Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

ISSN: 0365-0340 (Print) 1476-3567 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gags20

Investigation of soil compaction on yield and

agronomic traits of wheat under saline and non-
saline soils

Elham Shahrayini, Mahboobeh Fallah, Mahmoud Shabanpour, Eisa Ebrahimi

& Saeid Saadat

To cite this article: Elham Shahrayini, Mahboobeh Fallah, Mahmoud Shabanpour, Eisa
Ebrahimi & Saeid Saadat (2018): Investigation of soil compaction on yield and agronomic
traits of wheat under saline and non-saline soils, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, DOI:
10.1080/03650340.2018.1431832

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1431832

Accepted author version posted online: 29

Jan 2018.
Published online: 06 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gags20
ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1431832

Investigation of soil compaction on yield and agronomic traits of

wheat under saline and non-saline soils
Elham Shahrayinia, Mahboobeh Fallahb, Mahmoud Shabanpourc, Eisa Ebrahimi d

and Saeid Saadate

a
Soil Science Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran; bYoung Researchers and Elite Club, Sari
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran; cFaculty of Agriculture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran; dYoung
Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran; eSoil Science, Soil and
Water Research institute, Karaj, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Inappropriate crop management and long-term use of heavy agricultural Received 18 August 2017
equipment can lead to soil compaction. On the other hand, soil and Accepted 20 January 2018
water salinity causes reduction in the plant yield in addition to adverse KEYWORDS
effects on plants tolerance to the various stresses. The aim of this study Iron; macronutrients;
was to investigate the interaction between soil compaction and salinity nitrogen; sustainable
on the macronutrients uptake and wheat yield as well as its agronomic agriculture
traits. The pot experiment was carried out on the loamy soil in a com-
pletely randomized block design with three replications. The treatments
consisted of two salinity types (saline, EC = 6 dS/m and non-saline soil)
and five levels of compaction; control, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. The
results showed that soil compaction had significant effect on the amount
of N, P and K in wheat grain, so that the uptake of N, P and K by grain
has been decreased by increasing the compaction level of soil. Soil
salinity had significant effect on N, P and K content in grain that the
content of N, P and K has been diminished in the saline treatments
compared to non-saline treatments. Results on the agronomic traits and
yield of wheat also revealed that soil compaction and salinity had
significant effect (p < 0.01) on straw weight, number of ears, number
of grain, and thousand grain weight which caused reduction in these
parameters. The interaction between compaction and salinity had only
significant correlation (p < 0.01) with thousand grain weight leading to
the decrement of thousand grain weight with increasing compaction
levels, particularly in the saline treatment.

Introduction
The world’s population is growing rapidly, which is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2025 (FAO
2013). This will worsen the existing food insecurity. Therefore, the current production rate needs to
be increased to meet human food demands and reduce food insecurity. Environmental stresses are
the main causes of reduced agricultural production and crop yield. There are some factors for the
reduction in crop yield, for example drought, salinity, high temperature, low temperature and other
factors result in 17%, 20%, 40%, 15%, and 8% reduction in agricultural production, respectively
(Ashraf et al. 2008). Soil and water salinity is one the limiting factors for the sustainable agricultural
production, affecting about 955 million hectares of world’s land (Pessarakli and Szabolcs 2011). In

CONTACT Eisa Ebrahimi Ebrahimi.soilphysic@yahoo.com Young Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

Iran, the extent of salt-affected soils is about 44.5 million hectares, which are affected by varying
degrees of salinity and alkaline condition (Banaei et al. 2005).
The build-up of soil salinity can limit the agricultural production and land development. The arid
and semiarid climates as well as a great deal of salt in irrigation water can be mentioned as main
factors contributing to this problem. The saline growth medium causes many detrimental impacts
on the growth and development of plants at physiological and biochemical level (Munns 2002).
Soil salinity leads to reduced growth of agricultural crops in most cases, such as most vegetable
crops, which show little tolerance to soil salinity. In fact, vegetables play a considerable role in
human nutrition and health, especially as good sources of vitamin C, thiamine, niacin, pyridoxine,
folic acid, minerals, and dietary fiber (Craig and Beck 1999; Wargovich 2000). Turan et al. (2009)
found that soil salinity increase from zero to 100 mM NaCl leads to increasing stomatal resistance
from 0.95 to 3.25 s cm−1.
In last decade, soil compaction has become a widespread and serious problem all over the
world particularly owing to agricultural mechanization and increasing weight of cultivation and
harvesting machineries along with excessive use of farming machinery (Asgari et al. 2014). Despite
the fact that the mechanized operations can accelerate production, accomplish task, reduce fatigue
and human labor in order to produce better quality products and services, the use of machinery for
carrying out agricultural activities involved in intensive cropping and in silvi-culture can also,
directly or indirectly, lead to the soil compaction (Ishaq et al. 2001; Silva et al. 2008). Soil
productivity is of vital importance in human health and survival. In addition, various types of soil
degradation can reduce the soil fertility which ultimately lowers the soil productivity. The soil
compaction as a physical form of soil degradation has adverse effect on some properties of soil
that results in the reductions of agronomic crops yield and decline in growth rate of forests
throughout the world (Farrakh et al. 2013). Moreover, Soil compaction can alter soil structure
and its productivity, limits air and water infiltration, and reduces root penetration (Mueller et al.
2010).
Some of the causes of land degradation such as soil salinity buildup, water logging or soil
erosion can be remarked from the soil surface, while soil compaction gives a rise to a hidden
degradation of the soil structure that is difficult to locate and rationalize (McGarry and Sharp 2003).
A wide range of soils (approximately 68 million ha) has been adversely affected by soil compaction
due to the vehicular traffic which is responsible for the soil degradation in Europe (33 million ha),
Africa (18 million ha), Asia (10 million ha), Australia (4 million ha), and some areas of North America
(Flowers and Lal 1998; Hamza and Anderson 2003). Furthermore, animal especially grazing animals
can cause soil compaction as well as other physical destruction of soil depending on the trampling
intensity, soil moisture, plant cover, land slope, and land use type (Bayat et al. 2017). This
compaction caused by animal could range from 5 to 20 cm which may affect soil bulk density
(BD), hydraulic conductivity, macro-pore volume, and penetration resistance (Hamza and Anderson
2003; Sigua and Coleman 2009). BD can be used as soil compaction indicator (Ishaq et al. 2001)
which showed that the vulnerability of the soil to compaction increases with enhancing water
contents up to a limit after which soil compaction decreases with the increasing water contents
(Farrakh et al. 2013).
Beylich et al. (2010) reported that soil compaction has a negative impact on microbial biomass
and C mineralization above an effective BD of 1.7 Mg/m3. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a crop
which is more tolerant at germination stage but highly sensitive to salinity at later stage (Francios
et al. 1986). Wheat has been accounted for a vast cultivated area among the agricultural products
and plays an important role in the people’s nutrition. In addition, wheat as one of the dominant
food crops of Iran is grown in all the major agricultural system prevailing in the country
(Yazdanshenas et al. 2015).
The adverse effects of salinity and soil compaction on the plant growth cannot be denied.
Therefore, it is expected that the interaction of these factors will lead to more severe suppression of
plant growth. There were a few studies on the interaction effect of salinity and soil compaction;
 ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 3

especially in Iran, and there were very few investigations on the effect of soil compaction on the
growth and yield of crops in saline soils. However, considering that salinity and soil compaction are
one the most important limiting factor of crop growth, which is reported as a major problem in
agricultural production, control of these factors is important in agricultural production manage-
ment, and the knowledge of the behavior of different plants against salinity and soil compaction, is
fundamental task in order to achieve optimal yield. Therefore, this research has been done to
investigate the interaction effect of soil salinity and compaction stresses on the agronomic
characteristics of wheat.

Material and methods

The greenhouse study was conducted to evaluate the effect of soil compaction on micronutrients
uptake by wheat in saline and non-saline soils. The total amount of 350 kg soil which is excavated
from the depth of 0–30 cm was taken from soil and water research institute, Karaj, Iran. The pots
were shaped like a cylinder with a height of 30 cm and a diameter of 19.2 cm. This experiment was
conducted based on a completely randomized block design with three replications. The treatments
consisted of two soil types (saline, electrical conductivity (EC) = 6 dS m-1 and non-saline soil) and
five levels of compaction; control (0%), 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. Prior to being put into pots, BD of
soil samples was determined using the cylinder method in order to apply different compression
levels on the soils in the pot. This BD was considered as a control BD (1.52 g cm-3).
After determining the amount of soil needed for each pot (with regard to control BD and
volume of pots), the pot soils were compacted using 2 kg weights, released from a 30 cm height. In
addition, for the determination of water in which the maximum compaction occurs, the initial
moisture content of soil was determined by gravimetric method. Some of the soils was put in the
pot with height of 11 cm and diameter of 10 cm and then, the pot soils were compacted to a level
(minimum possible level of soil in the pot) by releasing 2 kg weights from 30 cm height. In this
stage, the soil BD was measured and different amounts of water were added to the soil, and also
the BD was determined at different moisture content.
Table 1 represents the variation of BD at different moisture content to determine the optimum
moisture. The moisture content, in which the maximum BD followed by reduction of BD had
occurred, was selected, and this amount of water (15%) was applied to all pot soils. To apply the
salt treatment, pot soils (15 pots) were leached with saline water (EC = 6 dS m-1) to the saturation
point in four steps at intervals of 36 hours), so that the ECs of inflow and outflow became equal.
The volume of water used in each leaching was about 7 liters. For non-saline treatments, the same
amount of water (EC = 0.3 dS m−1) were applied to other 15 pots. In each pot, fifteen wheat seeds
(salt tolerant) were planted approximately 2 cm below the soil surface in autumn 2015. Ten days
after germination, plant number was reduced to six per pot. Soil moisture content was determined.
When 30% of plant available water content was used, pot soils were watered to field capacity (FC).
For irrigating the saline treatments, the natural saline water from Qom Salt Lake was used and its
EC was reached 6 dS m−1 by adding municipal water. For the irrigation of non-saline treatments,
municipal water was used as well.
The required amount of fertilizer was calculated based on soil test and added to the pot by split
application to prevent leaching of nutrients on three occasions, three weeks, six weeks and nine
weeks (A total of 75 mg kg−1 N in the form of urea, 35 mg kg−1 phosphorus (P) in the form of
phosphoric acid (H3PO4), 25 mg kg−1 K in the form of potassium sulfate (K2SO4) and 10 mg zinc (Zn)
in the form of Zn sulfate (ZnSO4)). After completion of the growth, the seedlings were trimmed and

Table 1. Bulk density at different moisture levels to determine the optimum moisture content.
Moisture (%) 2.6 7 10 13 15 17 19
BD (g cm−3) 1.58 1.64 1.69 1.73 1.77 1.72 1.67
4 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

the plants related to each pot were placed into separate bags and then each part was weighed
separately after separating the grain from the straw, and was milled for chemical analysis.
Moreover, some physical and chemical properties of soils were measured such as organic carbon
using wet oxidation with chromic acid and back titration with ferrous ammonium sulphate (Nelson
1982),
Samples were dispersed using sodium HMP for determination of sand, silt and clay fractions by
the pipette method (Day 1965). Soil pH using a saturation paste, electrical conductivity (total
soluble salts) (EC) using a saturation extract (Salinity Laboratory Staff 1954), cation exchange
capacity (CEC) using sodium acetate (NaOAc) at pH 8.2 (Chapman 1965). Soluble K and Na were
measured by flame photometer and soluble Ca and Mg were determined by titration with EDTA
(Salinity Laboratory Staff 1954). Total N and available P were determined by Kjeldahl and Olsen
(1953) methods, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using MSTATC software.

Results and discussion

Some chemical and physical properties of soil were determined before planting (Table 2).
According to Table 2, the soil studied in this research was loamy soil (with 38% silt), which was
near to alkaline pH. Table 3 shows some chemical properties of saline water used in this study.
Figure 1 shows changes in the amount of N in the grain under different compaction levels in
saline and non-saline soils. The minimum and maximum values of N were observed at 20%
compaction level (1.72%) and in control treatment (3.26%) (Figure 1). Soil salinity showed signifi-
cant impact on the amount of grain N (P < 0.05). The reduction in the value of N by increasing
compaction level followed the same trend in both saline and non-saline treatments with this
difference that this decline was a bit greater in the saline treatment compared to the non-saline
one (Figure 1).
The uptake of N and other nutrients from the lower layers of soil can be affected by physical and
chemical properties of the underlying soil. Root growth is limited directly and indirectly due to soil
subsurface compaction and lack of oxygen, respectively which causes the accumulation of inor-
ganic N in the subsurface soil and prevents its uptake by plants. The soil compaction leads to the
reduced availability of N (Tan et al. 2008) as well as decreased efficiency of N use by the crops
(Douglas and Crawford 1991), which can increase the need for fertilizer. It was also reported that

Table 2. The chemical characteristics of the soil before planting.

Parameter Value Parameter Value
Clay (%) 19 pH 7.99
Silt (%) 38 Zn Exchangeable (mg kg−1) 0.34
Sand (%) 43 Mn Exchangeable (mg kg−1) 7.68
Sp (%) 48 Fe Exchangeable (mg kg−1) 2.94
TNV (%) 13.2 K available (mg kg−1) 273
OC (%) 0.387 P available (mg kg−1) 5.1
EC (dS m−1) 0.59 N Total (%) 0.078
EC: Electrical conductivity, OC: Organic Carbon,
Sp: Saturation percentage, TNV: Total Neutralizing Value

Table 3. Chemical properties of saline water.

Parameter Value Parameter Value
Ca2+ (mmol l−1) 2.57 CO32- (mmol l−1) 0.187
Mg2+ (mmol l−1) 2.82 HCO3− (mmol l−1) 2.44
Na+ (mmol l−1) 52.5 SO4−2 (mmol l−1) 3.8
K+ (mmol l−1) 2.6 EC (dS m−1) 6.2
Cl− (mmol l−1) 55.5 pH 8.2
EC: Electrical conductivity
 ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 5

4
Non- saline Saline
a
a b b
3 c c c c c

N (%)
2 d

0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)
Figure 1. Comparison of N content of grain in the soil saline and non-saline.

the soil compaction which ultimately increases the water content and denitrification processes in
the soil, likely declines the emissions of NOx from the soil (Skiba et al. 1994) while enhances the
volatilization of ammonia in comparison with un-compacted soils (Soane and Van Ouwerkerk
1995). Augmented rates of denitrification and lower availability of oxygen and therefore, declined
root activity may be considered as the main reasons for the diminished N uptake in the compacted
soils (Miransari et al. 2009).
Figure 2 represents changes in the P content of the grain under different compaction levels in
saline and non-saline soils. The lowest and highest values of P were related to the 20% compaction
level and in control treatment (Figure 2). The value of grain P was decreased as affected by soil
compaction (significant at 1%). The same trend can be found in the reduction of P in both
treatments (saline and non-saline) with the difference that the rate of decline was slightly sharper
in the saline treatment relative to the non-saline treatment. However, the interaction effect
between salinity and compaction on the amount of P in wheat grain was not significant
(Figure 2). The uptake of P is highly reduced by plants, since P is an immovable element in soil
and root growth and development are restricted as affected by soil compaction (Arvidsson 1997).
Figure 3 shows the amount of K in the grain under various compaction levels in the saline and
non-saline soils. Both soil compaction and salinity as well as interaction effect of these factors
showed significant correlation (p < 0.01) with the amount of K of wheat grain. As observed from
Figure 3, the reduction in the value of K was considerably more in the saline soil compared to the

0.6
a
a a
Non- saline Saline
0.5 ab ab
abc abc
bc bc
0.4
c
P (%)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)
Figure 2. Comparison of P content of grain in the soil saline and non-saline.
6 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

0.8 Non- saline Saline

a a a a a a
a
0.6 b
b

K (%)
c
0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)
Figure 3. Comparison of K content of grain in the soil saline and non-saline.

non-saline soil and different compaction levels had no impact on the content of K in the wheat
grain under non-saline treatment, whilst soil compaction in the saline condition led to the notable
decline in the K content of the grain.
Another important factor in K uptake is the antagonistic effects of Na and Ca on K. K is an
essential element in plant nutrition (Plaut 1995). It is necessary to maintain the sufficient K levels for
the plant survival under salinity stress. This nutrient contributes greatly to the reduction of osmotic
potential at the tip of a plant root (Marschner 1995). Comparison of means showed that increasing
salinity stress reduced K uptake. Moreover, increasing Na and Cl uptake reduces the uptake of
essential elements, while inducing toxicity to the plant (Tester and Davenport 2003). With increase
in the leaf age, the amount of leaf Na ions increases, whereas K ions decreases. Under salinity
stress, plant protects itself by allocation of toxic ions such as Na ion to the older leafs.
The growth of plants in the compacted soils, which have ventilation problems, are not desirable
because of poor conditions for root growth. But the uptake of K was not reduced due to decreased
hydraulic conductivity and thus declined leaching of K in the compacted soil (Dejong-Hughes et al.
2001). In saline soils, the uptake of K diminishes as a result of high concentrations of sodium and
competition between Na and K ions at plant root absorption sites (Bohra and Doerffling 1993).
According to the results of current study, it was found that the plant can withstand soil compaction
in the non-saline soils somewhat, but in the saline compacted soil in addition to the reduction of
nutrient uptake by plants due to salinity, this diminution in the nutrient absorption was getting less
owing to soil compaction as well.
Figure 4 shows the effect of different compaction levels on the Fe content of grain in the saline
and non-saline soil. Both soil compaction and salinity revealed significant correlation (p < 0.01) with
the amount of Fe of wheat grain. Fe content was enhanced with increasing level of compaction
and the highest and lowest amounts of Fe were observed in control treatment and at 20% level
compaction in both saline and non-saline treatments. There has been no considerable difference
among all treatments except 20% level of compaction in which considerable increase was observed
in the saline soil compared to non-saline soil. Furthermore, the interaction effect between salinity
and compaction showed considerable correlation (p < 0.01%) with Fe content of grain (Figure 4).
Compaction of soil causes problem in water and air infiltration leading to waterlogged soil and
reduction of dissolved elements such as Fe which the uptake of this nutrient by plant in the reduced
form (bivalent) is higher. Increasing the amount of Mn in grain and straw of wheat the same as Fe is
probably due to unfavorable conditions of air and water permeability through the soil and as a result,
soil waterlogging and the reduction of dissolved elements such as Fe and Mn which the uptake of
these nutrients by plant is greater in the reduced form (bivalent). Exchangeable Fe2+ was extracted
from a freshly sampled soil with a hydroxylamine/potassium chloride solution and determined
colorimetrically using ortho phenanthroline. They directly correlated to the presence of 15–30% of
 ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 7

50
Non-Saline Saline a
40

Fe (mg/kg)
30 b
bc bc bc bc bc
c bc bc
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)
Figure 4. Comparison of Fe content of grain in the saline and non-saline soil.

easily reducible Fe2+ with the water logging as the result of the soil compaction. Selective extraction
techniques using citrate–bicarbonate and citrate–bicarbonate–dithionite showed that in the forest,
the soil compaction brought about augmented readily extractable Fe oxides after only 2 years, before
mineralogical transformations were detectable by XRD (Nawaz 2010).
Comparison of Mn content of grain in the saline and non-saline soil under different levels of soil
compaction is shown in Figure 5. Soil compaction and the salinity showed significant effect on
grain Mn value (p < 0.01), so that the remarkable enhancement in the amount of Mn was found
with increasing level of soil salinity while this increase was substantially less in the none-saline
treatments. The maximum and minimum values of Mn were observed in the 20% compaction level
and control treatment (Figure 5). There has been no notable difference in the enhancement of Mn
content between different levels of compaction (0%, 5%, 10% and 15%) in both treatments.
However, no significant correlation was seen between amount of Mn under different treatments
and the interaction effect of salinity and compaction.
The most important role of Mn in the plant is in the photosynthesis and oxygen production (Hill
reaction) Stem lignification is dependent on the amount of Mn, and in a sufficient amount of Mn,
crops such as wheat becomes resistant to disease, fungi, and pests as well as lodging. Mn plays an
important role in the oxidation and reduction activities in plants (reduction of sulfate and nitrate),
and also it is an effective element for the production and activation of 35 different enzymes (such
as phosphokinase enzyme, phosphotransferase and polymerase) (Gheybi and Malakoty 2004).

100
Non-Saline Saline a
80 b b
b b
Mn (mg/kg)

60
c
40 d
d d d
20

0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)

Figure 5. Comparison of Mn content of grain in the saline and non-saline soil.

8 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

Comparison of Thousand Grain Weight (TGW) in the saline and non-saline soil under different
levels of soil compaction is shown in Figure 6. The maximum and minimum values of TGW were
related to the control treatment and 20% level of soil compaction, while there were no notable
differences among 0%, 5% and 10% compaction level (Figure 6). This abatement in the TGW was
more in the saline soil compared to non-saline soil especially at 20 level of soil compaction.
Ghorbani et al. (2004) also reported that the time from planting to emergence increases with
increasing salinity stress, and as a result, the time from emergence to ripening and harvesting of
wheat will decrease, which could be one of the reasons for the reduced crop yield under salinity
stress. Grieve et al. (1992) demonstrated that TGW has been declined with increasing salinity level.
In several studies, the effect of salinity on the root growth depends on the salt concentration; some
concentrations can stimulate root growth but often reduce growth of root (Hurry et al. 1995).
Salinity affects plant growth because of increasing soil osmotic pressure as well as interference
with plant nutrition. In a highly saline condition, soil solution declines the ability of plants to
acquire water, referred as the osmotic or water-deficit effect of salinity, which results in damage to
the plant by declining growth of plant. This osmotic effect of salinity brings about metabolic
changes in the plant the same as those results from water stress-induced ‘wilting’ (Munns et al.
2002) with few genotype differences (Läuchli and Grattan 2007). Munns et al. (1995) proposed a
model consisting of two phases to represent the plant growth in response to salinity. In the first
stage, which is very rapid, the decrement in plant growth is attributed to the growing water deficit.
When the accumulation of salt in the plant shoot reaches out the toxic amount, the second slow
phase begins. Despite this model has been shown in broccoli (López-Berenguer et al. 2006), the
relative importance of the two mechanisms on yield decrement is not easy to evaluate with
confidence because they overlap. The results of the current study on the reduction of wheat
yield as affected by soil compaction were in accordance with results obtained by (Qussible et al.
1992) and (Hamza and Anderson 2003).
In Figure 7, mean comparison of different levels of soil compaction on the Straw Weight (SW) is
shown. The value of SW was detracted by augmenting soil compaction. Control treatment and 20%
level of soil compaction accounted for the highest and lowest values of SW, whereas the interaction
effect had no correlation with the value of SW. The downward trend in SW with increasing level of soil
compaction was substantially sharper in the saline soil relative to the non-saline soil (Figure 7).
Decline in plant biomass, leaf area, and growth has been revealed in various vegetable crops under
salinity stress (Zribi et al. 2009; Giuffrida et al. 2013), which its impact on root architecture/morphol-
ogy are poorly understood (Maggio et al. 2001). However, compared to the aboveground organs
such as shoot of plant, the root biomass has been reported to be generally less influenced by
excessive salinity (Munns and Tester 2008). Salinity led to the reduced root in broccoli and cauliflower
(Giuffrida et al. 2013) as well as root length density in tomato (Snapp et al. 1991).

50
Thousand grain weight (g)

a
Non-Saline Saline
ab ab
40 abc abcd bcd
cde de e
30

20

10 f

0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)

Figure 6. Comparison of Thousand grain weight in the saline and non-saline soils.
 ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 9

35 a ab ab b Non-Saline
30

Weight of straw (g)

c Saline
c
25 c
d
20 e
e
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)

Figure 7. Comparison of weight of straw in the saline and non-saline soils.

Figure 8 represents the effect of different levels of compaction on Number of Ear (NE).
According to the result, non-saline has also decreased with increasing soil compaction. Also, in
higher levels of compaction, the effect of salinity was increased causing more changes in NE
relative to the non-saline soil. However, there was no significant difference in the amount of NE in
lower levels of compaction under saline and non-saline soils. The similar result reported by Saqib
et al. (2004) on sharp reduction in the plant yield under saline and compacted soil conditions.
Soane and van Ouwerkerk (1995) states that soil compaction can cause undesirable effects such as
increased mechanical strength, reduced root growth, decreased the uptake of water and minerals
by plants and as a result, declined crop production.
Figure 9 shows comparison of number of grain (NG) as affected by different levels of compaction
under saline and non-saline soils. The same as other agronomic parameters mentioned in this study,
NG was also decreased by increasing soil compaction, whilst this decrease was much more in saline
soil compared to the non-saline one. These results were in accordance with the results obtained by
Francois (1992) on the reduction in grain yield, straw, number of spikelet per spike, seed weight and
tiller numbers as affected by soil salinity. Moreover, the same result was concluded by Saqib et al.
(2004) on the decrement of NG and NE with increasing soil compaction. High soil salinity may give a
rise to the serious limitations to the agricultural production and land development. Arid and semiarid
climates along with the salt load imported with irrigation can be mentioned as main factors
contributing to this problem. The soil salinity may cause several detrimental impacts on the growth
and development of plants at physiological and biochemical level (Munns 2002).

16 a a a ab ab a Non-Saline
14 ab Saline
Number of cluster

b ab
12
10
8
c
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)
Figure 8. Comparison of number of ears in the saline and non-saline soils.
10 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

350 a ab ab Non-Saline
300

Number of grain
abc
250 bc Saline
c c c
c
200
150
100 d
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Compaction (%)

Figure 9. Comparison of number of grain in the saline and non-saline soils.

The rate of germination, root length, callus size, coleoptile length and seedling growth can be
declined by enhancing salinity level (Ghannadha et al. 2005; Lallu 2005; Bera et al. 2006). Less
uptake of water from soil due to increasing osmotic pressure of soil water resulting from high level
of soil salinity can lead to the delayed and reduced rate of germination (Kumar et al. 2012). The
result of current study was nearly in conformity with the finding of other researchers on different
plants as affected by soil salinity and compaction (Reda 2007; Al-Shaharani and Shetta 2011;
Hardikar and Pandey 2011).

Conclusions
Salinity and soil compaction are the main limiting factors in plants production. The Results of this
research showed significant effect of soil compaction on the amount of N, P and K in wheat grain,
which the uptake of these nutrients by grain has been declined by enhancing soil compaction level.
Soil salinity had significant impact on N, P and K content in grain, as the content of N, P and K has been
diminished in the saline treatments compared to non-saline treatments. Results on the agronomic
traits and yield of wheat also revealed that soil compaction had significant effect on SW, NE, NG and
TGW, which were abated by increasing soil compaction levels. Moreover, soil salinity showed sig-
nificant correlation with SW, NE, NG and TGW causing reduction in these parameters, especially in the
saline soil compared to the non-saline soil. The interaction between compaction and salinity had only
significant correlation with TGW leading to the decline in TGW with increasing compaction levels,
particularly in the saline treatment, while it showed no notable effect on SW, NE and NG. Finally, it can
be concluded that adverse effect of soil compaction on the nutrient uptakes and the agronomic traits
and yield of wheat was obviously more in the saline treatments compared to the non-saline ones.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Eisa Ebrahimi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3394-2830

References
Al-Shaharani TS, Shetta ND. 2011. Evaluation of growth: nodulation and nitrogen fixation of two Acacia species under
salt stress. World Appl Sci J. 13(2):256–265.
 ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 11

Arvidsson J. 1997. Nutrient uptake in compacted soil in field and laboratory experiments- [dissertation]. Soil
Compaction in Agriculture-From Soil stress to Plant stress. Uppsala: Swedish university of Agricultural Sciences.
Paper 7.
Asgari HR, Ghiami A, Saeedifar Z, Ghaderifar F. 2014. Effect of subsoil compaction constraints on some morphological,
physiological and agronomic properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under rain-fed farming. IJABBR. 2(5):1657–
1669.
Ashraf M, Athar HR, Harris PJC, Kwon TR. 2008. Some prospective strategies for improving crop salt tolerance. Adv
Agron. 97:45–110.
Banaei MH, Bybordi M, Moameni A, Malakooti MJ. 2005. The soils of Iran, new achievements in perception, manage-
ment and use. Soil and Water Research Institute. Tehran: Sana Press.
Bayat H, Sheklabadi M, Moradhaseli M, Ebrahimi E. 2017. Effects of slope aspect, grazing, and sampling position on the
soil penetration resistance curve. Geoderma. 303:150–164.
Bera AK, Pati MK, Bera A. 2006. Bassionolide ameliorates adverse effect on salt stress on germination and seedling
growth of rice. Indian J Plant Physiol. 11(2):182–189.
Beylich A, Oberholzer H, Schrader S, Höper H, Wilke B. 2010. Evaluation of soil compaction effects on soil biota and soil
biological processes in soils. Soil Till Res. 109:133–143.
Bohra JS, Doerffling K. 1993. Potassium nutrition of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties under NaCl salinity. Plant Soil.
152:299–330.
Chapman HD. 1965. Cation exchange capacity. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of soil analysis: part 2. Monogr. Ser., vol. 9.
Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy; p. 891–900.
Craig W, Beck L. 1999. Phytochemicals: health protective effects. Can J Diet Pract Res. 60:78–84.
Day PR. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of soil analysis part 1,
Monog. Ser., vol. 9. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy; p. 545–566.
Dejong-Hughes J, Moncrief JF, Voorhees WB, Swan JB. 2001. Soil compaction causes, effect and control. In:
Communication and educational services. Univ of Minnesota extension service; p. 17.
Douglas J, Crawford C. 1991. Wheel-induced soil compaction effects on ryegrass production and nitrogen uptake.
Grass Forage Sci. 46:405–416.
FAO-food and agriculture organization of the united nations production yearbook. 2013. Rome (Italy).
Farrakh NM, Bourrié G, Trolard F. 2013. Soil compaction impact and modelling. A review. Agron Sustain. 33:291–309.
Flowers M, Lal R. 1998. Axle load and tillage effects on soil physical properties and soybean grain yield on a mollic
ochraqualf in northwest Ohio. Soil Till Res. 48:21–35.
Francios LE, Mass EV, Donovon TJ, Young VL. 1986. Effect of salinity on grain yield, quality, vegetative growth and
germination of semi dwarf and durum wheat. Agron J. 78(6):1053–1058.
Francois LE. 1992. Effect of excess boron on summer and winter squash. Plant Soil. 147:163–170.
Ghannadha MR, Omidi M, Shahi RA, Poustini K. 2005. A study of salt tolerance in genotypes of bread wheat using
tissue culture and germination test. Iranian J Agri Sci. 36(1):75–85.
Gheybi M, Malakoty MJ. 2004. Wheat nutrition guide. Karaj (Iran): Publication of Agricultural Education; p. 119.
Ghorbani MH, Zainali E, Soltani A, Galeshi S. 2004. The effect of salinity on growth, yield and yield components in tow
wheat cultivar. J Agric Sci Nat Res. 10(4):5–13.
Giuffrida F, Scuderi D, Giurato R, Leonardi C. 2013. Physiological response of broccoli and cauliflower as affected by
NaCl salinity. Acta Hortic. 1005:435–441.
Grieve CM, Lesch SM, Francois LE, Maas EV. 1992. Analysis of main-stem yield compaction in salt-stressed wheat. Crop
Sci. 32:1286–1292.
Hamza M, Anderson W. 2003. Responses of soil properties and grain yields to deep ripping and gypsum application
in a compacted loamy sand soil contrasted with a sandy clay loam soil in Western Australia. Aust J Agr Res.
54:273–282.
Hardikar SA, Pandey AN. 2011. Growth, water status and nutrient accumulation of seedlings of Cassia fistula L: in
response to soil salinity. Anal Biol. 33:1–11.
Hurry V, Standard M, Tobiaeson A. 1995. Cold hardening of spring and winter wheat and rape results in differential on
growth, carbon metabolism and carbohydrate content. Plant Physiol. 109:697–706.
Ishaq M, Hassan A, Saeed M, Ibrahim M, Lal R. 2001. Subsoil compaction effects on crops in Punjab. Pakistan I. Soil
physical properties and crop yield. Soil Till Res. 59:57–65.
Kumar R, Singh MP, Kumar S. 2012. Effect of salinity on germination, growth, yield and yield attributes of wheat. Int J
Sci Technol Res. 6(1):19–23.
Lallu DRK. 2005. Salt tolerance of Mustard genotype at seedling stage. Indian J Plant Physiol. 14(2):33–35.
Läuchli A, Grattan SR. 2007. Plant growth and development under salinity stress. In: Advances in molecular breeding
toward drought and salt tolerant crops. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer; p. 1–32.
López-Berenguer C, García-Viguera C, Carvajal M. 2006. Are root hydraulic conductivity responses to salinity controlled
by aquaporins in broccoli plants? Plant Soil. 279:13–23.
Maggio A, De Pascale S, Fagnano M, Barbieri G. 2001. Saline agriculture in Mediterranean environments. Ital J Agron. 6
(1):1–7.
12 E. SHAHRAYINI ET AL.

Marschner H. 1995. Mineral nutrittion of higher plants. 2nd ed. Chapter 1. Australia: Elsevier; p. 1–5.
McGarry D, Sharp G. 2003. A rapid, immediate, farmer-usable method of assessing soil structure condition to support
conservation agriculture. Conservation agriculture: environment, farmers experiences, innovations, socio-economy,
policy. p.375
Miransari M, Bahrami H, Rejali F, Malakouti MJ. 2009. Effects of soil compaction and arbuscular mycorrhiza on corn
(Zea mays L.). Soil and Tillage Res. 103:282–290.
Mueller L, Schindler U, Mirschel W, Shepherd TG, Ball BC, Helming K, Rogasik J, Eulenstein F, Wiggering H. 2010.
Assessing the productivity function of soils. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 30:601–614.
Munns R. 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 25:239–250.
Munns R, Husain S, Rivelli AR, Richard AJ, Condon AG, Megan PL, Evans SL, Schachtman DP, Hare RA. 2002. Avenues
for increasing salt tolerance of crops, and the role of physiologically based selection traits. Plant Soil. 247:93–105.
Munns R, Schachtman DP, Condon AG. 1995. The significance of a two-phase growth response to salinity in wheat and
barley. Funct Plant Biol. 22:561–569.
Munns R, Tester M. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 59:651–681.
Nawaz MF. 2010. Geochemistry of hydromorphic soils and waters under rice culture and forest—continuous measure-
ments, thermodynamic modelling and kinetics. [master’s thesis]. Marseille University.
Nelson RE. 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page AL, editor Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Madison (WI): American
Society of Agronomy; p. 181–199.
Olsen SR. 1953. Inorganic phosphorus in alkaline and calcareous soil. p.89–122
Pessarakli M, Szabolcs I. 2011. Soil salinity and sodicity as particular plant/Crop stress factors. In: Pessarakli M, editor.
Handbook of plant and crop stress. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; p. 3–21.
Plaut Z,H. 1995. Adjustmen growth, photosynthesis and transpiration of strawberry plants exposed to saline condition.
Field Crops Res. 10:1–13.
Qussible M, Crookston PK, Larson WE. 1992. Subsurface compaction reduces the root and shoot growth and grain
yield of wheat. Agron J. 84:34–38.
Reda FM. 2007. Morphological, anatomical and physiological studies on Senna occidentalis (L.) link plants grown under
stress of different levels of salinity in irrigation water. J Agric Sci Mansoura Univ. 32(10):8301–8314.
Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Agriculture handbook vol. 60.
Washington (DC): Department of Agriculture.
Saqib M, Akhtar J, Qureshi R. 2004. Pot study on wheat growth in saline and waterlogged compacted soil II. Root
growth and leaf ionic relations. Soil Till Res. 77:179–187.
Sigua GC, Coleman SW. 2009. Long-term effect of cow congregation zone on soil penetrometer resistance: implica-
tions for soils and forage quality. Agron Sustain Dev. 29:517–523.
Silva S, Barros N, Costa L, Leite F. 2008. Soil compaction and eucalyptus growth in response to forwarder traffic
intensity and load. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 32:921–932.
Skiba U, Fowler D, Smith K. 1994. Emissions of NO and N2O from soils. Environ Monit Assess. 31:153–158.
Snapp SS, Shennan C, Bruggen AV. 1991. Effects of salinity on severity of infection by Phytophthora parasitica Dast,
ion concentrations and growth of tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. New Phytol. 119:275–284.
Soane B, van Ouwerkerk C. 1995. Implications of soil compaction in crop production for the quality of the environ-
ment. Soil Till Res. 35:5–22.
Tan X, Chang S, Kabzems R. 2008. Soil compaction and forest floor removal reduced microbial biomass and enzyme
activities in a boreal aspen forest soil. Biol Fert Soils. 44:471–479.
Tester M, Davenport R. 2003. Na tolerance and Na transport in higher plants. Ann Botany. 91(5):503–527.
Turan MA, Elkarim AHN, Taban N, Taban S. 2009. Effect of salt stress on growth, stomatal resistance, proline and
chlorophyll concentrations on maize plant. Afric J Agric Res. 4(9):893–897.
Wargovich MJ. 2000. Anticancer properties of fruits and vegetables. HortScience. 35:573–575.
Yazdanshenas L, Moghadasi R, Yazdani S. 2015. Estimating Iranian Wheat Market (A Comparative Study between ARDL
and SUR). Europ Online J Nat Social Sci. 4(4):626–637.
Zribi L, Gharbi F, Rezgui F, Rejeb S, Nahdi H, Rejeb MN. 2009. Application of chlorophyll fluorescence for the diagnosis
of salt stress in tomato “Solanum lycopersicum (variety Rio Grande)”. Sci Hortic. 120:367–372.