Figures (3)  Tables (3)

    • Figure 1. 

      Laboratory setup of the procedure for saturated hydraulic conductivity.

    • Figure 2. 

      Relationship between erodibility and soil particle size fractions and saturated hydraulic conductivity.

    • Figure 3. 

      Relationship between erodibility and soil organic carbon.

    • Tillage systemVery fine sand (%)Fine sand (%)Medium sand (%)Coarse sand (%)Very coarse sand (%)Silt
      (%)      		Clay
      (%)      		Total porosity (%)Water storage (mm)Saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm/h)Erodibility
      × 10−3 (Mg·h·MJ−1·mm−1)
      Control4.011.227.024.05.922.45.3454863413
      No-till4.611.622.821.25.527.76.64632.658524
      Minimum tillage3.510.923.522.36.520.013.3394434918
      Conventional tillage3.710.021.823.310.919.810.84223.112714
      Lsd (0.05)1.82.56.25.56.76.92.353467
      CV (%)22.911.513.012.146.315.312.96.415.22215.4

      Table 1. 

      Effect of tillage systems on sand fractions, total porosity, root water storage, hydraulic conductivity and soil erodibility.

    • TreatmentSoil erodibility values
      × 10−3 (Mg·h·MJ−1·mm−1)      		Organic carbon
      (%)
      Control171.65
      ½ PM + ½ NPK192.19
      Poultry manure192.67
      Mineral NPK211.82
      LSDP<0.0520.20
      % CV15.48.10

      Table 2. 

      Effect of soil amendments on soil organic carbon and soil erodibility.

    • Tillage practice Soil erodibility values (Mg·h·MJ−1·mm−1)
      No-amendment½ NPK + ½ PMNPKPM
      No-till0.0210.0250.0260.024
      Minimum tillage0.0190.0190.020.015
      Conventional tillage0.010.0140.0170.016
      Lsd (0.05)0.007
      CV (%)12.1

      Table 3. 

      Effect of tillage and soil amendments interactions on soil erosion susceptibility.