Journal Pre-proof

Spatial variability of soil hydraulic and physical properties in erosive sloping

agricultural fields

Deepak Singh, Alok Kumar Mishra, Sridhar Patra, Sankar Mariappan, Nisha Singh,
Saswat Kumar Kar

PII: S1674-2370(22)00084-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2022.10.001
Reference: WSE 321

To appear in: Water Science and Engineering

Received Date: 1 January 2022

Accepted Date: 17 August 2022

Please cite this article as: Singh, D., Mishra, A.K., Patra, S., Mariappan, S., Singh, N., Kar, S.K., Spatial
variability of soil hydraulic and physical properties in erosive sloping agricultural fields, Water Science
and Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2022.10.001.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Hohai University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Spatial variability of soil hydraulic and physical properties in erosive sloping
agricultural fields
Deepak Singh a, b*, Alok Kumar Mishra b, Sridhar Patra a, Sankar Mariappan a, Nisha Singh c, Saswat Kumar Kar a
a ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun-248195, India

b
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj-211007, India
c Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal)-246174, Uttarakhand, India

Received 1 January 2022; accepted 17 August 2022

Available online

Abstract
It is essential to minimize soil quality degradation in sloping agricultural fields through stabilization and improvement of soil hydraulic properties using
sustainable soil management. This study aimed to analyze the impact of different tillage practices, including conventional tillage (CT), minimum tillage
(MT), and zero tillage (ZT), on soil hydraulic conductivity in a sloping agricultural field under maize–wheat rotation. The results showed that the highest

of
runoff volume (257.40 m3), runoff coefficient (42.84%), and soil loss (11.3 t) were observed when the CT treatment was applied. In contrast, the lowest
runoff volume (67.95 m3), runoff coefficient (11.35%), and soil loss (1.05 t) were observed when the ZT treatment was adopted. The soil organic carbon

ro
and aggregate mean weight diameter were found to be significantly greater (with mean values of 0.79% and 1.19 mm, respectively) with the ZT treatment
than with the CT treatment. With the tilled treatments (CT and MT), substantial changes in the saturated soil hydraulic conductivity (ks), near-saturated
soil hydraulic conductivity (k), and water-conducting porosity (ε) were observed between two crop seasons. These three soil parameters were

-p
significantly higher in the period after maize harvesting than in the wheat growing period. In contrast, no significant difference in these soil parameters
was found when the untilled treatment (ZT) was carried out. With regard to the slope positions, ks, k, and ε showed different behaviors under different
re
treatments. The toe slope position showed significantly lower ks and ε values than the summit and middle slope positions. Of the evaluated tillage
practices, ZT was found to be the most promising means to improve the soil hydro-physical properties and effectively reduce surface runoff and soil
lP

erosion.

Keywords: Hydraulic conductivity; Macropore; Conservation tillage; Spatiotemporal variability; Soil erosion
na

1. Introduction
Soil hydraulic properties (SHPs) are essential quality indicators for sustainable soil management practices. They control and
ur

characterize various aspects of saturated and unsaturated flows in the soil (Dörner et al., 2010). Agricultural management practices
(Patra et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022), environmental influences (Çerçioğlu et al., 2019), and topographic positions (Bodner et al.,
Jo

2008) affect SHPs and relevant processes dynamically in space and time and thus cause movement and retention of solutes, water,
pollutants, and nutrients. A slight change in soil textural composition under varying field topographies may also alter hydraulic
properties (Bodner et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2021b). Most hydrological modeling studies consider SHPs spatiotemporally constant
when predicting the flows of water and solutes in an atmosphere–plant–soil system (Chandrasekhar et al., 2019; Singh et al.,
2021a). Inadequate soil structural and hydrological data limit efficient calibration and application of modeling tools. Furthermore, a
lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of soil physical properties and pore size distribution under different tillage practices,
slope positions, and crop seasons may lead to false predictions. Thus, understanding the spatiotemporal variability of soil hydraulic
and physical properties aids in efficient calibration of hydrological models and improves land management (Chandrasekhar et al.,
2019).
Nevertheless, tillage is one of the most influential factors in the variability of SHPs due to the changes made to the soil pore
system and hydraulic conductivity (HC) (Patra et al., 2021). The continuous inversion of soil under intensive conventional tillage
(CT) increases the degradation of SHPs, thereby decreasing soil HC, soil water availability, and aquifer recharge. Sloping field
topography also leads to increased runoff and soil erosion, resulting in significant spatial variation of SHPs (Bodner et al., 2008;
Peng et al., 2016). Hence, there is a need to develop strategies to alleviate SHP degradation and develop sustainable agricultural
management practices, especially in sloping agricultural fields.

*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dpk905@gmail.com (Deepak Singh).
 Conservation agriculture (CA) plays a vital role in tackling these problems and thus has gained worldwide attention
(Kreiselmeier et al., 2020; Yadav et al., 2021). CA promotes climate-resilient and carbon-smart systems by enhancing the physio-
chemical and biological properties of soil. It comprises residue management, minimal soil disturbance, and crop diversification.
conservation tillage plays a crucial role in CA by improving soil pore structure through modification of pore size space, pore
continuity, and pore size distribution. Furthermore, it enhances SHPs, thereby improving soil health. Crop residue can also improve
SHPs by enhancing soil organic matter, as well as reduce runoff by absorbing the kinetic energy of falling raindrops and reducing
splash erosion. Thus, knowledge of soil structural characteristics such as geometry and distribution of water-conducting porosity (ε)
and near-saturated soil HC under various tillage systems and topographic positions provides insight into the resiliency of these
systems.
The impact of different tillage practices on SHPs may vary with climate and cultivation histories and thus act site-specifically
(Biddoccu et al., 2017; Bodhinayake and Si, 2004). However, very few studies have been conducted to assess the spatial variability
of SHPs with different tillage regimes, especially in sloping agricultural fields dominated by heavy monsoon rainfall. Thus, a better
understanding of spatiotemporal variability of near-saturated SHPs with different tillage regimes in sloping agricultural fields may
assist better management decisions in agriculturally sensitive and environmentally fragile agroecosystems. This study hypothesized

of
that conservation tillage practices in sloping agricultural fields might reduce soil erosion by minimizing surface runoff, enhancing
macroporosity, increasing saturated and near-saturated HCs, and improving SHPs.

ro
2. Materials and methods

-p
2.1. Experimental site
The experimental site was situated in Northwestern Indian Himalayas. Field measurements were conducted on long-term
re
experimental plots that were established on a research farm of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)–Indian Institute
of Soil and Water Conservation (IISWC), in Selakui, Dehradun, India (30°20″57′N and 77°52″07′E) in 2011. Data were collected
lP

from October 2019 to February 2020. The average slope of the field was 6%. The study site was characterized by a sub-tropical
climate with a strong monsoon influence. The mean annual rainfall of the study site was 1 615 mm. More than 80% of the annual
na

rainfall at the site is received during the southwest monsoon period (June to September), and the rest of the rainfall occurs from
December to March. The soil type was categorized as fine mixed hyperthermic Typic Udorthents. Figs. A.1 and A.2 show the
ur

overview of the experimental plots and the climatic characteristics of the experimental site.
2.2. Treatment details
Jo

This study was conducted with different tillage systems, including conventional tillage (CT), minimum tillage (MT), and zero
tillage (ZT). Each treatment was applied to a plot with an area of 450 m2. The field had a length of 75 m along the slope and a width
of 6 m. Randomized replicated (three) measurements of different hydro-physical properties were undertaken at each slope position
(i.e., at the summit (S), mid-slope (M), and toe (T) positions) with a length of 25 m and a width of 6 m. The three positions of each
treatment had distinct soil textural properties due to the transport of fine soil particles through overland flow from downhill and the
deposition towards the toe position. The practices of local farmers were adopted in the CT treatment. For both crops (wheat and
maize), a tractor-drawn tyne cultivator was used for seedbed preparation, and manual broadcasting was used for seed sowing. With
MT, three passes of the tyne cultivator were used for seedbed preparation. However, a crop planter was used for wheat sowing, and
row broadcasting was performed for maize sowing. Furthermore, in the ZT plot, a crop planter was used for direct sowing of both
crops.
2.3. Field and laboratory measurements
2.3.1. Measurement of runoff and soil loss
Runoff was measured at each plot at 08:00 AM (local time) using two-stage multi-slot divisors (i.e., 9 × 7 = 63 slots). The
capacities of the runoff collection chambers were 1.01 × 1.00 × 1.17 m3 and 0.60 × 0.60 × 0.70 m3, large enough to accommodate
the expected discharge. A drainage channel was created to safely discharge the runoff from the collection chambers and
experimental plots. The collected runoff from each tank at each experimental plot was thoroughly stirred, and a 1-L runoff sample
was taken to measure the sediment concentration. Whatman 42 filter paper with a pore size of 2.5 μm was used to filter the resultant
suspensions. The sediment in the filter paper was oven-dried for 24 h at 105°C and weighed to obtain the dry sediment weight. The
runoff volume was multiplied by the unit sediment concentration to obtain the soil loss data.
2.3.2. Soil sampling and analysis
Triplicated soil samples were collected at a depth of 0 to 10 cm to estimate the particle size distribution and soil organic
carbon (SOC). The method developed by Walkley and Black (1934) was used to determine SOC, whereas the soil particle size
distribution was determined using the method described by Piper (1966). The United States Department of Agriculture system was
used to determine the textural class. Soil cores and excavated samples were collected to estimate the bulk density (BD) and
aggregate mean weight diameter (AMWD) of the top surface soil. BD was determined with the method described by Blake and
Hartge (1986). AMWD was determined with the wet sieve method of Yoder (1936).
2.3.3. Measurement and estimation of near-saturated HC
Steady state infiltration rates (SSIRs) were measured at three pressure heads of 0 mm, −10 mm, and −30 mm with a hood

of
infiltrometer in two crop seasons (after maize harvesting in October 2018 and during the wheat growing season in January 2020).
Three runs were performed at each slope position and at each pressure head in each measurement period. Field infiltration data

ro
were analyzed in terms of near-saturated soil HC using the procedure of Reynolds and Elrick (1991). SSIR from a circular source at
the soil surface with a constant pressure head can be analytically analyzed using the method of Wooding (1968):

q ( h ) = k ( h ) 1 +
4 
 πr 
 (1)
-p
re
where h is the matric suction, k is the unsaturated HC, q is the steady-state infiltration rate, r is the radius of the hood, and α is the
lP

sorptive number. The unsaturated HC function can be analyzed with Gardner's exponential model (Gardner, 1958):
k ( h ) = ks exp ( h ) (2)
where ks is the saturated HC. α was computed using SSIR values between two consecutive pressure head values (hi and hi+1):
na

q ( hi )
 ( hi , hi +1 ) = ln ( hi − hi +1 ) (3)
q ( hi +1 )
ur

The piece-wise estimation method (Ankeny et al., 1991) was used to calculate k at different pressure heads (such as 0 cm, −10 cm,
Jo

and −30 mm):

k ( 0) = k (0)  (0,−10) (4)

k ( −10 ) = k (−10)  ( 0, −10) + k (−10)  ( −10, −30)  2 (5)

 
k ( −30) = k (−30)  ( −10,−30) (6)
According to the methodology of Bodhinayake et al. (2004), the water conducting porosity (ε) was characterized by utilizing the
infiltration rate difference at two adjacent pressure heads.
2.4. Statistical analysis
To evaluate the main and interaction effects of tillage treatments (CT, MT, and ZT) and topographical positions (S, M, and T)
on SHPs, multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to test the statistical significance of the differences. All data
were first checked for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. As the data were strongly skewed, a natural log transformation was
performed to achieve normality. Then, Fisher's least significant difference test was used to test the significant differences between
the treatments and topographical position means, whereas the two-side t-test was conducted to analyze the temporal effects on the
season scale. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)-16 software (Informer Technologies, Inc., Los Angeles, USA) was
used to perform all statistical analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Runoff and soil erosion
A total of 25, 24, and 15 daily runoff events were recorded in CT, MT, and ZT tillage treatment plots, respectively, during the
monsoon period. The highest runoff volume (257.40 m3), runoff coefficient (42.84%), and soil loss (11.30 t) were observed with
the CT treatment, whereas the lowest runoff volume (67.95 m3), runoff coefficient (11.35%), and soil loss (1.05 t) were observed
with the ZT treatment (Table 1). The MT treatment showed intermediate values of runoff volume (124.65 m3), runoff coefficient
(20.75%), and soil loss (3.60 t). The untilled (ZT) treatment led to a runoff reduction of 377% compared to the tilled (CT) treatment
and reduced the soil loss 10.76 times. However, the generated runoff volume and soil loss were 182% and 3.77 times less with the
ZT treatment than with the MT treatment, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1
Runoff and soil loss with different treatments during experimental period.
Tillage treatment Runoff volume (m3) Runoff coefficient (%) Soil loss (t)
CT 257.40 42.84 11.30
MT 124.65 20.75 3.60
ZT 67.95 11.35 1.05

3.2. Soil physical properties

of
Soil texture and SOC analyses of different treatments (CT, MT, and ZT) at three slope positions (S, M, and T) were performed
(Table 2). Across the three slope positions, only T showed significant variations of sand, silt, and clay contents in the tilled plots

ro
(CT and MT), whereas no significant difference was found at any slope positions in the untilled plot (ZT). Of the slope positions,
the S position showed the highest sand content, with mean values of 45.70% for ZT(S), 44.66% for MT(S), and 42.89% for CT(S),

-p
whereas the T position showed the lowest sand content, with mean values of 45.56% for ZT(T), 42.61% for MT(T), and 37.20% for
CT(T). Overall, no statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was observed in the sand (40.39%, 43.71%, and 45.56% for CT,
re
MT, and ZT, respectively), silt (37.89%, 33.34%, and 34.28%), and clay (21.72%, 22.95%, and 20.16%) contents among the three
different tillage treatments.
lP

Table 2
SOC contents and particle size distributions with different treatments and at different slope positions.
Treatment and Content of SOC Particle size distribution
na

slope position (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)

CT(S) 0.70 ± 0.07a 42.89 ± 3.07a 35.86 ± 3.12a 21.25 ± 3.33a
CT(M) 0.68 ± 0.05a 41.07 ± 2.44a 38.28 ± 3.40ab 20.65 ± 2.05a
ur

CT(T) 0.53 ± 0.05b 37.20 ± 0.88b 39.53 ± 0.56b 23.27 ± 1.40b

CT 0.63 ± 0.06a 40.39 ± 2.80a 37.89 ± 3.36a 21.72 ± 2.26a
MT(S) 0.74 ± 0.05a 44.66 ± 0.55a 35.22 ± 1.33a 20.13 ± 0.91a
Jo

MT(M) 0.71 ± 0.02a 43.86 ± 1.73a 32.00 ± 2.24a 24.14 ± 0.52b

MT(T) 0.60 ± 0.08b 42.61 ± 3.23a 32.81 ± 1.18a 24.58 ± 3.24b
MT 0.68 ± 0.05a 43.71 ± 1.83a 33.34 ± 1.63a 22.95 ± 1.55a
ZT(S) 0.86 ± 0.06a 45.70 ± 1.23a 34.86 ± 0.65a 19.43 ± 0.65a
ZT(M) 0.79 ± 0.05ab 45.96 ± 1.45a 34.02 ± 1.22a 20.02 ± 2.02a
ZT(T) 0.73 ± 0.06b 45.02 ± 3.87a 33.96 ± 1.09a 21.02 ± 3.11a
ZT 0.79 ± 0.02b 45.56 ± 2.18a 34.28 ± 0.99a 20.16 ± 1.92a
Note: CT(S), CT(M), and CT(T) denote the CT treatment at S, M, and T positions, respectively; MT(S), MT(M), and MT(T) denote the MT treatment at S, M, and T positions,
respectively; ZT(S), ZT(M), and ZT(T) denote the ZT treatment at S, M, and T positions, respectively; data after “±” represent the standard deviation; data on the lines for CT, MT, and
ZT represent the average values at the three slope positions with CT, MT, and ZT treatments, respectively; and superscripts with the same lowercase letters indicate no significant
difference at different slope positions with the same treatment or no significant difference among different treatments (p ≤ 0.05).
However, the SOC content varied significantly with different slope positions and tillage treatments (Table 2). Of the three
slope positions, the S position exhibited higher SOC contents (0.70%, 0.74%, and 0.86% with CT, MT, and ZT treatments,
respectively) than M (0.68%, 0.71%, and 0.79%) and T (0.53%, 0.60%, and 0.73%) positions. The SOC contents did not differ
significantly (p ≤ 0.05) between S and M with any treatments, whereas T showed significantly lower SOC contents than S and M
with all treatments.
Additionally, Fig. 1 shows the values of soil BD with different treatments at different positions. The T slope position of the
tilled plot (CT and MT) exhibited significantly lower BD values (p ≤ 0.05), while there was no statistical difference in any slope
positions with the ZT treatment. Tillage treatments significantly affected BD (p ≤ 0.05) during both crop seasons in the following
descending order: CT > MT > ZT.
 Fig. 1. Soil BD values with different treatments at different slope positions in two periods (the same lowercase letters indicate no significant difference
among slope positions with treatments in the same measurement period (p ≤ 0.05), and the same uppercase letters indicate no significant difference
among slope positions with treatments in different measurement periods (p ≤ 0.05)).
Fig. 2 shows the AMWD values with different treatments at different positions. The AMWD values at different slope positions
with tilled treatments (CT and MT) showed more variation than those with untilled treatment (ZT). With tilled treatments (CT and

of
MT), the highest AMWD values were found at the M slope position (0.81 mm and 0.78 mm for CT(M) and MT(M), respectively),

ro
and the lowest values were at the T slope position (0.60 mm and 0.63 mm for CT(T) and MT(T), respectively). With untilled
treatment (ZT), ZT(S) had the highest AMWD value (1.25 mm), followed by ZT(M) (1.16 mm), and ZT(T) had the lowest value

-p
(0.90 mm). re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Fig. 2. AMWD values with different treatments at different slope positions in two periods (the same lowercase letters indicate no significant difference
among slope positions with treatments in the same measurement period (p ≤ 0.05), and the same uppercase letters indicate no significant difference
among slope positions with treatments in different measurement periods (p ≤ 0.05)).

3.3. Saturated and near-saturated HCs

The saturated and near-saturated HC (k) values are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 2. At the three slope positions (S, M, and T), k
varied with different treatments (CT, MT, and ZT). With the CT treatment, the T slope position showed significantly lower k values
(2.16 mm/h and 16.90 mm/h in October 2018 and January 2020, respectively) at a zero pressure head than the S (11.51 mm/h and
21.21 mm/h) and M (13.97 mm/h and 15.99 mm/h) slope positions. At a pressure head of −30 mm, no significant difference in k
was observed at different slope positions with the CT treatment in either crop season. However, in the case of the MT treatment, the
S, M, and T slope positions exhibited significantly different k values (5.95 mm/h, 10.94 mm/h, and 2.37 mm/h, respectively) at the
zero pressure head, which was likely owing to soil aggregation towards saturation (Chandrasekhar et al., 2018). With the ZT
treatment, the S position showed significantly higher k values (53.02 mm/h and 64.73 mm/h) at the zero pressure head than M
(40.23 mm/h and 55.76 mm/h) and T (14.39 mm/h and 33.06 mm/h) in both crop seasons.
 of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Fig. 3. Near-saturated HC values and their coefficients of variation (CV) at different pressure heads at different slope positions in October 2018 and
January 2020 (the same lowercase letters indicate no significant difference among slope positions with treatments in the same measurement period (p ≤
0.05), and the same uppercase letters indicate no significant difference among slope positions with treatments in different measurement periods (p ≤
0.05)).
Table 3
Mean near-saturated HC and CV values with different treatments in October 2018 and January 2020.
Treatment h (mm) k and CV in October 2018 k and CV in January 2020
k (mm/h) CV (%) k (mm/h) CV (%)
CT 0 9.23 64.16 25.92 56.83
−10 4.17 47.25 16.47 32.26
−30 2.27 30.26 9.94 19.80
MT 0 6.61 34.88 28.94 49.91
−10 3.42 18.16 18.11 26.23
−30 1.84 17.78 9.09 17.16
ZT 0 41.49 82.69 51.19 83.69
−10 21.38 64.03 32.00 51.03
−30 10.41 48.77 10.43 38.11
In October 2018, the highest k value at the zero pressure head was found with ZT (41.49 mm/h), and the lowest was with MT
(6.60 mm/h). Similar observations were found in the cases with pressure heads of −10 cm and −30 mm. In January 2020, the ZT
treatment demonstrated higher k values at all pressure heads than the CT and MT treatments.
3.4. Water-conducting porosity
The water-conducting porosity (ε) values are given in Table 4. ε acts as an indicator of soil pore connectivity and also
represents the change in soil pore structure (Bodhinayake and Si, 2004). The pore radius (d) values of 2.50 mm, 1.49 mm, and 0.50
mm were associated with pressure heads of 0 mm, −10 mm, and −30 mm, respectively. With the CT treatment, the S slope position
exhibited a significantly larger water-conducting porosity (0.000 45%) across the entire pore radius interval of 0.50 to 2.50 mm
than the T slope positions (0.000 13%), whereas no significant difference in the water-conducting porosity was observed between
the S and M slope positions in either crop season. A similar observation was found in the cases with d values of 0.50 to 1.49 mm
and 1.49 to 2.50 mm in both crop seasons. With the MT treatment, the water-conducting porosities at all slope positions were
significantly different from one another (0.000 06%, 0.000 15%, and 0.000 03% for S, M, and T, respectively) across the entire
pore radius interval of 0.50 to 2.50 mm in October 2018. In contrast, no significant difference in the water-conducting porosity was
found between any slope positions at any pore radius intervals in January 2020. With the ZT treatment, no significant difference
was observed in the water-conducting porosity at any slope positions in either crop season except for the case with the pore radius
interval of 1.49 to 2.50 mm in January 2020.
Table 4

of
Estimated water-conducting porosities at different pore radius intervals with different treatments and at different slope positions in October 2018 and
January 2020.
Treatment and ε at different pore radius intervals in October 2018 (10–5) ε at different pore radius intervals in January 2020 (10–5)

ro
slope position d = 1.49–2.50 mm d = 0.50–1.49 mm d = 0.50–2.50 mm d = 1.49–2.50 mm d = 0.50–1.49 mm d = 0.50–2.50 mm
CT(S) 0.91% ± 0.16%aA 11.94% ± 3.64%aA 12.84% ± 3.67%aA 2.35% ± 0.97%aB 42.99% ± 13.12%aB 45.34% ± 13.99%aB
1.59% ± 1.42%aA 18.37% ± 16.61%aA 19.97% ± 18.03%aA 2.75% ± 0.49%aA 38.84% ± 13.48%aB 41.59% ± 13.94%aB

-p
CT(M)
CT(T) 0.21% ± 0.07%bA 2.02% ± 0.02%bA 2.23% ± 0.11%bA 0.73% ± 0.16%bB 12.34% ± 1.95%bB 13.08% ± 1.87%bB
CT 0.90% ± 0.55%aA 10.78% ± 6.75%aA 11.68% ± 7.27%aA 1.94% ± 0.54%aB 31.39% ± 9.52%aB 33.34% ± 9.93%aB
0.56% ± 0.43%abA 5.71% ± 2.09%abA 6.27% ± 2.51%aA 2.71% ± 0.46%aB 39.91% ± 6.01%aB 42.62% ± 6.06%aB
re
MT(S)
MT(M) 1.00% ± 0.57%bA 14.30% ± 7.76%aA 15.30% ± 8.31%bA 2.06% ± 0.48%aB 38.09% ± 2.19%aB 40.15% ± 2.58%aB
MT(T) 0.25% ± 0.14%aA 3.59% ± 2.30%bA 3.84% ± 1.76%cA 2.18% ± 1.09%aB 34.60% ± 21.96%aB 36.78% ± 18.42%aB
0.60% ± 0.38%aA 7.89% ± 4.05%aA 8.47% ± 4.20%aA 2.32% ± 0.68%aB 37.54% ± 10.05%aB 39.85% ± 9.02%bB
lP
MT
ZT(S) 5.30% ± 1.76%aA 68.88% ± 14.97%aA 74.19% ± 16.67%aA 6.07% ± 3.44%aA 56.40% ± 35.08%aA 62.47% ± 38.52%aA
ZT(M) 2.98% ± 1.70%aA 55.23% ± 18.50%aA 58.21% ± 19.60%aA 5.38% ± 1.80%aA 54.97% ± 20.85%aA 60.35% ± 22.39%aA
ZT(T) 3.28% ± 1.64%aA 43.79% ± 30.96%aA 47.07% ± 23.54%aA 1.86% ± 1.10%bA 44.53% ± 37.25%aA 46.40% ± 27.44%aA
na

ZT 3.86% ± 1.70%bA 55.97% ± 21.48%bA 59.82% ± 19.93%bA 4.44% ± 2.11%aA 51.97% ± 31.06%aA 56.41% ± 29.45%aA
Note: Superscripts with the same lowercase letters indicate that the water-conducting porosity shows no significant difference at different slope positions with the same treatment or no
significant difference among different treatments in the same period (p ≤ 0.05); and superscripts with the same uppercase letters indicate that the water-conducting porosity shows no
significant difference at different slope positions with the same treatment or no significant difference with different treatments in different periods (p ≤ 0.05).
ur

Additionally, the water flux through soil pores at different radius intervals was analyzed (Fig. 4). With all treatments at all
slope positions, more water flowed through macropores than through micropores and mesopores. For CT(S), CT(M), and CT(T),
Jo

pores with d > 0.5 mm accounted for 69.12%, 75.46%, and 72.15% of total soil flow at a zero pressure head with corresponding ε
values of 0.000 12%, 0.000 19%, and 0.000 22%, respectively. Similar findings were observed for MT(S), MT(M), and MT(T) in
both crop seasons. Overall, the average contributions of pores with d > 0.5 mm to total soil flow were 78.01%, 69.07%, and 67.20%
at the zero pressure head with corresponding ε of 0.000 58%, 0.000 24%, and 0.00022% for ZT, MT, and CT, respectively.
 of
ro
-p
Fig. 4. Contributions of pores with d < 0.50 mm, 0.50 mm ≤ d ≤ 1.49 mm, and d > 1.49 mm to total soil flow at a zero pressure head with different
re
treatments and at different slope positions in October 2018 and January 2020.

3.5. Spatial and tillage-induced dynamics of soil properties

lP

Multivariate ANOVA was performed to differentiate the individual and joint effects of soil tillage and slope position (Table
4). Slope position significantly affected saturated HC (ks), HC at a pressure head of −10 mm (k(−10)), and ε with mean square (MS)
na

values of effect of 0.59, 0.47, and 1.70, respectively (p < 0.001). These parameters describe the water conductance in macropores.
In contrast, the parameters related to water flow in micropores and mesopores were not significantly affected by slope position,
ur

with an MS value of 0.15 for HC at a pressure head of −30 mm (k(−30)). The variability of water conductance in micropores was
significantly affected by tillage. The joint effect of treatment and slope position on ks, k(−10), and ε was statistically significant (p ≤
Jo

0.05), while the joint effect on k(−30) showed no statistical significance. Therefore, the variability of water conductance through
large pores could be significantly influenced by the joint effect of tillage and slope.
Table 5
Effects of different tillage systems and slope positions on SHPs and other soil parameters using ANOVA.
Factor Effect on ks Effect on k(−10) Effect on k(−30) Effect on BD Effect on AMWD Effect on ε
MS Significance MS Significance MS Significance MS Significance MS Significance MS Significance
Treatment 1.62 p < 0.001 1.64 p < 0.001 0.54 p < 0.01 0.08 p < 0.01 0.27 p < 0.001 1.84 p < 0.001
Slope position 0.59 p < 0.001 0.47 p < 0.001 0.15 ns 0.002 ns 0.05 p < 0.01 1.70 p < 0.001
Treatment and slope position 0.55 p < 0.01 0.08 p < 0.05 0.10 ns < 0.001 ns < 0.001 ns 0.15 p < 0.05
Note: “ns” denotes no statistical significance.

4. Discussion
This study revealed that CT generated the highest runoff and soil loss, while conservation tillage produced less runoff and soil
loss. Sun et al. (2015) also found higher runoff and soil loss with CT than with conservation tillage. CT involves loosening of the
soil surface for seedbed preparation during the initial rainy season, which leads to crusting and sealing of the soil surface along with
high soil compaction (Wang et al., 2017), which in turn leads to higher runoff and soil loss. Conservation tillage reduced runoff and
soil loss more drastically than CT, likely due to higher aggregate stability (Carretta et al., 2021), lower bulk density (Lin and Chen,
2015), better development of root channels and soil fauna that mitigate soil compaction (Zhang et al., 2007), and improved overall
soil properties (Madarász et al., 2021).
 The SOC values were significantly higher at the S and M positions than at the T position. This indicated that the high erosion
rate led to the formation of an erosive surface, excessive tillage, and movement of the soil fraction within the topsoil on the S and
M slopes, especially with the CT treatment. Chen et al. (2012) also observed that the S position exhibited the highest SOC value,
followed by the M position, and the lowest value was observed at the T position.
The removal of fine particles by the runoff process from the high slope to the toe slope leaves high contents of coarse particles,
resulting in the variation of BD at different slope positions. The variation of soil moisture at different slope positions combined
with soil compaction resulting from tractor traffic may also dynamically affect BD. Lin et al. (2018) found a lower BD value at the
bottom position than at the top and mid-slope positions. Ma et al. (2019) concluded that the differences in BD at different slope
positions were due to the washing of surface soil by runoff from the top and mid-slope positions, but the deposition of washed soil
particles did not significantly reduce BD at the bottom position. Raoof (2011) reported higher BD values at the S and M positions
and lower BD values at the T position. High AMWD values were obtained with the CT treatment, likely due to the high SOC and
low BD with CT (Raczkowski et al., 2012) (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Overall, higher AMWD values were found in the wheat growing
season than after maize harvesting, which was likely a result of the physical entanglement of soil aggregates by wheat crop roots
(Martínez et al., 2008).

of
The low HC values at the T position may be attributed to significantly higher clay fractions at the T position than at the S and
M positions with the CT treatment. Moreover, Changere and Lal (1997) found a similar result at the gentle slope position and

ro
emphasized that the low HC value was caused by the deposition of fine particles carried by runoff at the gentle slope position from
the high slope position, which clogged the pores and sealed the surface, especially with the CT treatment. This result agreed with

-p
Chen et al. (2012), who found that HC tended to be higher at the S and M positions than at the T position. This result also agreed
with several experiments reported by Hu et al. (2008) and Ma et al. (2019). However, Lin and Chen (2015) discovered significantly
re
lower k values at the shoulder position than at the T position, likely due to the significant differences in SOC and fine texture
content in a small limestone field.
lP

This study showed that the HC values in the two crop seasons were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) in the tilled plots (CT and
MT). In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the ZT plot. Overland flow can seal the soil surface, which plays an
na

important role in maintaining the network and continuity of macropores. The low HC values were also reflected by the high BD
values in October 2018 (Fig. 1). In addition, tillage practices can breach the surface seal, which might also be one of the reasons for
ur

the increase in HC in January 2020, especially in the tilled plots. Furthermore, the development of root systems of wheat creates
numerous channel networks of pores (Bodner et al., 2008). After the decay of these roots, they deliver organic matter to soil,
Jo

providing favorable conditions for soil particle aggregation. The formation of these channel networks might also lead to preferential
flow because the initially disconnected macropores become hydraulically active (Cavalieri et al., 2009).
The spatial variability of HC with different tillage treatments and at different slope positions was discussed above in terms of
the coefficient of variation (CV) (Fig. 3 and Table 3). Towards saturation, the CV values with all tillage treatments tended to
increase, likely because soil structure variability played a greater role than soil texture variability (Schwen et al., 2011). This
finding agreed with several studies that reported a high treatment-induced variability at high pressure heads (Schlüter et al., 2020).
The highest CV values were observed in the untilled plot in both crop seasons (80.21% for the period after maize harvesting and
75.68% for the wheat growth period), and the lowest was observed in the tilled plot (MT) in both seasons (35.48% and 47.12%,
respectively), which was likely due to the presence or absence of large macropores such as earthworm burrows. There was no clear
trend at any of the three slope positions with any treatments. The CV values at all measurement times were well within the range
for mineral soils in published literature (Schwen et al., 2011).
Although the ε values (Table 4) in the experiments were small (approximately 10−4 in magnitude), the range of ε in agricultural
land use was well within the range reported in several previous studies (Buczko et al., 2006; Daraghmeh et al., 2008). For example,
Villarreal et al. (2020) observed that ε ranged from 0.005% to 0.006% in conservation and conventional agricultural practices.
Moreover, Daraghmeh et al. (2008) and Buczko et al. (2006) found higher ε values (0.000 2% to 0.002 7% and 0.005 0% to 0.059
0% for sandy loam and silt loam soils, respectively) in a long-term rye and wheat cropping system.
 Moreover, macropores comprise a very small percentage of the total soil volume, and they govern soil water flows via
infiltration. The T slope position exhibited fewer macropores, resulting in lower water fluxes. This was because a significantly
higher clay fraction was found at the T position than at the S and M positions. Of all treatments, CT had the lowest contribution to
the total soil flow probably because the use of agricultural machinery during seedbed preparation and crop harvest periods can clog
soil macropores, convert them into small pores, and reduce the continuity of pore networks (Schwen et al., 2011). These findings
were similar to those from previous studies (Villarreal et al., 2020; Weninger et al., 2019).
The importance of slope has been reported in previous studies (Biddoccu et al., 2017). The saturated HC was significantly
reduced at the T slope position likely due to the high clay content (Bodner et al., 2008). Moreover, the study area is located in a
high-rainfall region where a large amount of overland flow is generated. This causes soil erosion, soil compaction, and surface
sealing, leading to reduced pore size and connectivity at the T position (Biddoccu et al., 2016; Cameira et al., 2003).
5. Conclusions
In this study, the spatial variability and temporal dynamics of saturated and near-saturated soil HCs with different tillage
practices were evaluated on the slope of an agricultural field. The results showed that SHPs changed dynamically in response to
time, tillage treatment, and slope position. With the ZT treatment, a significantly higher HC led to more drastically reduced runoff

of
and soil loss than with the CT and MT treatments. In both crop seasons, significantly higher HCs were recorded at the S position

ro
than at the T position when the CT treatment was used. In contrast, no significant difference in HC was observed when the ZT
treatment was used. HC and water-conducting macro-porosity were higher during the wheat growing season than during the maize

-p
harvesting season. Although macropores comprised a very small percentage of the total soil volume, more water flowed through
them than through micropores and mesopores. Considerable changes in HC occurred on different slopes, but the joint effect of
re
tillage and slope position on near-saturated SHPs was not significant (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, conservation tillage practices, especially
on the slopes of agricultural fields, can significantly reduce surface runoff and alleviate soil erosion by improving soil hydro-
lP

physical properties.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
na

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/.

Acknowledgments
ur

The authors are thankful to the director of ICAR–IISWC in Dehradun, India for providing the necessary facilities.
Jo

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Ankeny, M.D., Ahmed, M., Kaspar, T.C., Horton, R., 1991. Simple field method for determining unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 55, 467. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500020028x.
Biddoccu, M., Ferraris, S., Opsi, F., Cavallo, E., 2016. Long-term monitoring of soil management effects on runoff and soil erosion in sloping vineyards
in Alto Monferrato (North-west Italy). Soil Tillage Res. 155, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.07.005.
Biddoccu, M., Ferraris, S., Pitacco, A., Cavallo, E., 2017. Temporal variability of soil management effects on soil hydrological properties, runoff and
erosion at the field scale in a hillslope vineyard, North-West Italy. Soil Tillage Res. 165, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.07.017.
Blake, G. R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. ASA Monograph No. 9. Lewis Publishers, Madison.
Bodhinayake, W., Si, B.C., 2004. Near-saturated surface soil hydraulic properties under different land uses in the St Denis National Wildlife Area,
Saskatchewan, Canada. Hydrol. Process. 18, 2835–2850. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1497.
Bodhinayake, W., Si, B.C., Xiao, C., 2004. New method for determining water-conducting macro- and mesoporosity from tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 68, 760–769. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.7600.
Bodner, G., Loiskandl, W., Buchan, G., Kaul, H.P., 2008. Natural and management-induced dynamics of hydraulic conductivity along a cover-cropped
field. Geoderma 146, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.06.012.
Buczko, U., Bens, O., Hüttl, R.F., 2006. Tillage effects on hydraulic properties and macroporosity in silty and sandy soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1998–
2007. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0046.
Cameira, M.R., Fernando, R.M., Pereira, L.S., 2003. Soil macropore dynamics affected by tillage and irrigation for a silty loam alluvial soil in southern
Portugal. Soil Tillage Res. 70, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00154-X.
Carretta, L., Tarolli, P., Cardinali, A., Nasta, P., Romano, N., Masin, R., 2021. Evaluation of runoff and soil erosion under conventional tillage and no-till
management: A case study in northeast Italy. CATENA 197, 104972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104972.
Cavalieri, K.M.V., da Silva, A.P., Tormena, C.A., Leão, T.P., Dexter, A.R., Håkansson, I., 2009. Long-term effects of no-tillage on dynamic soil physical
properties in a Rhodic Ferrasol in Paraná, Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 103, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.10.014.
Çerçioğlu, M., Anderson, S.H., Udawatta, R.P., Alagele, S., 2019. Effect of cover crop management on soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma 343, 247–
253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.02.027.
Chandrasekhar, P., Kreiselmeier, J., Schwen, A., Weninger, T., Julich, S., Feger, K.H., Schwärzel, K., 2018. Why we should include soil structural
dynamics of agricultural soils in hydrological models. Water 10(12), 1862. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121862.
Chandrasekhar, P., Kreiselmeier, J., Schwen, A., Weninger, T., Julich, S., Feger, K.H., Schwärzel, K., 2019. Modeling the evolution of soil structural
pore space in agricultural soils following tillage. Geoderma 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.07.017.
Changere, A., Lal, R., 1997. Slope position and erosional effects on soil properties and corn production on a miamian soil in central ohio. J. Sustain.
Agric. 11(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v11n01_03.
Chen, H., Liu, J., Zhang, W., Wang, K., 2012. Soil hydraulic properties on the steep karst hillslopes in northwest Guangxi, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 66,
371–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1246-y.
Daraghmeh, O.A., Jensen, J.R., Petersen, C.T., 2008. Near-saturated hydraulic properties in the surface layer of a sandy loam soil under conventional and
reduced tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72, 1728–1737. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0292.

of
Dörner, J., Dec, D., Peng, X., Horn, R., 2010. Effect of land use change on the dynamic behaviour of structural properties of an Andisol in southern Chile
under saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conditions. Geoderma 159(1–2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.07.011.

ro
Gardner, W.R., 1958. Some steady-state solutions of the unsaturated moisture flow equation with application to evaporation from a water table. Soil Sci.
85, 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195804000-00006.

-p
Hu, W., Ming, A.S., Quan, J.W., Fan, J., Reichardt, K., 2008. Spatial variability of soil hydraulic properties on a steep slope in the loess plateau of China.
Sci. Agric. 65, 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000300007.
Kreiselmeier, J., Chandrasekhar, P., Weninger, T., Schwen, A., Julich, S., Feger, K.H., Schwärzel, K., 2020. Temporal variations of the hydraulic
re
conductivity characteristic under conventional and conservation tillage. Geoderma 362, 114127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114127.
Lin, J., Zhu, G., Wei, J., Jiang, F., Wang, M., Huang, Y., 2018. Mulching effects on erosion from steep slopes and sediment particle size distributions of
lP

gully colluvial deposits. CATENA 160, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.09.003.

Lin, L., Chen, J., 2015. The effect of conservation practices in sloped croplands on soil hydraulic properties and root-zone moisture dynamics. Hydrol.
Process. 29, 2079–2088. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10348.
na

Ma, B., Liu, G., Ma, F., Li, Z., Wu, F., 2019. Effects of crop-slope interaction on slope runoff and erosion in the Loess Plateau. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect.
B Soil Plant Sci. 69, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2018.1488988.
Madarász, B., Jakab, G., Szalai, Z., Juhos, K., Kotroczó, Z., Tóth, A., Ladányi, M., 2021. Long-term effects of conservation tillage on soil erosion in
ur

Central Europe: A random forest-based approach. Soil Tillage Res. 209, 104959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.104959.
Martínez, E., Fuentes, J.P., Silva, P., Valle, S., Acevedo, E., 2008. Soil physical properties and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and
Jo

conventional tillage systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile. Soil Tillage Res. 99(2), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.02.001.
Patra, S., Julich, S., Feger, K.H., Jat, M.L., Jat, H., Sharma, P.C., Schwärzel, K., 2019. Soil hydraulic response to conservation agriculture under irrigated
intensive cereal-based cropping systems in a semiarid climate. Soil Tillage Res. 192, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.003.
Patra, S., Kaushal, R., Singh, D., Kumar, R., Gadedjisso-Tossou, A., Durai, J., 2021. Surface soil hydraulic conductivity and macro-pore characteristics
as affected by four bamboo species in North-Western Himalaya, India. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 22(1), 188–196
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOHYD.2021.08.012.
Peng, X., Zhu, Q.H., Xie, Z.B., Darboux, F., Holden, N.M., 2016. The impact of manure, straw and biochar amendments on aggregation and erosion in a
hillslope Ultisol. CATENA 138, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.11.008.
Piper, C.S., 1966. Soil and Plant Analysis. The fourth Edition. Inter Science Publishers, New York.
Raczkowski, C.W., Mueller, J.P., Busscher, W.J., Bell, M.C., McGraw, M.L., 2012. Soil physical properties of agricultural systems in a large-scale study.
Soil Tillage Res. 119, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.12.006.
Raoof, M., 2011. Effect of land slope on some soil physical and hydraulic properties. In: Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on New
Technology of Agricultural Engineering. IEEE, Zibo, pp. 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAE.2011.5943749.
Reynolds, W.D., Elrick, D.E., 1991. Determination of hydraulic conductivity using a tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55, 633–639.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500030001x.
Schlüter, S., Albrecht, L., Schwärzel, K., Kreiselmeier, J., 2020. Long-term effects of conventional tillage and no-tillage on saturated and near-saturated
hydraulic conductivity – Can their prediction be improved by pore metrics obtained with X-ray CT? Geoderma 361, 114082.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114082.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.02.005.
Singh, D., Mishra, A.K., Patra, S., Mariappan, S., Singh, N., 2021a. Near-saturated soil hydraulic conductivity and pore characteristics as influenced by
 conventional and conservation tillage practices in North-West Himalayan region, India. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 9(2), 249–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.01.001.
Singh, D., Mishra, A.K., Sherring, A., Thomas, A., Kumar, M., Patra, S., Mariappan, S., 2021b. Soil pore and hydraulic conductivity relationship under
different tillage practices in a maize-wheat cropping system. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 49, 139–144.
Singh, D., Patra, S., Mishra, A.K., Mariappan, S., Singh, N., 2022. Temporal variation of saturated and near‐saturated soil hydraulic conductivity and
water‐conducting macroporosity in a maize‐wheat rotation under conventional and conservation tillage practices. Land Degradation and
Develpment 33(13), 2208–2219. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4251.
Sun, Y., Zeng, Y., Shi, Q., Pan, X., Huang, S., 2015. No-tillage controls on runoff: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 153, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.04.007.
Villarreal, R., Lozano, L.A., Salazar, M.P., Bellora, G.L., Melani, E.M., Polich, N., Soracco, C.G., 2020. Pore system configuration and hydraulic
properties. Temporal variation during the crop cycle in different soil types of Argentinean Pampas Region. Soil Tillage Res. 198, 104528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104528.
Walkley, A., Black., I.A., 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the
chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003.
Wang, L., Dalabay, N., Lu, P., Wu, F., 2017. Effects of tillage practices and slope on runoff and erosion of soil from the Loess Plateau, China, subjected
to simulated rainfall. Soil Tillage Res. 166, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.007.
Weninger, T., Kreiselmeier, J., Chandrasekhar, P., Julich, S., Feger, K.H., Schwärzel, K., Bodner, G., Schwen, A., 2019. Effects of tillage intensity on
pore system and physical quality of silt-textured soils detected by multiple methods. Soil Res. 57, 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR18347.

of
Wooding, R.A., 1968. Steady infiltration from a shallow circular pond. Water Resour. Res. 4, 1259–1273. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023i004p00733.
Yadav, D., Vishwakarma, A.K., Sharma, N.K., Biswas, A.K., Ojasvi, P.R., Kumar, D., Kumawat, A., Singh, D., 2021. Sustaining the properties of black

ro
soil in Central India through crop residue management in a conservation-agriculture-based soybean–wheat system. Land Degradation and
Development 32, 2906–2921. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3891.

-p
Yoder, R.E., 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses (1). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 17, 165–
165. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1936.036159950B1720010046x.
Zhang, G.S., Chan, K.Y., Oates, A., Heenan, D.P., Huang, G.B., 2007. Relationship between soil structure and runoff/soil loss after 24 years of
re
conservation tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 92, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.01.006.
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Appendix A. Supplementary data

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Fig. A.1 Overview of the experimental plots during different periods at ICAR-Indian Institute
of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Farm, Dehradun. Treatments are Zero tillage (ZT),
Minimum tillage (MT), and conventional tillage (CT).
 f
Fig. A.2 Climatic characteristics of the experimental site and time of measurements: daily

oo
average minimum, maximum air temperature, evaporation, and daily total rainfall. Time of

r
infiltration measurements is represented through a rectangular solid orange box.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of