Subodh Kulkarni Extension Engineer (Bio. & Ag. Engineering) Leo Espinoza Associate Professor (Crop & Soil Science) M. Isminov Program Technician ( Crop & Soil Science) Terry Griffin Assistant Professor (Ag Economics) Soil Compaction Patterns by Conventional Module Building and On Board Module Building Systems: Preliminary Observations

Acknowledgements  Cotton Incorporated  Mr. Herb Willcutt, Mississippi State Univ.  John Deere Inc.  Case IH Inc.  Special thanks for Cotton Producers Cooperation  Dr. Kris Brye 2

Outline  Introduction  Objectives  Materials and Methods  Results  Summary and Conclusions 3

Why Care Soil-Compaction?  Wheel traffic – soil compaction (Wood et al., 1991)  Studies at Auburn University indicated that in heavy textured soil cotton yield was reduced because of compacted surface (Burmester et al., 1993)  Compaction decreased yields by 7% in cotton at the 3 rd year of compaction treatment (Ishaq et al., 2003) 4

Conventional plots Chiseled & Compacted plots Control plots Severely Compacted plots Some observations July 5, 2005 from a test in Fayetteville, AR (Reproduced with permission of Dr. Bajwa) Plant Height Root Growth 5 SCALERULESCALERULE

Objectives  Investigate if the soil exhibits any compaction patterns when cotton is picked with On Board Module Building (OBMB) systems (Module Express 625, JD-7760) and Conventional JD  In case of compaction, determine levels of compaction  Compare the compaction patterns by OBMB technology with conventional picking systems 6

Material and Methods  Field - Near Senath, Dunklin Co., MO ~ 41 acres - Dubbs Silt Loam  Data collected only after harvest - Soil Moisture Content - Bulk Density - Cone Penetrometer Data (Cone Index) * Profile upto 18 inchs. 7

Data Collected Cone Penetrometer Data (Compaction Profiles) Bulk Density Soil Moisture Content At the Same Spot 8

Scheme of Experiment 36 rows plots ~ 0.37mi (2000 ft) 18 Row Border 6 Row skip Case IH – Module Express 625 JD 7760 – Round Bale Picker JD 9996 Conventional Picker Case IH – Module Express 625 JD 7760 – Round Bale Picker JD 9996 Conventional Picker N 9

Scheme of Data Collection (Cone Penetrometer, Soil Moisture) at each of the 40 points 33 m (100 ft) Machine Direction Soil Samples For Bulk Density Foot Prints of Left Inside Wheels were Followed 10 Wheels

Investigation We were interested in knowing for each of the system,  Intensity: how compacted the soil is ?  Extent: across the path, from beginning?  Depth: at what depth the highest compaction?  Thickness: how thick was the compacted layer?  Time: when and how if at all does the compaction occur? 11

Results : Comparison 12 ?

Comparison cont… 13

Comparison cont… 14

Comparison cont… 15

Comparison cont… 16

Results  Bulk Density  Moisture Content SystemAverage Bulk Density Start of Picking (3 obs.) g/cc Average Bulk Density End of Picking (3 obs.) g/cc Conventional JD ME SystemSoil Moisture Content (g/cc) Avg. of 3 Obs. At Start of Picking Soil Moisture Content (g/cc) Avg. of 3 Obs. At End of Picking Conventional JD ME

 Conventional picker (JD 9996) actually exhibited higher compaction and started at 2 inches from ground surface.  Without the boll buggy, there could be hypothetical situations where the new systems actually mean less field traffic  Bulk density was higher at the end of the pass of cotton picking, does agree with compaction profile data Summary and Conclusions 18

Future Plan  Presented study was a seed concept, more data would be collected for the three systems at multi-sites and multi- locations in coming seasons to accommodate various soil classes  Yield and soil electrical conductivity for each system would measured  Tillage treatments practiced last Fall/Spring would be noted  Economics related to yield and tillage would be worked out  Spatial technology would be applied and images would be acquired to investigate visual wheel traffic and yield patterns 19

Questions? 20