (no
√ (no
√ (no

this purpose. In fact, none of the models covers all of the observed
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×

impacts of tillage on the soil, not even many of them. We found that the
CropSyst

reflection of the impact of tillage on soil physical properties varies

* Consider only in HUDRUS-1D modified by Mallmann et al. (2014).
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)

widely between the considered models and that many known soil
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

processes that are affected by tillage (e.g. soil compaction; Sillon et al.,
2003) are only roughly portrayed in the majority of models. Most
√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
√ (no Eq)
APSIM

models simulate the incorporation or/and redistribution of soil organic

matter, residues or/and nutrients, but rarely any impact on soil physical
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

properties. This is contrary to expectation since the various impacts of

√ (Eq)

√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
√ (Eq)
APEX

tillage on soil physical properties are well covered in the literature. Our
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

study indicates the urgent need to improve the simulation approaches

of soil tillage in recent agro-ecosystem models to better balance con-
Residue incorporation/redistribution

sideration of the various important processes. At the moment, espe-

Water content at saturation (θs)

Actual soil water content (θa)

cially the spatial and temporal changes of the soil physical properties
soil surface roughness (CN),
Runoff (curve number: CN)

decomposition rate of OM
Soil texture redistribution

and the impacts of soil microbial activity, including the physical access
nutrients redistribution

to organic matter after tillage are still challenging for the crop model-
parameter/variable

aggregate stability

ling community, while probably more process knowledge is available in

the soil modelling community. Both research communities often pursue
Bulk density

update OM

different goals and driven by their objectives, develop models with

different focus and abilities. The topic of soil tillage and how it has been
Table 2

θWP

implemented and used so far in the context of crop yield simulations for
θFC
Ks

climate change and food security assessments calls for a closer

219
G.R. Maharjan et al.
collaboration of agricultural systems modellers and soil modellers to
create an added-value modelling approach for improving system un-
derstanding and climate change adaptation and mitigation re-
commendations with respect to soil tillage.
Acknowledgements
This article was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry
of Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the BonaRes
programme (FKZ BOMA03037514 and 031B0026A) and by the the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (BMEL) in the framework of the
MACSUR project (FKZ 2815ERA01J). The authors would like to ac-
knowledge the support provided by the BMBF and the valuable comments
of the scientists of the Institut für Nutzpflanzenwissenschaften und
Ressourcenschutz (INRES), University of Bonn, Germany.
Appendices are provided in Supplementary data.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.009.
References
Abrahamsen, P., Hansen, S., 2000. Daisy: an open soil-crop-atmosphere system model.
Environ. Model. Softw. 15, 313–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(00)
00003-7.
Allmaras, R.R., Copeland, S.M., Copeland, P.J., Oussible, M., 1996. Spatial relations be-
tween oat residue and ceramic spheres when incorporated sequentially by tillage. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.
03615995006000040036x.
Alvarez, R., Steinbach, H.S., 2009. A review of the effects of tillage systems on some soil
physical properties, water content, nitrate availability and crops yield in the
Argentine Pampas. Soil Tillage Res. 104, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2009.02.005.
Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Morell, F.J., Madejón, E., Lampurlanés, J., Arrúe, J.L., Cantero-
Martínez, C., 2013. Soil biochemical properties in a semiarid Mediterranean agroe-
cosystem as affected by long-term tillage and N fertilization. Soil Tillage Res. 129,
69–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.01.005.
Amézketa, E., 1999. Soil aggregate stability : a review. J. Sustain. Agric. 14, 83–151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v14n02.
Arvidsson, J., Westlin, A., Sörensson, F., 2013. Working depth in non-inversion tilla-
ge—effects on soil physical properties and crop yield in Swedish field experiments.
Soil Tillage Res. 126, 259–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.08.010.
Basso, B., Ritchie, J.T., Grace, P.R., Sartori, L., 2006. Simulation of tillage systems impact
on soil biophysical properties using the SALUS model. Ital. J. Agron. 1 (4).
Benoit, M., Garnier, J., Billen, G., Tournebize, J., Grahan, E., Mary, B., 2015. Nitrous
oxide emissions and nitrate leaching in an organic and a conventional cropping
system (Seine basin, France). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 213, 131–141. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.07.030.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Wienhold, B.J., Jin, V.L., Schmer, M.R., Kibet, L.C., 2017. Long-term
tillage impact on soil hydraulic properties. Soil Tillage Res. 170, 38–42. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.03.001.
Boix-Fayos, C., Calvo-Cases, A., Imeson, A.C., Soriano-Soto, M.D., 2001. Influence of soil
properties on the aggregation of some Mediterranean soils and the use of aggregate
size and stability as land degradation indicators. Catena 44, 47–67. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00176-4.
Bondeau, A., Smith, P.C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., Gerten, D.,
Lotze-campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., Smith, B., 2007. Modelling the role of
agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Chang. Biol.
13, 679–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x.
Bottinelli, N., Angers, D.A., Hallaire, V., Michot, D., Le Guillou, C., Cluzeau, D., Heddadj,
D., Menasseri-Aubry, S., 2017. Tillage and fertilization practices affect soil aggregate
stability in a Humic Cambisol of Northwest France. Soil Tillage Res. 170, 14–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.02.008.
Bronick, C.J., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005.
Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Jeuffroy, M.H., Ruget, F., Nicoullaud, B., Gate, P.,
Devienne-Barret, F., Antonioletti, R., Durr, C., Richard, G., Beaudoin, N., Recous, S.,
Tayot, X., Plenet, D., Cellier, P., Machet, J.-M., Meynard, J.M., Delécolle, R., 1998.
STICS: a generic model for the simulation of crops and their water and nitrogen
balances. I. Theory and parameterization applied to wheat and corn. Agronomie 18,
311–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro:19980501.
Calegari, A., Tiecher, T., Hargrove, W.L., Ralisch, R., Tessier, D., de Tourdonnet, S.,
Guimarães, M.D.F., dos Santos, D.R., 2013. Long-term effect of different soil man-
agement systems and winter crops on soil acidity and vertical distribution of nutrients
in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Tillage Res. 133, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2013.05.009.
Cambardella, C.A., Elliott, E.T., 1992. Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a
grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 777. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600030017x.
Campbell, E.E., Paustian, K., 2015. Current developments in soil organic matter modeling
and the expansion of model applications: a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 123004.
220
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004.
Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., Walters, D.T., Yang, H., 2003. Meeting cereal demand
while protecting natural resources and improving environmental quality. Ann. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 28, 315–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.
040202.122858.
Chassot, A., Stamp, P., Richner, W., 2001. Root distribution and morphology of maize
seedlings as affected by tillagerand fertilizer placement. Plant Soil 231, 123–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1010335229111.
Ćirić, V., Manojlović, M., Nešić, L., Belić, M., 2012. Soil dry aggregate size distribution :
effects of soil type and land use. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 12, 689–703.
Connor, D.J., Mínguez, M.I., 2012. Evolution not revolution of farming systems will best
feed and green the world. Glob. Food Sec. 1, 106–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
gfs.2012.10.004.
Corbeels, M., Chirat, G., Messad, S., Thierfelder, C., 2016. Performance and sensitivity of
the DSSAT crop growth model in simulating maize yield under conservation agri-
culture. Eur. J. Agron. 76, 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.02.001.
Dadoun, F.A., 1993. Modeling Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Maize (Zea
Mays L.) Development and Growth. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State
University, MI.
Dal Ferro, N., Sartori, L., Simonetti, G., Berti, A., Morari, F., 2014. Soil macro- and mi-
crostructure as affected by different tillage systems and their effects on maize root
growth. Soil Tillage Res. 140, 55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.02.003.
Dam, R.F., Mehdi, B.B., Burgess, M.S.E., Madramootoo, Ca., Mehuys, G.R., Callum, I.R.,
2005. Soil bulk density and crop yield under eleven consecutive years of corn with
different tillage and residue practices in a sandy loam soil in central Canada. Soil
Tillage Res. 84, 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.006.
Del Grosso, S., Parton, W., Mosier, A., Hartman, M., Brenner, J., Ojima, D., Schimel, D.,
2001. Simulated interaction of carbon dynamics and nitrogen trace gas fluxes using
the DAYCENT model. Modeling Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics for Soil Management.
CRC Presshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420032635.ch8.
Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A., Hongwen, L., 2010. Current status of adoption of
no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 3,
1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2010.01.001-025.
Deubel, A., Hofmann, B., Orzessek, D., 2011. Long-term effects of tillage on stratification
and plant availability of phosphate and potassium in a loess chernozem. Soil Tillage
Res. 117, 85–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.09.001.
Dimassi, B., Cohan, J.-P., Labreuche, J., Mary, B., 2013. Changes in soil carbon and ni-
trogen following tillage conversion in a long-term experiment in Northern France.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 169, 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.01.012.
El Titi, A. (Ed.), 2003. Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M.,
Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M.,
Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert,
S., Tilman, D., Zaks, D.P.M., O’Connell, C., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature 478, 337–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10452.
Gambolati, G., Putti, M., Teatini, P., Camporese, M., Ferraris, S., Gasparetto Stori, G.,
Nicoletti, V., Silversti, S., Rizzetto, F., Tosi, L., 2005. Peat land oxidation enhances
subsidence in the venice watershed. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 86, 217–224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005EO230001.
Gijsman, A.J., Hoogenboom, G., Parton, W.J., Kerridge, P.C., 1998. Modifying DSSAT
crop models for low-input agricultural systems using a soil organic matter – residue
module from CENTURY. Agron. J. 4, 462–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2002.4620.
Gómez-Rey, M.X., Couto-Vázquez, A., González-Prieto, S.J., 2012. Nitrogen transforma-
tion rates and nutrient availability under conventional plough and conservation til-
lage. Soil Tillage Res. 124, 144–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.05.010.
Gomez, J.A., Giraldez, J.V., Pastor, M., Fereres, E., 1999. Effects of tillage method on soil
physical properties, infiltration and yield in an olive orchard. Soil Tillage Res. 52,
167–175.
Green, T.R., Ahuja, L.R., Benjamin, J.G., 2003. Advances and challenges in predicting
agricultural management effects on soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma 116, 3–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00091-0.
Guėrif, J., Richard, G., Dürr, C., Machet, J.M., Recous, S., Roger-Estrade, J., 2001. A
review of tillage effects on crop residue management, seedbed conditions and seed-
ling establishment. Soil Tillage Res. 61, 13–32.
Hansen, E.M., Djurhuus, J., 1997. Nitrate leaching as influenced by soil tillage and catch
crop. Soil Tillage Res. 203–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(96)01097-5.
Holzworth, D., Meinke, H., Devoil, P., Wegener, M., Huth, N., Hammer, G., 2003. The
development of a farming systems model (APSIM) – a disciplined approach. Int.
Environ. Model. Softw. Soc. 1–13.
Horel, Á., Tóth, E., Gelybó, G., Kása, I., Bakacsi, Z., Farkas, C., 2015. Effects of land use
and management on soil hydraulic properties. Open Geosci. 7, 1442–1454. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1515/geo-2015-0053.
Hou, R., Ouyang, Z., Maxim, D., Wilson, G., Kuzyakov, Y., 2016. Lasting effect of soil
warming on organic matter decomposition depends on tillage practices. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 95, 243–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.12.008.
Ji, Q., Wang, Y., Chen, X.N., Wang, X.D., 2015. Tillage effects on soil aggregation, organic
carbon fractions and grain yield in Eum-Orthic anthrosol of a winter wheat-maize
double-cropping system, Northwest China. Soil Use Manage. 31, 504–514. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/sum.12213.
Kay, B.D., VandenBygaart, A.J., 2002. Conservation tillage and depth stratification of
porosity and soil organic matter. Soil Tillage Res. 66, 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0167-1987(02)00019-3.
Kersebaum, K.C., 1995. Application of a simple management model to simulate water and
nitrogen dynamics. Ecol. Model. 81, 145–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-
3800(94)00167-G.
Köller, K., 2003. Techniques of soil tillage. In: El Titi, A. (Ed.), Soil Tillage in
Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Kong, A.Y.Y., Fonte, S.J., van Kessel, C., Six, J., 2009. Transitioning from standard to
minimum tillage: Trade-offs between soil organic matter stabilization, nitrous oxide
G.R. Maharjan et al.
emissions, and N availability in irrigated cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 104,
256–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.03.004.
Kumudini, S., Andrade, F.H., Boote, K.J., Brown, G.A., Dzotsi, K.A., Edmeades, G.O.,
Gocken, T., Goodwin, M., Halter, A.L., Hammer, G.L., Hatfield, J.L., Jones, J.W.,
Kemanian, A.R., Kim, S.H., Kiniry, J., Lizaso, J.I., Nendel, C., Nielsen, R.L., Parent, B.,
Stӧckle, C.O., Tardieu, F., Thomison, P.R., Timlin, D.J., Vyn, T.J., Wallach, D., Yang,
H.S., Tollenaar, M., 2014. Predicting maize phenology: Intercomparison of functions
for developmental response to temperature. Agron. J. 106, 2087–2097. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2134/agronj14.0200.
Lampurlanés, J., Cantero-Martínez, C., 2006. Hydraulic conductivity, residue cover and
soil surface roughness under different tillage systems in semiarid conditions. Soil
Tillage Res. 85, 13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.11.006.
Li, C., Frolking, S., Frolking, T.A., 1992. A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil
driven by rainfall events: 2. Model applications. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 9759–9776.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/92JD00510.
López-Fando, C., Pardo, M.T., 2012. Use of a partial-width tillage system maintains
benefits of no-tillage in increasing total soil nitrogen. Soil Tillage Res. 118, 32–39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.010.
Mallmann, F.J.K., Rheinheimer, D., dos, S., Ceretta, C.A., Cella, C., Minella, J.P.G., Guma,
R.L., Filipović, V., van Oort, F., Šimůnek, J., 2014. Soil tillage to reduce surface metal
contamination–model development and simulations of zinc and copper concentration
profiles in a pig slurry-amended soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 196, 59–68. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.024.
Mangalassery, S., Sjögersten, S., Sparkes, D.L., Sturrock, C.J., Craigon, J., Mooney, S.J.,
2014. To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from temperate soils? Sci. Rep. 4, 4586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04586.
Manzoni, S., Porporato, A., 2009. Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization: Theory and
models across scales. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1355–1379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.soilbio.2009.02.031.
Morris, N.L., Miller, P.C.H., Froud-Williams, R.J., 2010. The adoption of non-inversion
tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and
the environment—a review. Soil Tillage Res. 108, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2010.03.004.
Neitsch, S., Arnold, J., Kiniry, J., Williams, J., 2011. Soil & Water Assessment Tool
Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Water Resour. Institute, TR-406, Texas, pp.
1–647.
Nendel, C., Berg, M., Kersebaum, K.C., Mirschel, W., Specka, X., Wegehenkel, M., Wenkel,
K.O., Wieland, R., 2011. The MONICA model: testing predictability for crop growth,
soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics. Ecol. Model. 222, 1614–1625. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.018.
Nendel, C., Kersebaum, K.C., Mirschel, W., Wenkel, K.O., 2014. Testing farm management
options as climate change adaptation strategies using the MONICA model. Eur. J.
Agron. 52, 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.09.005.
Omonode, R.A., Vyn, T.J., Smith, D.R., Hegymegi, P., Gál, A., 2007. Soil carbon dioxide
and methane fluxes from long-term tillage systems in continuous corn and corn-
soybean rotations. Soil Tillage Res. 95, 182–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2006.12.004.
Parton, W., Ojima, D., Cole, C., Schimel, D., 1994. A general model for soil organic matter
dynamics. Sensit. to litter chem. texture manag. Model. Soil Form. Process 137.
Pelegrin, F., Moreno, F., Martin-Aranda, J., Camps, M., 1990. The influence of tillage
methods on soil physical properties and water balance for a typical crop rotation in
SW Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 16, 345–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(90)
90070-T.
Pinheiro, É.F.M., de Campos, D.V.B., de Carvalho Balieiro, F., dos Anjos, L.H.C., Pereira,
M.G., 2015. Tillage systems effects on soil carbon stock and physical fractions of soil
organic matter. Agric. Syst. 132, 35–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.
008.
Pittelkow, C.M., Liang, X., Linquist, Ba., van Groenigen, K.J., Lee, J., Lundy, M.E., van
Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R.T., van Kessel, C., 2014. Productivity limits and po-
tentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–367. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/nature13809.
Porter, C.H., Jones, J.W., Adiku, S., Gijsman, A.J., Gargiulo, O., Naab, J.B., 2010.
Modeling organic carbon and carbon-mediated soil processes in DSSAT v4.5. Oper.
Res. 10, 247–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12351-009-0059-1.
Powlson, D.S., Bhogal, a., Chambers, B.J., Coleman, K., Macdonald, a.J., Goulding,
K.W.T., Whitmore, a.P., 2012. The potential to increase soil carbon stocks through
reduced tillage or organic material additions in England and Wales: a case study.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146, 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.004.
Powlson, D.S., Stirling, C.M., Jat, M.L., Gerard, B.G., Palm, Ca., Sanchez, Pa., Cassman,
K.G., 2014. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat.
Clim. Change 4, 678–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292.
Robinson, R.A., Sutherland, W.J., 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodi-
versity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 157–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
1365-2664.2002.00695.x.
Rochette, P., 2008. No-till only increases N2O emissions in poorly-aerated soils. Soil
Tillage Res. 101, 97–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.07.011.
Roldán, A., Salinas-García, J.R., Alguacil, M.M., Caravaca, F., 2005. Changes in soil en-
zyme activity, fertility, aggregation and C sequestration mediated by conservation
tillage practices and water regime in a maize field. Appl. Soil Ecol. 30, 11–20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.01.004.
Schjønning, P., Thomsen, I.K., 2013. Shallow tillage effects on soil properties for tem-
perate-region hard-setting soils. Soil Tillage Res. 132, 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.still.2013.04.006.
Schwartz, R.C., Baumhardt, R.L., Evett, S.R., 2010. Tillage effects on soil water
221
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 210–221
redistribution and bare soil evaporation throughout a season. Soil Tillage Res. 110,
221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.07.015.
Schwen, A., Bodner, G., Scholl, P., Buchan, G.D., Loiskandl, W., 2011. Temporal dynamics
of soil hydraulic properties and the water-conducting porosity under different tillage.
Soil Tillage Res. 113, 89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.02.005.
Senthilkumar, S., Basso, B., Kravchenko, A.N., Robertson, G.P., 2009. Contemporary
evidence of soil carbon loss in the U.S. Corn Belt. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73, 2078.
Sharpley, a.N., Williams, J.R., 1990. EPIC: The erosion-productivity impact calculator.
U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 235.
Sheaffer, C.C., Seguin, P., 2003. Forage legumes for sustainable cropping systems. J. Crop
Prod. 8, 187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J144v08n01.
Sillon, J.F., Richard, G., Cousin, I., 2003. Tillage and traffic effects on soil hydraulic
properties and evaporation. Geoderma 116, 29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0016-7061(03)00092-2.
Smith, P., Smith, J.U.O., Powlson, D.S., McGill, W.B., Arah, J.R.M., Chertov, O.G.,
Coleman, K., Franko, U., Frolking, S., Jenkinson, D.S., Jensen, L.S., Kelly, R.H., Klein-
Gunnewiek, H., Komarov, A.S., Li, C., Molina, J.A.E., Mueller, T., Parton, W.J.,
Thornley, J.H.M., Whitmore, A.P., Smith, P., Wattenbach, M., Zaehle, S., Hiederer,
R., Jones, R.J.a, Montanarella, L., Rounsevell, M.D.a, Reginster, I., Ewert, F., 1997. A
comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets
from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81, 153–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0016-7061(97)00087-6.
Spiegel, H., Dersch, G., Hösch, J., Baumgarten, A., 2007. Tillage effects on soil organic
carbon and nutrient availability in a long-term field experiment in Austria. Die
Bodenkultur 58, 47–58.
Steiner, J.L., 1989. Tillage and surface residue effects on evaporation from soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 53, 911–916. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1989.
03615995005300030046x.
Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N.D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G.R.,
Rakosy, L., Ramwell, C., 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural
change in Europe – a review. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 22–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005.
Stockle, C.O., Nelson, R., 1993. Cropping Systems Simulation Model User’s Manual
(CropSyst).
Strudley, M.W., Green, T.R., Ascough, J.C., 2008. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic prop-
erties in space and time: State of the science. Soil Tillage Res. 99, 4–48. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.still.2008.01.007.
Tanveer, S.K., Wen, X., Lu, X.L., Zhang, J., Liao, Y., 2013. Tillage, mulch and N fertilizer
affect emissions of CO2 under the rain fed condition. PLoS One 8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0072140.
Tebrügge, F., Düring, R.-a., Du, R., Tebru, F., 1999. Reducing tillage intensity–a review of
results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil Tillage Res. 53, 15–28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00073-2.
Tisdall, J.M., Oades, J.M., 1982. Organic matter and water stable aggregates in soil. Soil
Sci. 33, 141–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x.
Tsuji, G., Uehara, G., Balas, S., 1994. DSSAT Version 3.
Unger, P.W., 1992. Infiltration of simulated rainfall: tillage system and crop residue ef-
fects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 283. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1992.
03615995005600010045x.
Uri, N.D., Atwood, J.D., Sanabria, J., 1998. The environmental benefits and costs of
conservation tillage. Sci. Total Environ. 216, 13–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0048-9697(98)00134-X.
Ussiri, D.A.N., Lal, R., 2009. Long-term tillage effects on soil carbon storage and carbon
dioxide emissions in continuous corn cropping system from an alfisol in Ohio. Soil
Tillage Res. 104, 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.11.008.
Van Ittersum, M.K., Leffelaar, P.A., Van Keulen, H., Kropff, M.J., Bastiaans, L., Goudriaan,
J., 2003. On approaches and applications of the Wageningen crop models. Eur. J.
Agron. 18, 201–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00106-5.
Vanuytrecht, E., Thorburn, P.J., 2017. Responses to atmospheric CO2 concentrations in
crop simulation models: a review of current simple and semicomplex representations
and options for model development. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1806–1820. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13600.
Villamil, M.B., Nafziger, E.D., 2015. Corn residue, tillage, and nitrogen rate effects on soil
carbon and nutrient stocks in Illinois. Geoderma 253–254, 61–66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.04.002.
Vogeler, I., Rogasik, J., Funder, U., Panten, K., Schnug, E., 2009. Effect of tillage systems
and P-fertilization on soil physical and chemical properties, crop yield and nutrient
uptake. Soil Tillage Res. 103, 137–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.10.
004.
Wang, X., Zhou, B., Sun, X., Yue, Y., Ma, W., Zhao, M., 2015. Soil tillage management
affects maize grain yield by regulating spatial distribution coordination of roots, soil
moisture and nitrogen status. PLoS One 10, e0129231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0129231.
Wessolek, G., Kaupenjohann, M., Renger, M., 2009. Bodenphysikalische Kennwerte und
Berechnungsverfahren für die Praxis. Bodenökologie und Bodengenese 40, 81.
Willekens, K., Vandecasteele, B., Buchan, D., De Neve, S., 2014. Soil quality is positively
affected by reduced tillage and compost in an intensive vegetable cropping system.
Appl. Soil Ecol. 82, 61–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.009.
Williams, J.W. B.R., E.C., Izaurralde, R.C. J.G.C.R.I., Steglich, E.M. B.R., E.C., 2012.
Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender Model: Theoretical Documentation
Version 0806 131.
Wu, L., McGechan, M.B., McRoberts, N., Baddeley, J.A., Watson, C.A., 2007. SPACSYS:
integration of a 3D root architecture component to carbon, nitrogen and water cy-
cling—model description. Ecol. Model. 200.