Changes to soil profile carbon and nutrient distribution following pasture renewal with full inversion tillage

Figures & data

Figure 1. Management calendar describing main activities for all plots, including specific tillage operations at FIT plots. Fertility sampling (S) occurred following the renovation of pastures, approximately 18–, 13–, and 8–months following tillage for Trials 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1. Soil chemical properties determined for each trial site prior to the tillage treatments and fertility assessments (from Calvelo- Pereira et al. 2019; Calvelo-Pereira et al. 2022).

Trial/Soil type	Depth (cm)	Parameters
		pH	Olsen P (mg kg^−1)	P-retention (%)	Sulphate-S (mg kg^−1)	Exchangeable basic cations (cmolc kg^−1)				CEC (cmolc kg^−1)
						K	Ca	Mg	Na
Trial 1/Alfisol	0–7.5	6.15	32.7	18–24^A	10.6	0.61	9.0	2.0	0.14	15.9
	7.5–15	5.81	13.9	–	5.9	0.26	6.0	1.0	0.09	12.1
Trial 2/Andisol	0–5	5.70	53.7	78	23.5	1.17	11.9	1.4	–	26.9
	5–10	5.70	28.7	85	16.3	0.65	9.3	0.7	–	24.4
	10–15	5.70	13.9	88	26.0	1.69	4.3	0.3	–	18.9
Trial 3/Alfisol	0–7.5	5.74	31.3	18–24^A	11.7	0.72	6.6	2.1	0.21	15.0
	7.5–15	5.59	22.7	–	13.7	0.34	5.4	1.4	0.14	12.5

^A range of values reported for the same soil type (Schofield et al. 1981; Bolan and Hedley 1998; Curtin and Syers 2001).

Figure 2. Distribution of total soil C and N concentrations with soil depth under tillage treatments and CP at (a) Trial 1 (b) Trial 2 and (c) Trial 3. At a given trial and soil depth interval, plotted points (means and standard error of mean) with the same letter(s) are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.

Table 2 . Vertical depth distribution of average pH, CEC, Ca, Mg, K and Na, and bulk density (BD) under tillage treatments and CP at each trial. At a given trial, variable, and soil depth interval, means with no or same letter(s) are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.

Variable	Depth (cm)	Treatment
		Trial 1			Trial 2			Trial 3
		NT	ST	FIT	NT	ST	FIT	NT	CP	FIT
pH	0–7.5	5.7	5.7	5.6	6.1	6.1	6.3	5.7	5.8	5.6
	7.5–15	5.5	5.5	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.8	5.7	5.8	5.7
	15–22.5	5.5	5.6	5.7	5.7	5.6	6.0	5.7	5.8	5.7
	22.5–30	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.8	5.8	5.9	5.7	5.9	5.8
CEC (cmolc kg^−1)	0–7.5	18.0	14.4	15.4	28.5	24.9	18.9	20.5^a	17.5^ab	12.8^b
	7.5–15	14.6	12.3	16.0	21.8	19.7	19.6	15.2^a	12.5^a	13.7^a
	15–22.5	8.2	9.8	14.2	21.0	14.7	18.6	10.6^a	11.3^a	16.8^a
	22.5–30	9.4	9.4	9.9	13.0	13.7	15.9	9.1^a	10.8^a	14.9^a
Ca (cmolc kg^−1)	0–7.5	8.0	8.6	6.5	9.5	9.8	8.0	4.8	6.0	4.2
	7.5–15	6.4	6.4	8.3	2.8	4.0	6.4	3.6	4.7	5.1
	15–22.5	4.0	4.4	6.3	2.9	2.4	4.1	4.8	4.5	5.3
	22.5–30	3.7	3.9	4.7	2.3	2.3	2.9	4.4	3.9	4.3
Mg (cmolc kg^−1)	0–7.5	1.48^a	1.46^a	1.05^b	1.12	1.17	0.76	1.91^a	2.18^a	1.09^b
	7.5–15	0.98^ab	0.95^b	1.19^a	0.54	0.55	0.74	1.19^a	1.35^a	1.37^a
	15–22.5	0.67^b	0.73^b	1.08^a	0.63	0.37	0.55	0.85^b	0.97^b	1.46^a
	22.5–30	0.60^b	0.68^ab	0.83^a	0.59	0.39	0.40	0.77^b	0.86^ab	1.16^a
K (cmolc kg^−1)	0–7.5	0.50	0.47	0.51	0.48	0.59	0.49	0.71^a	0.75^a	0.25^b
	7.5–15	0.26	0.24	0.33	0.26	0.33	0.43	0.28^a	0.44^a	0.25^a
	15–22.5	0.18	0.14	0.20	0.23	0.27	0.27	0.19^a	0.35^a	0.37^a
	22.5–30	0.14	0.10	0.19	0.24	0.28	0.21	0.15^a	0.31^a	0.31^a
Na (cmolc kg^−1)	0–7.5	0.12	0.17	0.15	0.20	0.24	0.21	0.15	0.12	0.08
	7.5–15	0.07	0.09	0.16	0.11	0.10	0.19	0.14	0.08	0.06
	15–22.5	0.04	0.07	0.14	0.11	0.13	0.21	0.12	0.08	0.06
	22.5–30	0.04	0.06	0.10	0.12	0.15	0.18	0.10	0.11	0.12
BD (kg m^−3)	0–7.5	1210^a	1225^a	1330^a	725	623	763	1042^b	973^b	1312^a
	7.5–15	1385^a	1356^a	1150^b	1018	905	765	1333^a	1338^a	1258^a
	15–22.5	1409^a	1406^a	1257^a	1063	918	783	1317^a	1336^a	1168^b
	22.5–30	1489^a	1495^a	1504^a	1185	1060	913	1376^ab	1428^a	1313^b

Table 3 . The amounts (kg ha⁻¹) of nutrients applied in fertiliser and transferred by grazing animals during the periods of seedbed preparation and crop and pasture growth in Trial 1(grazed by dairy cows), Trial 2 (grazed by young bulls and sheep), renewal: old pasture – summer leafy turnip crop – new pasture, and Trial 3 (grazed by dairy cows), renewal: old pasture –new pasture.

Trial/Treatment	Fertiliser applied			Nutrients transferred to turnip paddock^A				Nutrients transferred to new pasture area ^A				Total nutrients applied and transferred
	(kg ha^−1)			(kg ha^−1)				(kg ha^−1)				(kg ha^−1)
	Nov 2016–Sep 2017			Jan 2017–Mar 2017				Aug 2017–May 2018				Nov 2016–May 2018
Trial 1	N	P	K	N	P	K	Mg	N	P	K	Mg	N	P	K	Mg
NT	200	30	60	90	11	115	11	262	35	344	32	552	76	519	42
ST	200	30	60	117	14	146	13	270	38	369	34	586	82	575	48
FIT	200	60	120	131	16	167	15	250	33	356	32	581	109	643	47
	Nov 2017–Oct 2018			Feb 2018–Mar 2018				Oct 2018–Nov 2018				Feb 2017–Nov 2018
Trial 2				N	P	K	Mg	N	P	K	Mg	N	P	K	Mg
NT	149	106	–	158	28	299	24	31	2	37	2	337	136	336	26
ST	149	106	–	150	16	216	23	32	3	40	2	332	125	255	25
FIT	149	106	–	184	21	340	30	22	2	28	1	355	129	368	31
	Mar 2018–							May 2018–Nov 2018				Mar 2018–Nov 2018
Trial 3								N	P	K	Mg	N	P	K	Mg
NT	28	31	28					198	27	284	17	226	58	312	17
CP	28	31	28					204	30	303	17	232	61	331	17
FIT	28	31	28					187	25	289	15	215	56	317	15

^A estimated by the modified model of Salazar et al. (2010).

–, K not applied.

Figure 3. Regression outputs between CEC and soil C at (a) Trial 1 (b) Trial 2 and (c) Trial 3, using data from the various depth intervals. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Figure 4. Distribution of Olsen P concentrations with soil depth under the tillage treatments and CP at (a) Trial 1 (b) Trial 2 and (c) Trial 3. At a given Trial and soil depth interval, plotted points (mean and standard error of mean) with the same or no letter(s) are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.

Figure 5. Element concentration (%): (a) N, (b) P, (c) K, and (d) Mg for crop and pasture herbage samples. For each element, the ranges of concentration highlighted correspond to normal range for Brassica and optimum range for mixed pasture (Morton and Roberts 2016; Roberts and Morton 2016; Morton et al. 2020).

Table 4. Mean herbage dry matter (DM, kg ha⁻¹) and nutrient (N, P, K, Mg, kg ha⁻¹) accumulated in the crop phase and first pasture grazing in Trial 1(grazed by dairy cows), Trial 2 (grazed by young bulls and sheep), renewal: old pasture – summer leafy turnip crop – new pasture, and Trial 3 (grazed by dairy cows), renewal: old pasture – new pasture. For each variable, considering either crop or pasture and each trial independently, the effect of treatment (i.e. NT, ST, FIT, or CP) was tested following a one-way ANOVA; at a given trial, herbage, and variable, means with no or same letter(s) are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.

Herbage	Variable	Units		Trial 1			Trial 2			Trial 3
			NT	ST	FIT	NT	ST	FIT	NT	CP	FIT
Crop	DM	(kg ha^−1)	6349^b	7963^a	9338^a	6282^b	7261^b	9575^a	–	–	–
	N	(kg ha^−1)	161^b	245^a	293^a	186	200	244	–	–	–
	P	(kg ha^−1)	17^c	27^b	36^a	35	26	34	–	–	–
	K	(kg ha^−1)	219^a	312^ab	386^a	313	253	395	–	–	–
	Mg	(kg ha^−1)	14^b	20^a	22^a	25^b	28^b	35^a	–	–	–
Pasture	DM	(kg ha^−1)	3349	3241	2954	1295	1365	1736	3601^a	2439^b	2905^b
	N	(kg ha^−1)	95	94	79	35	37	44	160^a	93^c	133^b
	P	(kg ha^−1)	14^a	14^a	11^b	4	4	5	15^a	11^b	11^b
	K	(kg ha^−1)	125	128	112	36	40	49	128^a	74^b	117^a
	Mg	(kg ha^−1)	6^a	6^a	4^b	2	2	2	9^a	6^b	6^b

Note: –, not applicable.

Calvelo- Pereira R, Hedley MJ, Hanly J, Hedges M, Bretherton M, Beare MH, McNally SR. 2019. Full inversion tillage pasture renewal offers greenhouse gas mitigation options: the Manawatu experience. In: LD Currie, CL Christensen, editors. ‘Nutrient Loss Mitigations for Compliance in Agriculture. Palmerston North, New Zealand’, 2019. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University; p. 11–11.

 Google Scholar

Calvelo-Pereira R, Hedley MJ, Hanly JA, Beare MH, McNally SR, Bretherton MR. 2022. Spring pasture renewal involving full inversion tillage and a summer crop can facilitate soil C storage, improve crop yields and lower N leaching. Soil and Tillage Research. 219:105347–105347.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schofield PE, Gregg PEH, Syers JK. 1981. ‘Biosuper’ as a phosphate fertiliser: a glasshouse evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 9:63–67.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bolan NS, Hedley MJ. 1998. Developments in some aspects of reactive phosphate rock research and use in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 37:861–884.

 Google Scholar

Curtin D, Syers JK. 2001. Lime-induced changes in indices of soil phosphate availability. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 65:147–152.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salazar M, Hedley M, Horne D. 2010. Using turnips to reduce soil K loading on the effluent block. Lincoln, New Zealand: Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association.

 Google Scholar

Morton JD, Roberts AHC. 2016. Fertiliser use on New Zealand sheep and beef farms. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Research Association.

 Google Scholar

Roberts AHC, Morton JD. 2016. Fertiliser use on New Zealand dairy farms. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Research Association.

 Google Scholar

Morton JD, Stafford AD, Roberts AHC. 2020. Fertilizer use on New Zealand forage crops. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Research Association.

 Google Scholar

Data availability

The data from this study are available upon request.