Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

Mansonia Pulido-Moncada; Søren O. Petersen; Lars J. Munkholm

doi:10.1007/s13593-022-00773-9

Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

Pulido-Moncada, Mansonia; Petersen, Søren O.; Munkholm, Lars J. 2022-06-01 00:00:00 Nitrous oxide (N O) is the contributor to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions with the highest warming global potential. It is widely recognised that traffic and animal-induced compaction can lead to an increased potential for N O emissions by decreasing soil oxygen supply. The extent to which the spatial and temporal variability of N O emissions can be explained by soil compaction is unclear. This review aims to comprehensively discuss soil compaction effects on N O emissions, and to under- stand how compaction may promote N O emission hotspots and hot moments. An impact factor of N O emissions due to 2 2 compaction was calculated for each selected study; compaction effects were evaluated separately for croplands, grasslands and forest lands. Topsoil compaction was found to increase N O emissions by 1.3 to 42 times across sites and land uses. Large impact factors were especially reported for cropland and grassland soils when topsoil compaction—induced by field traffic and/or grazing—is combined with nitrogen input from fertiliser or urine. Little is known about the contribution of subsoil compaction to N O emissions. Water-filled pore space is the most common water metric used to explain N O emission vari- 2 2 ability, but gas diffusivity is a parameter with higher prediction potential. Microbial community composition may be less critical than the soil environment for N O emissions, and there is a need for comprehensive studies on association between environ- mental drivers and soil compaction. Lack of knowledge about the interacting factors causing N O accumulation in compacted soils, at different degrees of compactness and across different spatial scales, limits the identification of high-risk areas and development of efficient mitigation strategies. Soil compaction mitigation strategies that aim to loosen the soil and recover pore system functionality, in combination with other agricultural management practices to regulate N O emission, should be evaluated for their effectiveness across different agro-climatic conditions and scales. . . . . Keywords Hotspots Hot moments Topsoil compaction Subsoil compaction Gas diffusivity 1 Introduction Soil compaction is exacerbated under wet conditions and at low soil organic matter contents (Hamza and Anderson, Soil compaction is a component of land degradation, which 2005). Under such conditions, the intrinsic soil factors (e.g. has mainly been associated with agricultural traffic, forest texture, aggregate stability) interact with the external pressure harvesting, animal trampling and industrial activities (Batey, forces (e.g. wheel load, inflation pressure, traction, number of 2009). This degradation process is defined by the European passes, stocking rate, trampling frequency) to determine the Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) as ‘a form of physical degradation extent (i.e. topsoil only, below the plough layer, or to greater resulting in densification and distortion of the soil where bio- depth) and degree of compactness. logical activity, porosity and permeability are reduced, One of the concerns about soil compaction is its potential strength is increased and soil structure partly destroyed’. contribution to emission of nitrous oxide (N O) by promoting oxygen (O ) limited conditions (Fig. 1). Nitrous oxide is a by- product of nitrification and a free intermediate of denitrification at the interface (in space or time) between aerobic and anaerobic * Mansonia Pulido-Moncada conditions (Butterbach-Bahl et al., 2013), and changes in soil mansoniapulido@gmail.com structural quality caused by compaction may influence both production, consumption and transport of N O (Ball et al., Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Research Centre 1999a). Depending on the climate scenario and management Foulum, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark 38 Page 2 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Fig. 1 Example of nitrous oxide flux measurement in a long-term tillage experiment (no-till and ploughed soil with and without a winter cover crop) (left), and a compacted soil structure with high potential to increase nitrous oxide emissions (right). Photographs by the authors. practices adopted, emissions of N O from agricultural soils are abundance and activity, mineral N, labile C, soil pH, soil tem- expected to increase with increasing compaction (Flynn et al., perature, water content or water-filled pore space (WFPS), soil 2005), which represents a potentially high off-site cost for envi- texture, soil structure (aggregate sizes, pore space characteris- ronmental damage (Chamen et al., 2015), as N Oisassigneda tics, gas diffusion rate), surface sealing and soil drainage global warming potential of 265 (IPCC, 2014). (Laudone et al., 2011; Ball, 2013; Garcia-Marco et al., The fact that soil compaction can potentially increase N O 2014). The extent of soil compaction (Garcia-Marco et al., emissions from agricultural soils has been recognised in the 2014), and the spatiotemporal distribution of the above- literature, and for example Hu et al. (2021) published a review mentioned factors in the soil profile (Groffman et al., 2009), of soil compaction effects on productivity and environment are additional factors in the regulation of N O emissions. with New Zealand as a case study, which concluded that the The release of N O to the atmosphere is determined by the extent to which the variability in N O emissions can be ex- balance between production, consumption and transport plained by soil compaction is unclear. Alleviating C (Ambus (Soane and Vanouwerkerk, 1995), and therefore the pore sys- and Christensen, 1994) or N limitation (Ball et al., 2000)has tem of a given soil, as determined by texture and structure, is been found to reduce the spatial variability of N O emissions, critical in regulating the gas exchange between soil and atmo- and there were positive interactions with, respectively, wet de- sphere (Laudone et al., 2011). The soil pore system is studied pressions and soil compaction, presumably because production in many research papers, and found to changes with depth, of N O was sustained in a larger fraction of the soil volume. being best described as having a sponge-like system in the Furthermore, the response of N O emission to soil physical topsoil, whereas a tube-like system dominates the subsoil changes caused by soil compaction are not yet well understood, (Lamandé et al., 2021). When compaction occurs, pores are and knowledge gaps related to soil physical parameters, organic not completely destroyed, but instead, a closing of branching matter decomposition, microbiology and compaction drivers pores and diameter reduction of vertical (tube-like) pores can were identified. The present review aims to comprehensively be seen (Schäffer et al., 2008; Schjønning et al., 2013). In discuss the mechanisms behind soil compaction effects on N O general, compaction, therefore, promotes the development of emissions, with emphasis on understanding the promotion of a direction-dependent behaviour of the pore system (Dörner N O emission hotspots and hot moments by soil compaction. and Horn, 2006, 2009) that negatively affects the size, tortu- osity and connectivity of pores, and directly affects fluid trans- We first introduce the factors determining the effect of soil compaction on N O emissions. Then follows a section port in soil (e.g. Kim et al., 2010; Berisso et al., 2012; Berisso reviewing, based on calculated impact factors, observations et al., 2013; Kuncoro et al., 2014; Zhai and Horn, 2019). This of soil compaction effects separately for cropland, grassland in turn may promote anaerobic conditions and change the and forest land. This is followed by sections discussing direction of soil processes (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006; Chamen knowledge gaps and strategies for mitigating compaction ef- et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2019; Rohe et al., 2021). As fects on N O emissions, respectively. summarised by Ball (2013), limited pore continuity and gas transport capacity within (leading to anaerobic centres) and between aggregates (blocked or reduced inter-aggregate po- 2 Soil compaction as a driver of N Oemissions rosity) influence N O production, consumption and transport to the soil surface. As a product of microbial nitrogen transformations in soil, At the level of the soil profile, soil N O emission responses to N O emissions depend on the co-occurrence of suitable soil compaction are regulated by factors such as microbial 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 3 of 26 38 electron donors and acceptors. Denitrification including nitri- even to regional level (Groffman et al., 2009). The variability fier denitrification has been identified as the main source of of N O emission hotspot may depend on spatial scale, with N O emissions from soil (Skiba et al., 1993; Saggar et al., gas diffusion as an important environmental factor (van den 2009;Koolet al., 2011;Harriset al., 2021), and this process Heuvel et al., 2009). requires degradable organic matter (energy source and O External factors affecting the occurrence of N Ohotspots 2 2 − − sink) and nitrogen oxyanions (NO or NO ). For a given and hot moments include weather conditions and farming op- 3 2 soil, as defined by texture, pH etc., the balance between N O erations (Chamen et al., 2015). Hotspots may become activat- and N production further depends on the degree of anaerobi- ed under wet conditions (Grant et al., 2006; Ruser et al., osis, since even traces of O inhibit the expression of N O 2006). In the presence of substrates, precipitation (or irriga- 2 2 reductase, the enzyme responsible for N O reduction to N tion) can induce N O emissions by increasing soil water con- 2 2 2 (Spiro, 2012). Therefore, soil compaction effects on N O tent and thereby reduce the supply of O to sites of microbial 2 2 emissions will depend on management factors such as residue activity (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006;Beare et al., 2009). Air tem- recycling, fertilisation with manure or synthetic N and traffic, perature also controls N O emissions from soils by affecting factors which all influence soil O status. soil temperature and, consequently, rates of enzymatic pro- Soil volumes and episodes supporting N O emissions are cesses (Schindlbacher et al., 2004; Flynn et al., 2005). Soil referred to as hotspots and hot moments, respectively structural conditions have been found to affect soil thermal (Wagner-Riddle et al., 2020). Figure 2 presents a conceptual properties. Schjønning (2021), for example, found that ther- framework to illustrate how differing soil structural states and mal conductivity increases with bulk density, and Zhen et al. interacting factors may trigger net N O production and trans- (2019) showed that thermal conductivity of undisturbed sam- port. The occurrence of N O emitting hotspots varies with the ples is larger than on remolded samples when measured at the scale of measurement (Luo et al., 2017; Wagner-Riddle et al., same degree of saturation and dry bulk density. 2020), i.e. ranging from a few millimetres (Laudone et al., Depending on the farming system, management strategies 2011;Rohe et al., 2021) to metres at field or landscape level such as the quantity of N applied in animal excreta and (Ambus and Christensen, 1994; Jacinthe and Lal, 2006), or fertilisers (e.g. Hu et al., 2020), the intensity of animal Fig. 2 Conceptual framework illustrating how differing soil structural structural soil quality based on the Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure statuses, and interacting factors, may trigger hotspots and hot moments test (Guimarães et al., 2011). for N O production and transport. Soil quality score refers to the 2 38 Page 4 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 trampling (e.g. de Klein and Eckard, 2008) or traffic (e.g. effects of soil compaction on N O emissions, papers including Pradel et al., 2013) in combination with local weather and soil one or several compaction treatments (traffic-, animal- or conditions (soil type, structural status and landscape position), repacking-induced compaction) were selected and then all contribute to determine the occurrence of N Ohotspotsand organised in tables by land use (cropland, grassland and forest hot moments (Chamen et al., 2015). land) and measurement method (in situ or ex-situ). The impact Spatiotemporal distribution of N O emission hotspots is also factor for N O emissions shown in the tables is calculated as 2 2 influenced by management practices (Ball, 2013). Under good the ratio of the emissions from the compaction treatment to the structural conditions, the soil is mostly well-aerated, and deni- non-compacted/control, using either mean or cumulative trification and N O production is restricted to patches within the values depending on what was reported in the papers. In cases soil that are dominated by fresh organic matter undergoing de- where the papers provided data from different sites and report- composition, such as plant debris (Parkin, 1987; Lietal., 2016) ed combined effects, a mean value across factors was calcu- or manure (Markfoged et al., 2011). Less intense decomposer lated instead. Additionally, the information provided in the activity may also, with adequate N supply, support N Oemis- papers with respect to the type of compactness indicators re- sion when soil volumes are saturated following rainfall or irri- ported was used to assess the level of detail evaluated and the gation (hot moments) (Kostyanovsky et al., 2019). type of association with N O emissions provided (theoretical Within compacted soil layers, the dominant tube-like pores or mathematical associations). in the system are critical upward and downward conductive paths for O and gases produced (Laudone et al., 2011). Soil 3.1 Impact of topsoil compaction on N O emissions 2 2 structure with preferential pathways allows applied N fertilisers to be transport with infiltrating water, which may For this review, topsoil is defined as the soil depth of the then become a source of N O at depth below the plough layer plough layer, which is around 0.25 m. Traffic-induced com- (Ball, 2013). Through the creation of bio-pores, earthworm paction occurs from the top few centimetres up to 0.9 m depth activity has been reported to increase N O production, yet (e.g. Håkansson and Reeder, 1994; Berisso et al., 2012)and its direct effect on emissions is negligible when compared can become a long-lasting problem (Berisso et al., 2012;Etana with the overall soil fluxes (e.g. Bertora et al., 2007). Rather, et al., 2013), whereas trampling-induced compaction is report- in the massive structure of compacted soil, particularly the ed to occur only in the topsoil, with the greatest impact caused subsoil, the transport functionality of burrows could be a fac- at depths of < 0.10 m (Hamza and Anderson, 2005). tor of importance for the release of N O from the sites of In Tables 1, 2 and 3, it can be seen that topsoil compaction production to the atmosphere. A similar contribution is ex- generally increases N O emissions, with the highest reported pected from deep cracks. Blocked or disconnected structural rate being 42 times higher than in uncompacted soil. pores may hold N O which could be released when these soil structural pores are disrupted (Ball, 2013). Importantly, the 3.1.1 Croplands distribution and connectivity between hotspots zones and the upward transport pathways controls the rate of N O emissions N O emissions from croplands are characterised by a large 2 2 to atmosphere, as a longer path delays and allows for reduc- temporal variation, with seasonal peaks as a response to tion of N O during transport (Laudone et al., 2011). fertiliser application, precipitation/irrigation and/or freeze- In summary, N O emissions from soil depend on biophys- thaw events (Bessou et al., 2010; Gregorich et al., 2014;Liu ical interactions, structural stratification in the soil and et al., 2017). As mentioned above, soil compaction may ex- management practices, but the net effect of the many acerbate the production and emission of N Oassociated with potential interactions on N O emissions is complex and fertilisation and other management practices. requires further investigation. The work of Rohe et al. (2021) is an example of potential protocols for the assessment Fertilisation Table 1 shows for studies conducted in croplands of the relationships between soil structural changes, climatic that topsoil compaction is reported to increase N O emissions conditions and the denitrification process through the use of between 1.4 (Hansen et al., 1993) and 9.9 times (Ruser et al., advanced imaging techniques in combination with transport 1998), and up to 42 times when compaction + NO based N- parameter measurements. fertiliser + glucose was tested (Bao et al., 2012). Across a num- ber of published studies, the differences in N O emissions be- tween compacted and non-compacted areas were especially 3 Impact of soil compaction on N Oemissions large after N fertilisation (Ball et al., 1999b; Sitaula et al., 2000). The potential residual effect of soil compaction and N We used Web of Science to review the literature published fertiliser on cumulative N O emissions was found to be signifi- before 19 April 2021 using the search term ‘soil-compaction cant 1 year after compaction and where fertiliser treatments were AND (nitrous-oxide-emission* OR N O)’. To determine the applied to a clay loam soil cropped to maize (Gregorich et al., 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 5 of 26 38 Table 1 Example of croplands studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact Factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non- compacted/control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions In situ Australia, 15, Wheat, barley, From sandy Sampling frequency from 8 to 18 Controlled traffic farming fields Random traffic (on 2.3 (1.2-5.0) Not provided Tullberg 1-2 sorghum loam to times per site per cropping have permanent traffic lanes permanent crop et al. clay soils season and non-trafficked beds. beds) to permanent (2018) Additionally, a random wheel untrafficked beds track applied on the permanent crop beds mimic traffic impact in non-controlled (random) traffic farming Random traffic to 1.6 (1.1–4.0) permanent controlled traffic (average of both traffic lanes and untrafficked beds) Australia, 4, Apple and cherry Sandy loam Weekly sampling during the peak Details on traffic operations in the Grassed interrow to 1.6 Bulk density: Interrow = Swarts −3 1 orchards growing season interrows was not provided. tree line 1.18-1.53 Mg m , Treeline= et al. −3 (November–April) and once 1.03–1.48 Mg m . (2016) monthly during the winter Infiltration: Interrow = ~ −1 period (May–August) 0.5–1.2 cm h , Tree line = ~ −1 14–12 cm h , Statistics not provided Data not shown: volumetric water content, water-filled pore space, gravimetric water content and matric potential. Water-filled pore space mentioned as being higher at two sites along the interrow than the tree line. Statistical association analysis between water content and porosity with N O emissions were provided. Canada, 1, 3 Maize and Clay loam Sampling frequency from 15 to 21 Wheel-beside-wheel passes with Compacted (+ N 2.3 (1.6–3.4) Relative soil bulk density: Gregorich soybean times (depending on the year) at an agricultural tractor with fertiliser rates) to Compacted = 90–92%, et al. approximately 1-week intervals single rear and front tyres. uncompacted (+ N Uncompacted = 80–81%. (2014) throughout the growing season Total tractor mass+tank of 14 fertiliser rates) Significant only at 0-0.15 m Mg. Compaction was applied depth, (p < 0.05) annually in spring 38 Page 6 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions China, 1, 1 Winter Silt loam During the growing season of One compaction event with a Soil compaction 42 Bulk density: Compacted = Bao et al. − −3 wheat-summer maize, gas sampling was done ‘compactor’ at 0.2 m depth 1 (+NO N fertiliser 1.50 Mg m , Uncompacted = (2012) −3 maize rotation once every 3 days. Daily week before sowing the maize. +glucose)to 1.37 Mg m , Statistics not measurements only after Details on ‘compactor’ uncompacted (+ provided fertilisation and irrigation characteristics and compaction zero N fertiliser) Water-filled pore space events for approximately 10 pressure was not provided. (distribution during the days. measured period): Compacted = ~ 60% (peaks), Uncompacted = ~ 80% (peaks), Statistics not provided China, 1, 1 Winter wheat Silt loam Gas sampling was conducted at One compaction event was Compacted (± In the study Bulk density: Compacted = Liu et al. −3 7-10 days interval during the applied to mesocosm installed biochar) to the 1.06–1.30 Mg m , (2017) growing season. 1-2 day in the field by placing a 400 kg uncompacted (± treatments Uncompacted = 0.86-1.13 Mg −3 interval was used after N panel+bricks on top of the biochar) were m ,(p < 0.01) fertilisation until N O corresponding mesocosm to found not Total porosity: Compacted = emissions reached levels equal pressure of 2 × 10 Pa signifi- 51–60%, Uncompacted = comparable to those before cantly 57-67%, (p < 0.01) fertilisation different Soil water holding capacity: Compacted = 36-43%, Uncompacted = 41–56%, (p < 0.001) France, 1, 2 Sugar beet Silt loam Four times per day throughout the Annual pass of a loaded tractor in Compacted to 1.5 Bulk density: Compacted = Bessou −3 growth cycle of the crop (8–9 early March under wet uncompacted 1.43–1.68 Mg m , et al. months per year) conditions. Details on tractor Uncompacted = 1.24–1.29 Mg (2010) −3 characteristics and compaction m , Statistics not provided pressure was not provided Water-filled pore space Distribution during the measured period. Variation between years. Mean data not shown. Statistics not provided Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam Daily measurements during the Ridge-till practice caused Ridges to 1.6 Bulk density: Ridge = 0.99 Mg Flessa et al. −3 2 growingseason(Mayto compaction in the interrow by uncompacted m , (2002) September) each year tractor traffic. Details on traffic interrows Compacted interrow = 1.38 Mg −3 characteristics and compaction m , Uncompacted interrow = −3 pressure was not provided 1.11 Mg m , Statistics not Tractor-compacted 2.3 provided interrows to Water-filled pore space: Ridge = uncompacted 30%, Compacted interrow = interrows 61%, Uncompacted interrow = 49%, Statistics not provided Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 7 of 26 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam Daily measurements during the Soil compaction by tractor traffic. Tractor-compacted 6.4-9.9 Bulk density: Compacted = Ruser et al. −3 1 growing season Details on traffic interrow 1.43-1.68 Mg m , (1998) characteristics and compaction (+fertiliser) to Uncompacted = 1.24-1.29 Mg −3 pressure was not provided uncompacted m interrow Macropores > 54 μm: (+fertiliser) Compacted = 4%, Uncompacted = 22%, Pore size distribution provided Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period provided Statistics not provided Netherlands, Carrot, spinach, Loam Measurement frequency from a All machinery is automatically Random traffic to 1.5 (1.3-1.8) Total porosity: Random Vermeulen 1, 2 onion (tile-- daily basis (after manure guided over fixed traffic lanes. untrafficked beds traffic-compacted = 0.45–0.48 and 3 −3 drained) spreading or after rain events) The main tractor was a (seasonal-- m m , Untrafficked beds = Mosque- 3 −3 to 1–2 measurements per week 140 kW four-wheel drive, controlled traffic 0.48-0.51 m m ,(p < 0.05) ra (2009) at the end of the growing fitted with 30-cm wide rubber farming) Air-filled porosity: Random season. Growing season for 2–3 tracks to increase tractor traffic-compacted = ~ 3 −3 months depending on the crop. stability and to avoid lateral 0.10–0.16 m m , slippage under wet field Untrafficked beds = 0.14–0.20 3 −3 conditions. Tractors used for m m ,(p < 0.05) seedbed preparation and Maximum penetration resistance sowing in spinach and onions (across crops): Random were operated with 0.5 bar tyre traffic-compacted = ~ 3 MPa, pressure. For random traffic Untrafficked beds = ~ 2 MPa, treatment manure application Penetration resistance was conducted with an extra distribution in the 0-30 cm pass of a tractor. depth. Only significant for spinach. Norway, 1, 4 Green fodder/ Sandy loam Sampling frequency from 4 to 17 Annual compaction by two Compacted (+ NPK 2.7 Gas diffusivity: Compacted = ~ Sitaula 2 −1 barley with ley times (depending on the year), passes of a 4-Mg tractor, wheel fertiliser) to 1.5 mm s (0.05–0.1 m et al. 2 −1 (timothy and during the first half of the by wheel in early spring. The uncompacted (+ depth), ~ 0.6 mm s (2000) clover) growing season during the 7th, rear wheels were NPK fertiliser) (0.1–0.18 m depth), 2 −1 under-sown 8th, 9th and 10th years of double-settings with an Uncompacted = ~ 1.9 mm s fertilisation and compaction inflation pressure of 57 kPa. In (0.05–0.1 m depth), ~1.2 mm −1 treatment front, there were low-pressure s (0.1–0.18 m depth), tyres Statistics not provided Norway, 1, 1 Green fodder/ Sandy loam 14 times in the period 4 June-8 Annual compaction by two Compacted 1.4 Total porosity: Distribution Hansen th barley/peas/- July during the 7 year of passes of a 4-Mg tractor, wheel (+NPK/cattle during measured period et al. vetch and fertilisation and compaction by wheel in early spring. The slurry) to Air-filled porosity: Distribution (1993) rye-grass treatment rear wheels were uncompacted during measured period. 38 Page 8 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions double-settings with an (+NPK/cattle Compacted = ~ 0.02–0.14 m −3 inflation pressure of 57 kPa. In slurry) m , Uncompacted = ~ 3 −3 front, there were low-pressure 0.08–0.18 m m tyres Compacted 0.9 Water-filled pore space (after (unfertilised) to rainfall): Compacted = 81%, uncompacted Uncompacted = 73% (unfertilised) Statistics not provided United Winter barley – Daily measurements from March Compaction by loaded tractor (up Compacted to 1.6 (1.3–2.4) Bulk density: Heavy compaction Ball et al. −3 Kingdom, to May to 4.2 Mg). Details on traffic uncompacted =1.4 Mg m ,75–89% of the (1999) 2, 1 characteristics and compaction theoretical (proctor) maxima pressure was not provided Penetration resistances: Heavy compaction=2MPa, Information provided as complementary, Data not shown Ex situ Canada, 1, - Maize Clay loam Daily during 18 days of incubation Compaction was applied through Compacted 20 Bulk density: Compacted = Beare et al. −3 multiple passes with a tractor (+wet/dry/wet 1.49 Mg m , Uncompacted = (2009) −3 during wet conditions after cycles) to 1.01 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) fertilisation but prior to sowing uncompacted Porosity: Compacted = 44%, maizecropineachoftwo (+wet/dry/wet Uncompacted = 62%, (p < consecutive years prior to the cycles) 0.05) measurements Water-filled pore space: Compacted = 77% (wet soil) and 14% (dry soil), Uncompacted = 45% (wet soil) and7% (drysoil),(p < 0.05) Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam During 42 days of incubation after Soil compaction by tractor traffic Tractor-compacted 0.3-2.0 (at Bulk density: Ridge = 1.02 Mg Ruser et al. −3 – moisture content adjusted and interrow (+soil 90-98% m , Compacted interrow = (2006) −3 fertilisation applied. Then the moisture levels of 1.65 Mg m , Uncompacted −3 cores were dried for 2 weeks. +fertiliser) to water-- interrow =1.24Mgm ,(p < On day 56 after fertilisation, the uncompacted filled pore 0.05) cores were rewetted to the interrow (+soil space) Water-filled pore space: N Oflux initial soil water content and moisture levels + rates measured at 40, 60, 70, N O fluxes were monitored for fertiliser) and ridge 90, and 98% an additional 16 days. United Carrot Sandy loam For 1 h Multiple passes of a tractor, 6.4 Tramline to reference 1.3 (2–7cm Bulk density: Tramline centre Ball and −3 Kingdom, and loam Mg, on row-crop wheels with cropped zone depth) =1.50–1.54 Mg m ,In Crawfor- 1, 1 35-cm-wide tyres at high cropped rows = 1.02–1.09 Mg d(2009) −3 m ,(p < 0.05) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 9 of 26 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions inflation pressures (250–300 4.6 Vane shear strength: Tramline kPa) (15–20 c- centre = 62–>90kPa,In mdepth) cropped rows = 9–21 kPa, (p < Statistics not 0.05) provided Water content: Tramline centre = 13–21%, In cropped rows = 11–19%, (p > 0.05) Structure score: Tramline centre = 4.5-5, In cropped rows = 1.6, Statistics not provided Maximum Penetration resistance (10 cm depth): Tramline centre = 4–6MPa In cropped rows ≤ 0.5 MPa, Distributioninthe 0–50 cm depth provided, Statistics not provided 38 Page 10 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 2 Example of grassland studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non-compacted/ control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions In situ Australia, 2, Kikuyu pasture over-sown Clay 48 samplings per year Intensive (farm stocking rate of 5 Intensive grazing 5.8 Soil water content: Intensive grazing = De Rosa et al. −1 −1 3 with Italian ryegrass and head ha ) and non-intensive to 0.4–0.6 g g , non-intensive (2020) clay grazing systems (farm stocking non-intensive grazing = data not provided −1 loam rate of 3 head ha ) grazing Brazil, 1, 1 Pasture of ryegrass plus oats Clay 13 sampling sessions over ~ 10 Two sheep grazing levels Grazed 0.4 Water-filled pore space: Distribution Piva et al. in winter, and common months at intervals of 2 to 76 days, (continuous grazing, and (+fertiliser) to during the measuring period is (2019) beans in the summer being the shortest intervals after ungrazed). The stocking rate ungrazed given, but differences between nitrogen application. wasvariedtomaintainthe (+fertiliser) grazed and ungranzed are not pasture with a mean height of provided. Bulk density and water 0.14 m content data were not shown. Czech A perennial mixture of Sandy Four occasions during winter Since1995, the 4.04 ha pasture Footpath to In the study the Bulk density: Footpath = 1.46 Mg Simek et al. −3 Republic, grasses, clovers and other loam hadbeen usedby around90 light/none treatments m , Light/none impact = 1.32 Mg (2006) −3 1, 1 dicotyledonous plants cows each winter impact of were found m ,(p <0.05) animals not Total porosity: Footpath = 42%, significantly Light/none impact = 46%, (not different significantly different) Water-filled pore space: Footpath = 82%, Light/none impact = 77% (not significantly different) Germany, 1, Mixture species: perennial Sandy Daily sampling after compaction and Soil compaction by a single pass Compacted (+ 1.5 (grass Bulk density after compaction: Schmeer et al. −3 3 ryegrass, meadow fescue, loam fertilization for two weeks, then of a tractor with a slurry tanker fertiliser) to swards) 1.48–1.57 Mg m (2014) smooth-stalked meadow the sampling intervals were (total weight = 22 Mg, contact uncompacted 0.9 Soil water content at the time of grass, timothy grass, extended to once a week. area pressure = 321 kPa) in (+ fertiliser) (lucerne–- compaction: Compacted = orchard grass, white Sampling period from April to early April every year grass 35–51%, Uncompacted = 34–39% clover and lucerne October in all experimental years mixtures) Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period was modelled New Grass Sandy Daily sampling during 70 days Trampling was simulated using a Trampled 2.8 Bulk density: Trampled = 1.00 Mg (Ball et al., −3 −3 Zealand, loam mechanical hoof and applying (+urine) to not m , Not trampled = 0.96 Mg m 2012) 1, – a pressure of 220 kPa for 5 s trampled (not significantly different) twice (+urine) Volumetric water content: Trampled = 3 −3 0.46 m m ,Not trampled =0.45 3 −3 m m ,(p <0.05) Water-filled pore space: Trampled = 0.81, Not trampled = 0.76, (p < 0.01) Total porosity: Trampled = 0.57 m −3 3 −3 m , Not trampled = 0.59 m m , (not significantly different) Air-filled porosity: Trampled = 0.11 3 −3 3 m m , Not trampled = 0.14 m −3 m ,(p <0.01) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 11 of 26 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions Air permeability: Trampled = 24 μm , Not trampled = 94 μm ,(p < 0.001) Pore continuity: Trampled = 288, Not trampled = 693, (p < 0.05) New Permanent legume-based Sandy Daily from September to December Uniformly compacted soil was Compacted (+ 7 Bulk density: Compacted = Bhandral et al. −3 Zealand, pasture loam obtained through a total of 10 different N 1.19–1.31 Mg m , Uncompacted (2007) −3 1, – passes of Toyota Hilux Utility sources) to = 1.18-1.19 Mg m ,(p <0.05) vehicle with a ground pressure uncompacted Penetrometer resistance: Compacted = −1 of 632 kPa at 2.78 m s (+ different N 1.30-1.86 MPa, Uncompacted = sources) 1.19–1.28 MPa, Statistics not provided Oxygen diffusion rate: Compacted = −2 −1 0.29–0.58 μgcm min , Uncompacted = 0.52–0.63 μg −2 −1 cm min , Statistics not provided Water-filled pore space: Compacted = 0.54–1.21, Uncompacted = 0.59–0.94, Statistics not provided New Winter swede in a Silt 130 and 96 days Compaction was applied by Compacted (± 2.0–4.1 van der Bulk density: Compacted = −3 Zealand, previously pasture loam bodyweight, with stilts urine) to In the study the 1.12-1.21 Mg m , Uncompacted Weerden −3 2, 1 strapped on thebaseofshoes to uncompacted treatments =1.00–1.22 Mg m et al. simulate cow hoofs –pressure (no urine) were found Macroporosity: Compacted = 9–13%, (2012) of ca. 300 kPa. The swede crop Compacted (no not Uncompacted = 12–17% wasgrazedbycows urine) to significantly Total porosity: Compacted = 54–58%, uncompacted different Uncompacted = 54-62%, For all (no urine) three parameters, p <0.01 at 0–0.05 m depth and not significant at 0.05–0.1 cm depth Water-filled pore space: distribution during the measuring period, Compacted = 100% (wet), ~ 60% (dry), Uncompacted = 80–95% (wet), ~ 50% (dry) New Kale in a previously pasture Silty Twice a week for the first 6 weeks Compaction was applied by Compacted (± 3.2–7.4 Bulk density: Compacted = van der −3 Zealand, clay after treatment application and bodyweight, with stilts urine) to 0.79–0.82 Mg m , Uncompacted Weerden −3 1, 1 loam then once a week from June to strapped on thebaseofshoes to uncompacted =0.76–0.81 Mg m et al. October simulate cow hoofs –pressure (no urine) Macroporosity: Compacted = (2017) of ca. 300 kPa. The swede crop 22–28%, Uncompacted = 27–31% wasgrazedbycows Total porosity: Compacted = 69–70%, Uncompacted = 70-71%, For all parameters, p <0.01 at0–0.05 m depth and not significant at 0.05–0.1 m depth 38 Page 12 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compactiontreatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period, Compacted about 10% larger than the uncompacted United Perennial ryegrass Silt Weekly samplings with variation Twotramplingevents (7days Trampled (+ N In the study the Bulk density: Trampled = Hargreaves −3 Kingdom, clay within the years apart) were applied with 12 fertiliser/- ,Tractor = et al. treatments 1.11–1.21 Mg m −3 2, 3 loam cows of 520 kg each, during 1 slurry) to were found 1.13–1.23 Mg m , (2021) −3 and h. Trampling compactive uncompacted not Uncompacted = 0.94–1.18 Mg m san- pressure of ~250 kPa. (+ N significantly dy fertiliser/- different loam slurry) Mechanical compaction with a Mechanical 1.2–1.5 Water-filled pore space: Trampled = 10-ton tractor and a tyre compaction 83-90%, Tractor = 89-93%, pressure of 160 K N/m (+ N Uncompacted = 68–75%, For all applied to the complete area. fertiliser/- parameters, p <0.05onlyatone slurry) to site uncompacted (+ N fertiliser/- slurry) United Grassland Clay – Conventional traffic. Details on Conventional 1.9 Bulk density: Conventional traffic = Ball et al. −3 Kingdom, loam traffic characteristics and traffic to zero 1.48 Mg m , Zero traffic = (1997) −3 1, 2 compaction pressure was not traffic 1.31 Mg m , (3-year average was provided statistically different between treatments) Vane shear strength: Conventional traffic = 63 kPa, Zero traffic = 40 kPa, (3-year average was statistically different between treatments) Air-filled porosity: Conventional traffic = 5%, Zero traffic = 12%. Statistics not provided Air permeability: Conventional traffic 2 2 =361 μm , Zero traffic = 22 μm . Statistics not provided Relative diffusivity: Conventional traffic = 0.009, Zero traffic = 0.018. Statistics not provided Infiltration rate: Conventional traffic = −1 1.27 mm min , Zero traffic = −1 13.55 mm min . Statistics not provided 3.5 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 13 of 26 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions United A mixture of perennial Clay Daily measurements for 21 days Three passages of a mini-tractor Compacted (± Bulk density: Compacted = Yamulki and −3 Kingdom, ryegrass, clover and other loam between July and August towing a roller, 200 cm width, fertiliser ± 0.79–0.81 Mg m , Uncompacted Jarvis −3 1, – grasses with a total weight of ca. 500 tillage) to =0.76 Mgm (2002) kg uncompacted Water-filled pore space: Compacted = (+ fertiliser, 58–86%, Uncompacted = 56–80%. no-tillage) Statistics not provided Ex situ Brazil, 1, – Brachiaria brizantha Clay 25 times within 106 days of The soil (< 4mm) was compacted Compacted 1.5 Bulk density: Compacted = 2.0 Mg Cardoso et al. −3 −3 incubation by compressing the soil in the (+urine) to m , Uncompacted = 1.2 Mg m (2017) jars (using a piece of wood) up uncompacted Water-filled pore space: Compacted = to a bulk density of 2.0 Mg (+urine) 89–100%, Uncompacted = −3 m and a water-filled 40–62%. Statistics not provided pore-space of 56.8%. Netherlands, – Loamy 27 measurements during the 103-day Soil compaction was simulated by Compacted 5.0(26and50 Bulk density: Compacted = 1.22 Mg van Groenigen −3 −3 1, – sand incubation period compressing the soil in the jars (+urine) to mL urine m , Uncompacted = 1.07 Mg m et al. −1 using a piece of wood until the uncompacted kg dry Water-filled pore space: Compacted = (2005) initial bulk density was (+urine) soil) 100%, Uncompacted = 80%. increased from approximately 1.0(102mL Statistics not provided −3 −1 1.07–1.22 Mg m urine kg dry soil) New Ryegrass -white clover Silt Daily measurements during 36 days Repacked soil cores were Compacted In the study the Bulk density: Compacted = Harrison-Kirk −3 Zealand, loam constructed by packing (synthetic treatments 0.85–0.88 Mg m , Uncompacted et al. −3 1, – field-moist soil into PVC urine) to were found =0.82 Mgm ,(p < 0.001) (2015) cylinders applying pressure of uncompacted not Total porosity of 18–34% reduction either 220 or 400 kPa at the (synthetic significantly after compaction, (p < 0.001) core surface urine) different Water content (− 10 kPa): Compacted =52–54%, Uncompacted = 51%, (p < 0.001) New Perennial ryegrass and white – Daily measurements during 37 days Repacked soil cores with four Heavy 2.5 (aggregates Bulk density: Compacted = Uchida et al. −3 Zealand, clover different soil aggregate sizes (< compacted of < 1 mm) 1.08-1.29 Mg m , Uncompacted (2008) −3 1, 1 1.0–5.6 mm) to a level of (+urine) to 7.4-8.3 =0.78–0.97 Mg m (aggregates compaction ranged from 0.78 uncompacted (aggregates between < 1.0–5.6 mm). Statistics −3 to 1.29 Mg m . (+urine) of 1–4 mm) not provided 38 Page 14 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 3 Example of forest land studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact Factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non- compacted/control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil Sampling/ Compaction treatment characteristic Treatment Impact factor for N O Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture incubation effect studied emissions sites, Years period In situ Brazil, 2, 2 Timber Clay and 31 dates within Mechanical disturbance and compaction due to Logged area 1.7–17 Bulk density: Compacted = ~ 1.27 Mg Keller −3 −3 species sandy the 2 years the passage of skidders, loaders, crawler to m , Uncompacted = ~ 1.03 Mg m ,(p et al. and loam tractors, and trucks back- < 0.05) (2005) various ground Water-filled pore space: Distribution tree forest during measuring time. Direct relation species between N O emissions and water-filled pore space was provided. France,2,3 Sessileoak Silt loam Once a month After the timber was extracted, one pass (back Trafficked ≤ 1.0 (0.05–0.2 m depth) Bulk density: Trafficked = 1.47–1.56 Mg Goutal −3 −3 with and within and forth) of an 8-wheel drive forwarder was plots to ~1.2 to ~ 12 (at or below m , Control = 1.23–1.38 Mg m ,(p < et al. secondary two days driven. Tyres inflation was 360 kPa and the control 0.3 m depth), 0.05) (2013) ground wood-loaded forwarder weighted 17–23 Mg. plots significance of the Air-filled pore space (distribution during vegeta- After compaction, the area was planted with effect of treatment was measuring time) tion cover sessile oak not tested in the study Significantly lower in the trafficked treatment only at one site, mean data not shown Germany, 3, Beech Silty 2–3-week Compaction treatments were applied by two Compacted 40 Bulk density: Compacted = 1.01–1.52 Mg Teepe −3 1 stands clay interval for 1 passes of a half-loaded, eight-wheeled (in the m (0–0.05 m depth), 1.36-1.42 Mg et al. −3 (60- to loam, year forwarder (total weight about 16 Mg, speed wheel m (0.1–0.15 m depth), Uncompacted (2004) −1 −3 90-year sandy approximately 2 m s ). Compaction applied to track) to =1.07–1.22 Mg m (0–0.05 m depth), −3 old) loam, emulate conditions comparable to harvest uncompa- 1.27-1.36 Mg m (0.1-0.15 m depth), (p < and practices cted 0.05, only one site at 0-0.05 m depth) silt Macropore ≥ 50 μm: Compacted = 4–7% (0–0.05 m depth), 4–6% (0.1–0.15 m depth), Uncompacted = 10–15% (0–0.05 m depth), 11–14% (0.1–0.15 m depth), (p < 0.05) Germany, 1, Beech and Loam 17 Wheel track represent former skid trail with 15 Wheel track 3.3 (under beech) Bulk density: Wheel track = Warlo -3 1 black measure- years without trafficking to stand In the study the 0.94–1.20 Mg m ,Stand =0.76– et al. −3 alder (15 ments within treatments in the alder 1.06 Mg m . Statistics not provided (2019) year old) 12 months stand were found not Total porosity relative to control: Wheel significantly different track = ~ 85%, Stand = ~ 100%, (p < 0.05) Macroporosity relative to control: Wheel track = ~ 55%, Stand = ~100%, (p < 0.05) Water-filled pore space: Distribution during measuring time per site with no distinction between trafficked areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 15 of 26 38 Table 3 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/ Compaction treatment characteristic Treatment Impact factor for N O Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture incubation effect studied emissions sites, Years period Gas diffusivity: Distribution during measuring time per site with no distinction between trafficked areas Switzerland, Forest Loam Monthly Compaction was induced using a fully loaded Compacted 3.6 Bulk density: Compacted = ~ Hartmann −3 2, 2 intervals forwarder (26-Mg) with four passes (contact (in the 1.50–1.58 Mg m , Uncompacted = ~ et al. −3 between pressure of 240–320 kPa) wheel 1.30 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) (2014) September track) to Macropores: Compacted = ~ 3–6% and uncompa- Uncompacted = ~10%, (p < 0.05) December of cted Air permeability: Compacted ≤ 10 μm , each year Uncompacted = ~ 200 μm ,(p < 0.05) Hydraulic conductivity: Compacted = < −1 0.1 m day , Uncompacted = ~ 0.6 m −1 day ,(p < 0.05) Compaction was induced using an unloaded Compacted In the study the Bulk density: Compacted = ~ −3 skidder with four passes at Heiteren (14 tons, (in the treatments were found 1.28–1.38 Mg m , Uncompacted = ~ −3 210–280 kPa) wheel not significantly 1.10 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) track) to different Macropores: Compacted = ~ 4-6%, uncompa- Uncompacted = ~16%, (p < 0.05) cted Air permeability: Compacted ≤ 10 μm , Uncompacted = ~ 200 μm ,(p < 0.05) Hydraulic conductivity: Compacted ≤ 0.6 −1 −1 mday , Uncompacted = ~ 3.0 m day , (p < 0.05) 38 Page 16 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 2014). N O emissions were found to correlate better with soil When comparing compacted interrow soil to uncompacted compaction than with N fertiliser rates on a silt loam soil under soil, Ruser et al. (2006) found that drying/rewetting cycles in sugar beet with preceding winter wheat and winter barley straw the soils could induce high N O emission peaks that exceed by incorporation (Bessou et al., 2010), which indicates that O lim- about a factor of two the maximum flux rates measured after itation was the most important driver. However, Ball et al. (2000) nitrate addition at constant soil water contents. Moreover, dur- found that N O fluxes were better correlated with soil physical ing the drying/rewetting cycles, larger emissions are measured properties after N fertilisation, and they stressed the importance after rewetting (Beare et al., 2009), which also proportionally of interacting effects. increase with increasing water content (Ruser et al., 2006). The type of fertiliser is another key factor controlling N O emissions. For example, in sandy loam soil under rotation Row crop systems In row crop systems, the tractor-compacted (green fodder/barley/peas/vetch and rye-grass), Hansen et al. interrow areas are characterised by a poor structure with higher (1993) reported that in compacted soils the soil air concentra- bulk density, a large reduction in the air-filled pore space and tion of N O was seven times higher in NPK-fertilised plots than higher soil moisture content than the cropped rows (Ruser et al., in plots fertilised with cattle slurry, whereas no difference was 1998;Balland Crawford, 2009). Anaerobic conditions in the found in the uncompacted soil. This was probably because compacted interrows induced a higher N Oproductionbyan NPK fertilisers contain NO , which can directly serve as an impact factor ranging between 2.0 and 9.9 times compared to electron acceptor for denitrification, whereas ammoniacal N in the rows growing potato (Ruser et al., 1998;Flessaetal., 2002; manure must await nitrification, which may be delayed by re- Ruser et al., 2006) and corresponding impact factors of 1.3–4.6 duced O availability in compacted soil (Jensen et al., 1996). in carrot fields (Ball and Crawford, 2009). Other examples of combined compaction effects include a In an incubation experiment, the maximum N Oflux rates studybyBalletal. (1999a) for loam and sandy loam soils under occurred from compacted interrow soil sampled from a potato winter wheat in the UK. Their study found that compaction field, but the cumulative N O emission at 90% WFPS was significantly increased N O emissions after fertiliser application higher for the ridge soil compared to the compacted interrow or residue incorporation, with marked emissions in the periods (Ruser et al., 2006). In row crop systems, N O emissions are of the year when the soil was wet (volumetric soil water content also found to increase after surface application of residues in > ca. 38%). Similarly, Sitaula et al. (2000) reported that preva- combination with compaction (Flessa et al., 2002), and after lent high volumetric water contents of > 45% on measurement heavy precipitation (Ruser et al., 1998;Flessa et al., 2002). days favoured greater N O production in a traffic-compacted However, N O release can be relatively low in the interrows if 2 2 sandy loam soil compared to uncompacted soil. measured immediately after precipitation (under waterlogged For maize on a silt loam soil, a combined compaction conditions) (Ruser et al., 1998). Importantly, N O losses from (+NO +glucose) treatment was found to explain nearly 70% the interrows might vary with the degree of compactness, the of the variation in N O emissions compared to 24% for a amount of WFPS and the rate of N inputs (Flessa et al., 2002), control treatment, and 60% WFPS was found to be a threshold similar to other cropping systems. for increasing N O emissions in all the treatments both with In apple and cherry orchards, interrows were reported to and without compaction (Bao et al., 2012). increase daily N O emissions approximately two-fold com- In incubation experiments, an increase in N O emissions pared to within the tree lines during summer in Australia by compaction, in combination with fertiliser and/or water (Swarts et al., 2016). However, in both the interrows and tree content, was reported to range from 1.3 to 20 times that in lines, the emission rates during summer were low, which was the uncompacted soils (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006;Balland attributed to the judicious management of irrigation and N Crawford, 2009; Beare et al., 2009). fertiliser application through tree line drippers, as the volumet- ric water content rarely exceeded field capacity. Drying/rewetting Irrigation resulting in drying/rewetting cycles In relation to controlled-traffic farming, Tullberg et al. is another factor of importance for N O production in (2018) presented work wherein the N O emission reduction 2 2 compacted agricultural soils (Ruser et al., 2006;Beareetal., ratio was calculated for 15 sites based on the traffic impact 2009). In an incubation experiment on a clay loam soil, the total factors of permanent traffic lanes, random-trafficked soil and N O production from compacted soil was 70, 3 and 20 times the non-wheeled area. This work showed that trafficked lanes higher than that from uncompacted soil during, respectively, the increased N O release 1.1 to 5.0 times compared to the preincubation phase at field capacity, the drying phase and the untrafficked areas across sites. rewetting phase (Beare et al., 2009). In the same experiment, the production of N O was increased by drying and rewetting cycles 3.1.2 Grasslands compared to the continuously wet treatment, though in both cases compaction resulted in a larger increase in N O Topsoil compaction in grasslands has been found to increase production relative to the uncompacted soil. N O emissions between 1.2 and 7.4 times when measured 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 17 of 26 38 directly under field conditions, and between 1.0 and 8.3 times (Hargreaves et al., 2021). This study, conducted in the UK, in incubation experiments (Table 2). In tractor compacted confirmed that the largest mean daily N O fluxes are generally grasslands, Ball et al. (1997) found that trafficked areas with, observed after external input of N. In contrast to these various respectively, 1.3-, 16- and 2-fold lower air-filled porosity, air reports, a study by Piva et al. (2019) on a clay oxisol in Brazil permeability and relative gas diffusivity, produced about two found that the N OemissionpeakafterNapplicationwasmore times more N O than the zero-traffic areas. Some studies, intenseinungrazedcomparedtograzedpasture,especiallyat however, reported no significant compaction effect on N O low WFPS. Hence, grazing affects N O emissions through 2 2 emissions from grasslands and pasture soil (Simek et al., interacting effects of N input and compaction that are modified 2006; van der Weerden and Styles, 2012;Harrison-Kirk by site-specific conditions. This has been confirmed in manip- et al., 2015); all studies concluded that production of N was ulative incubation experiments with urine, dung and simulated probably favoured. compaction (van Groenigen et al., 2005; Cardoso et al., 2017). Fertilisation Yamulki and Jarvis (2002), in a clay loam soil Mechanisms In an ex-situ experiment, conducted with a silty under a mixture of perennial grasses, found that traffic- loam soil under ryegrass-white clover, soil cores were packed compaction significantly increased the total cumulative flux by applying pressures of 0, 220 or 400 kPa and treated with of N O regardless of fertiliser application, though the varia- synthetic urine, and then subjected to successive saturation- tion in N O fluxes was large within and between the drainage cycles on tension tables (Harrison-Kirk et al., 2015). treatments. In contrast, work conducted by Schmeer et al. At 0 and 220 kPa compaction levels, N Ofluxes dropped as (2014) on traffic-compaction of a sandy loam soil under per- soil cores were drained to 6 kPa matric potential, whereas N O manent perennial species only caused an increase in N O fluxes in the most compacted treatment persisted longer and emissions on N-fertilised plots (mean of three years). In a persisted until the soil was drained to 8 kPa tension. This combined compaction-fertiliser experiment, Bhandral et al. indicates a relationship between matric potential and soil (2007) showed that traffic-compaction of a sandy loam soil structure with respect to N O emissions, but Balaine et al. increased N O emissions from grassland irrespective of the N (2013) found that relative gas diffusivity was a better predictor source, yet the effect of nitrate application was more pro- compared to matric potential. In their study of a silt loam soil nounced in the compacted soil compared to other N sources. packed to five dry bulk densities and one of seven matric These studies indicate that on light-textured soil with perenni- potentials, Balaine et al. (2013) found a consistent maximum al vegetation, compaction alone will not greatly influence of N O-N fluxes when the relative gas diffusivity ranged be- N O emissions, possibly because plants ensure a low mineral tween 0.0060 and 0.0067, regardless of bulk density. It should N availability except for a period after fertilisation. With finer- be stressed that this conclusion applied to bulk soil and did not textured soil, compaction can result in more wide-spread O consider variations in organic matter or nitrate availability. limitation and hence potential for denitrification, but the po- Soil compaction will change soil structure, as shown in a tential for N O reduction to N will also increase. study where repacked soil cores were prepared with aggre- 2 2 gates of different sizes (Uchida et al., 2008). The highest Grazing The effect of trampling-induced soil compaction on N O fluxes occurred at moderate to severe compaction and N O emissions has been widely investigated. In a cattle over- in the smallest aggregates (0–1.0 mm), which also had the wintering area in the Czech Republic, Simek et al. (2006) lowest porosity after compaction. After a drying/rewetting found higher N O emissions in trampled areas compared to cycle, N O fluxes increased in all treatments but with the 2 2 those of areas with less or no disturbance by trampling, but the highest fluxes in the moderately to severely compacted soils. difference was not statistically significant, which was attribut- The smaller the aggregate size, the longer was the period in ed to a high spatial variability. In another study from Scotland, which N O fluxes continued to increase (Uchida et al., 2008). simulation of trampling in a wet dairy pasture soil showed a three-fold increase in N O emissions (Ball et al., 2012). 3.1.3 Forest land In New Zealand, van der Weerden and Styles (2012)and van der Weerden et al. (2017) found that N Ofluxes from Under forest land, compaction by mechanical disturbance has pasture on silt loam soil were greatest from compacted treat- been reported to be an impact factor causing N O emissions of ments after urine application and remained elevated for two to 1.7 to 40 times (Table 3). four weeks; thereafter fluxes declined and remained stable for In oak forests, Goutal et al. (2013) found that trafficked plots about four months. In silt clay loam and sandy loam soils under had a higher N O production in comparison to the control treat- perennial ryegrass, compaction by both traffic and trampling ment, but only below 0.3 m depth where the soil air-filled po- induced larger cumulative N O emissions compared to rosity was significantly reduced. The residual effect of compac- uncompacted control soil, although the difference was only tion on N O emissions was evident after 2 years of applying statistically significant for the traffic compaction treatment compaction, although with seasonal variation. Compaction with 38 Page 18 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 heavy machinery also significantly increased N O emissions in reviews literature on how to best describe changes in soil two forests in Switzerland, and the difference in N O emission structure in relation to risk of creating N O emission hotspots 2 2 between the compacted and natural area remained largely con- and hot moments and knowledge gaps are identified. sistent up to around 5 years post-disturbance (Hartmann et al., 2014). The N O emission in forests on clay Oxisol showed high 4.1 Soil physical parameters fluxes during the wet season and low fluxes during the dry season for both compacted and uncompacted areas, whereas in Studies summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3 across the three land- the logging decks an inverted pattern was observed (Keller et al., use categories, i.e. cropland, grassland and forest land, 2005). At another site under beech, cumulative annual N O recognised that changes in soil structure strongly affect N O 2 2 emissions were 3.3 times higher in the wheel track than in the emissions, but often limit their assessments of traffic/ undisturbed stand (Warlo et al., 2019). In that study, N Oemis- trampling-compaction impact on N O emissions to either a 2 2 sions across trafficked and non/trafficked areas were larger under brief description of the compaction status (Ball et al., 1999a; alder than under beech, but no compaction effect was observed van Groenigen et al., 2005; Schmeer et al., 2014; Cardoso in the site under alder stands. Presumably the role of traffic and et al., 2017; Tullberg et al., 2018;De Rosa et al., 2020), or climatic conditions are the same in managed forests as in the to a theoretical or indirect association between N O emissions other land use categories. and bulk density, water content and/or WFPS (Yamulki and Jarvis, 2002;Keller et al., 2005; Ruser et al., 2006;Uchida 3.2 Impact of subsoil compaction on N O emissions et al., 2008; van der Weerden and Styles, 2012; Gregorich et al., 2014; van der Weerden et al., 2017;Piva et al., 2019; Although most studies focus on N O emissions from the soil Hargreaves et al., 2021); or with bulk density, total porosity surface, the production of N O may occur in the entire soil and water holding capacity (Liu et al., 2017); with air-filled profile depending on soil conditions. porosity (Hansen et al., 1993;Goutalet al., 2013); pore size In compacted subsoil, gas and water transport mainly occurs distribution, bulk density and WFPS (Ruser et al., 1998; through vertical biopores that remain functional, though with Teepe et al., 2004); or with soil strength measurements such reduced volume, after compaction (Schjønning et al., 2013; a penetration resistance and vane shear (e.g. Ball et al., 1997; Schjønning et al., 2019). Anaerobic conditions in the soil matrix Bhandral et al., 2007; Ball and Crawford, 2009;Vermeulen between vertical macropores in compacted subsoil may turn and Mosquera, 2009). One notable exception is the work by hardened layers into emission sources. Additionally, subsoil Ball et al. (1997), who presented a complete description of soil compaction may reduce water flow in saturated, or near- physical status including the majority of the parameters men- saturated state, thus impeding drainage and resulting in a wetter tioned above. This study established an association of in- topsoil in early spring, as shown by, for example, Pulido- creases in N O emissions from trafficked grassland areas with Moncada et al. (2021). This is expected to increase the risk of poor structure and limited fluid transport—yet no direct rela- N O emissions associated with fertilisation, manure application tionships were established. and crop residue turnover. Despite this, there is a paucity of The response of N O fluxes to soil compaction has often knowledge about the contribution of subsoil compaction to the been quantified with a particular focus on the association with emission of the greenhouse gas N O (Schjønning et al., 2019). soil water content, most often represented by WFPS. An ex- Recently, Petersen and Abrahamsen (2021) simulated the ample of this is the study by Swarts et al. (2016)intree expected long-term effects of traffic with heavy machinery cropping systems, where several soil physical parameters (resulting in subsoil compaction) on nitrogen balances and were measured, but direct associations with N O emissions the environment by using the model Daisy with input data were only investigated with water content (gravimetric and from a 10-year field trial in Denmark. The study showed that volumetric) and WFPS. These associations were statistically the simulated extra nitrogen loss (as N or N O) associated weak (r < 0.40) and had no consistent pattern, neither in the 2 2 with subsoil compaction can increase losses by up to 50%. tree line nor interrow, between seasons or sites. In contrast, in This simulation result highlights the need to determine to what a study of grazed soils under winter forage crops, van der extent subsoil compaction contributes to losses of gaseous Weerden et al. (2017) showed a strong relationship between nitrogen (N Oin particular). N O emissions and WFPS (R =0.83, p =0.005) across urine 2 2 and compaction treatments. In a study from China, WFPS was directly proportional to N Ofluxrates (R =0.57–0.70) across 4 Responses of N O emission to changes compaction and N source combined treatments, but only when in soil physical properties: knowledge gaps WFPS reached 56–63% (Bao et al., 2012). A significant linear relationship between WFPS and log-transformed N O emis- Soil compaction promotes N O emission due to changes in sions was also found by Flessa et al. (2002) for compacted and soil physical and biological properties. The following section non-compacted inter-rows of a potato field with on average 61 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 19 of 26 38 and 49% WFPS, and by Simek et al. (2006) in a cattle how soil structure contributes to the production and transport overwintering area with WFPS at 65–82%. However, Flessa of denitrification products (Rohe et al., 2021). At this time, the et al. (2002)also observed high N O emissions from the ridge morphology of the soil pore system and its contribution to position at only 30% WFPS. Beare et al. (2009)found asig- N O fluxes are poorly understood and documented, and stud- nificant exponential relationship (r = 0.67, p < 0.001) be- ies characterising soil-gas phase relationships may help fill tween WFPS and N O production during pre-incubation and this knowledge gap. An example is the study of Chamindu drying phases of an incubation experiment, but no clear dif- Deepagoda et al. (2013), which presented a comprehensive ference in this relationship between compacted and analysis of pore tortuosity-discontinuity in variably saturated uncompacted soil was observed when WFPS was < 60%. soils and showed strong relationships between pore tortuosity To summarise, WFPS is not a general predictor of compaction (air permeability-based index) and clay content, particle size effects on N O emissions, indicating that the effect of WFPS distribution and water retention parameters. interacts with other soil properties. In early works by Stepniewski (1980), O diffusion was 4.2 Organic matter decomposition found to be a potential parameter to determine critical ranges of soil compaction and moisture tension for plant growth. The relationship between relative gas diffusivity and N Oemis- Later studies have shown relationship between N O sions may be confounded by organic matter degradation emissions and relative gas diffusivity. Balaine et al. (2013) (Petersen et al., 2013; Balaine et al., 2016). Fresh organic matter showed that relative gas diffusivity was a better predictor of associated with plant residues or animal manure represent a local N O emissions than WFPS across several combinations of O demand that may sustain denitrification activity and N O 2 2 2 soil bulk density and water potential. In accordance with this, emissions across a wide range of soil conditions, as demonstrat- Petersen et al. (2008), comparing N O emissions from intact ed in laboratory studies (e.g. Parkin, 1987;Lietal., 2016), but soil cores under no-till or moldboard ploughing at seven also under field conditions (Flessa et al., 2002). In these situa- matric potentials, found that relative gas diffusivity was a tions, organic matter decomposition rather than bulk soil condi- stronger predictor than either WFPS or volumetric water con- tions is the main driver of N O emissions (Wagner-Riddle et al., tent. Harrison-Kirk et al. (2015) also compared WFPS, volu- 2020). Baraletal. (2016) concluded, based on a factorial incu- metric water content and relative gas diffusivity in an experi- bation experiment with three soil moisture levels and three ma- ment with compaction of urine-treated soil cores; they always nure types, that relative gas diffusivity controls the proportions of found statistically significant relationships with N Oflux (R aerobic and anaerobic degradation through the O supply to 2 2 = 0.46–0.62, p < 0.001), but again pointed to relative gas putative N O emission hotspots, although also soil NO avail- 2 3 diffusivity as the best predictor across variable soil conditions. ability affects the extent of denitrification and N O emissions Furthermore, Harrison-Kirk et al. (2015) reported that soil (Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2021). An effect of soil particle size compaction led to reduced macro-porosity and more complete distribution and N O emissions from crop residues was also denitrification to N in the most compacted soil. reported by Kravchenko et al. (2017). If the role of relative gas The observations from controlled laboratory incubations diffusivity for oxic vs anoxic decomposition is confirmed, this are confirmed by field observations. In a study of beech and may link bulk soil conditions with C and N turnover in organic alder forest, Warlo et al. (2019) evaluated the relationship hotspots. between N O flux and soil structure by continuously monitor- ing several soil physical parameters. Although the authors 4.3 Microbiology gave more attention to the N O fluxes for the tree species than for the effect of traffic, the best tree-species specific models Soil compaction will reduce the volume of macropores and (R =0.26–0.64) showed that gas diffusivity was the main increase that of smaller pores. While this is mostly discussed variable controlling N O flux. This is in agreement with a in the context of water availability (Lipiec et al., 2012)and compaction study conducted by Sitaula et al. (2000)where hydraulic properties (Tarawally et al., 2004), the change in an increase in N O emissions was related to a decrease in pore size distribution could also alter conditions for microbial gas diffusivity, and with results from Mutegi et al. (2010) survival and activity. Postma and van Veen (1990) investigat- where gas diffusivity was found to be a better explanatory ed microbial numbers at different bulk densities in two soil factor for N O emissions compared to WFPS in tillage exper- types and found little effect of increasing bulk density on iments. Furthermore, Rousset et al. (2020) showed that, across microbial numbers. They estimated that less than 1% of the four soils of different texture, each packed to three bulk den- habitable pore space was occupied, which may explain the sities, gas diffusivity predicted the onset of N O emissions lack of response. This was in contrast to the effect of increas- under conditions of C and NO availability supporting deni- ing soil moisture, which resulted in declining cell numbers, an trification. Hence, gas diffusivity appears to be is an important effect that was explained by increasing oxygen limitation characteristic, together with water saturation, in determining (Postma and van Veen, 1990). 38 Page 20 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Frey et al. (2009) observed changes in bacterial community manure); and soil-N source (O supply interactions), with a par- structure in severely compacted forest soils (32% higher bulk ticular focus on hotspots and hot moments. Here, we summarise density) and related this to reduced air and water conductivi- possible mitigation approaches specifically related to compacted ties. In a study by Liu et al. (2017), compaction negatively soils as a high-risk environment for N O emissions. affected soil physical properties, but the latter had little effect In general, ploughing and subsoiling (biological or me- on N O-related microbial community size as it was correlated chanical) are options to mitigate soil compaction, whereas only to a few microbial gene abundances. A study by Bao compaction-intelligent traffic and controlled-traffic farming et al. (2012) showed that compaction combined with NO + are soil compaction avoidance strategies (Chamen et al., glucose enhanced the activity and abundance of denitrifiers in 2015). The adoption of controlled-traffic farming may give alignment with an increase in N O emission, but did not sig- an overall improvement of soil conditions that can reduce nificantly affect the overall community composition. In their greenhouse gas emissions (Antille et al., 2015). Mouazen study, however, the isolated effect of compaction on the mi- and Palmqvist (2015) developed a framework for the evalua- crobial community was not investigated. A study by tion of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming Hartmann et al. (2014), however, provided a comprehensive based on a European Commission Soil Framework Directive evaluation of compaction-associated alterations of N O-relat- and scientific literature review, where soil compaction and ed microbial community characteristics; this was an integrated greenhouse gas emissions were identified as the main and approach (soil physical, microbial and functional characteris- secondary environmental parameters, respectively. tics) to measuring resistance and resilience of the soil system Reduction in traffic intensity through controlled-traffic to compaction, e.g. by determining compaction thresholds of farming translates into 10–20% trafficked area compared to detrimental impact on ecosystem functioning. > 80% for conventional management (Gasso et al., 2013; Although the above-mentioned studies assessed the effect Tullberg et al., 2018), which in itself minimises the area at of compaction on the N O-related microbial community, there risk of increased WFPS due to compaction (Antille et al., is still a need for more comprehensive studies on how 2015), thus potentially leading to lower risk of N O emissions. compaction-induced changes in soil physical properties (e.g. Indeed, the use of seasonal or permanent controlled-traffic pore characteristics, thermal conductivity) influence the farming has been found to reduce N O emissions by up to microbiome under different scenarios, including different de- 50% when compared to random traffic (Vermeulen and grees of compaction. Mosquera, 2009). Estimations based on Australian soils indi- cate that in non-controlled traffic systems with 50%, 75% or 4.4 Compaction drivers 100% randomly wheeled area, when replaced by controlled- traffic farming with 15% designated traffic lane area, the N O Based on the literature review conducted here, only a few emissions would be 69%, 58% or 50%, respectively, of their studies quantifying traffic-compaction effects on N O emis- previous values (Tullberg et al., 2018). In the Netherlands, sions characterised the traffic treatment applied (e.g. Hansen Vermeulen and Mosquera (2009) also found that the applica- et al., 1993; Sitaula et al., 2000; Teepe et al., 2004;Ball and tion of seasonal controlled-traffic farming decreased N O Crawford, 2009; Goutal et al., 2013; Gregorich et al., 2014; emissions on average by 20-50% in four vegetable crops. Hartmann et al., 2014). However, the degree of compactness Bluett et al. (2019) suggested that traffic-induced soil com- depends on the soil-machinery interaction, in turn depending paction could probably be avoided through the use of light- on the characteristics of the machinery used in the field, and weight machinery, but that with the current available technology key to understanding the traffic-induced soil stress (Lamandé the ‘solution’ would be the adoption of controlled-traffic farm- and Schjønning, 2011;Keller et al., 2013; ten Damme et al., ing. However, while research supports that the number of passes 2019). This calls for a better understanding of the specific is significant for the impact of wheel load (e.g. Chamen et al., aspects of machinery-soil interactions leading to N O emis- 2015; Pulido-Moncada et al., 2019), reduction of traffic intensity sions in different soils and climates, including those associated is not the only factor of importance when attempting to reduce or with hotspots and hot moments, in order to identify risk con- avoid soil compaction. The driving factors for trafficked-soil ditions and critical thresholds. compaction determine the magnitude of the stress imposed on soil, which is susceptible to deformation—typically wet soil (Keller et al., 2013). Hence, key elements in the reduction of soil 5 Mitigation and avoidance of soil compaction risks are tyre type, tyre inflation pressure and wheel compaction: impact on N Oemissions load (Lamandé and Schjønning, 2011; ten Damme et al., 2019), the combination of wheel load with number of passes Wagner-Riddle et al. (2020) listed possible agroecosystem N O (Schjønning et al., 2016), and traction and repeated wheeling mitigation strategies such as fertiliser management—source, rate, (ten Damme et al., 2021). This suggests that there are other time and place; management of organic input (crop residues and specific field traffic practices, besides controlled-traffic farming, Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 21 of 26 38 with a potential to reduce compaction and consequently the po- to N O emissions in managed agroecosystems. Nevertheless, tential for N O emissions. There is, however, a need for com- most studies have focused on specific N O-soil interactions, 2 2 prehensive studies on the causal mechanisms linking compaction and there is a lack of comprehensive studies which can relate to N O emission in order to establish the least emissions-prone the spatiotemporal distribution of N O emissions, in an inte- 2 2 agricultural systems. grated way, to soil biophysical interactions as modified by More than just minimising compaction, it is also necessary structural stratification, management practices and climate to consider how compaction may interact with agricultural variation. The complex nature of the interactions among these management practices. The choice of fertiliser, for example, factors is poorly understood and this has revealed a number of is a key factor in mitigating N O emissions in compacted more specific knowledge gaps. The present literature review soils, as 10 times less N O was emitted when reduced N identified a need for future research focusing on (i) under- sources such as urine, ammonium and urea were used com- standing fluid transport-pore network behaviour in relation pared to nitrate in a grassland soil affected by compaction to denitrification as the main source of N O; (ii) N Oflux 2 2 (Bhandral et al., 2007). Presumably compaction increased thresholds as constrained by selected model explanatory var- the volume of soil with oxygen limitation supporting N O iables (site-specific conditions) such as soil texture, structure, production via denitrification, but not N O production via plant cover (mineral N availability) and fertilisation; (iii) un- ammonia oxidation. Fertiliser application management (rate, derstanding the relationship between N Ofluxes from organic timing and placement) is also recognised as an important prac- hotspots and the interactive effects of gas diffusivity, labile tice to minimise N O emissions from soil (Snyder et al., organic matter and nitrate availability, as well as the influence 2009). In systems with compacted interrows, the selection of of soil compaction on the development of N Ohotspots and banded fertiliser placement could be a mitigation option, by hot moments; (iv) seasonal variations in the effects of topsoil separating N sources from high-risk areas, compared to broad- and subsoil compaction on N O emissions and the impact of cast placement (Nash et al., 2012). soil recovery after compaction; (v) understanding the contri- In grassland soils, the regulation of grazing periods based bution of subsoil compaction to N O emissions to the atmo- on the soil water content (Bhandral et al., 2007), and the re- sphere; (vi) assessment of links and interactions among soil duction of stocking rates and/or length of grazing periods (de compaction, pore morphology, thermal conductivity and Klein and Ledgard, 2005), is regarded as important in limiting microbiome; and (vii) influence of soil compaction drivers the trampling-compaction impact on N O emission. It was (vehicular traffic, livestock trampling) on spatiotemporal indicated above that delaying nitrification of reduced N changes in the degree of soil compaction and the development sources can mitigate N O emissions. In accordance with this, of N O hotspots and hot moments. Future studies are hence 2 2 the use of nitrification inhibitors has been found to reduce called upon to contribute to developing least emissions-prone N O emissions from both trampled and non-trampled soils agricultural systems. with prolonged effectiveness, examples of inhibitors are dicyandiamide, nitrapyrin and 3, 4-dimethyl pyrazole phos- phate (DMPP) (Subbarao et al., 2006). 7 Conclusions Another management strategy may be the use of biochar. In China, biochar application in compacted soils was found to The international literature reviewed here recognises the sig- mitigate N O emissions by 18%, with significance for the nificant risk for higher N O emissions caused by soil compac- 2 2 time/magnitude of peak emissions after N fertilisation and tion. Fertilisation, moisture content, drying/rewetting cycles precipitation/irrigation (Liu et al., 2017). However, in that and agricultural systems are the main observation criteria same study, the biochar effect on N O emission was mainly when evaluating compaction effects for cropland, grassland associated with a chemically-mediated (change in pH) rise in and forest land. The main focus has been given to topsoil the abundance of both nitrifiers and denitrifiers, and biochar compaction, since the contribution of subsoil compaction to may not have directly contributed to the reduction of soil N O emission is poorly known. Most often soil water metrics anaerobic microsites. Other studies have shown an effect of interacting with soil compaction has been evaluated for regu- biochar on soil bulk density or hydraulic properties (e.g. lation of N O emissions, but gas diffusivity has been found to Burrell et al., 2016; Verheijen et al., 2019; Toková et al., better explain N O fluxes. Gas diffusivity in soil is determined 2020), indicating that biochar has a N O mitigation potential. by both air-filled porosity and tortuosity. Yet, a common issue in studies focusing on soil compaction-induced N O emission is the poor characterisation of the structural state of the soil, 6 Future research directions meaning the degree of compactness and pore system function- ality, and the drivers causing the structural damage. This leads This literature review shows that significant efforts have al- to uncertainties in the selection and evaluation of critical man- ready been made to elucidate how soil compaction contributes agement factors. A large proportion of N O emissions are 2 38 Page 22 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED, Ross JG associated with hotspots and hot moments, and there is a need (2013) Changes in relative gas diffusivity explain soil nitrous oxide for comprehensive studies to understand how conditions for C flux dynamics. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1496–1505. https://doi.org/10. and N turnover in these situations are modified by different 2136/sssaj2013.04.0141 degrees of compaction. Understanding the direct and indirect Ball B (2013) Soil structure and greenhouse gas emissions: a synthesis of 20 years of experimentation. Eur J Soil Sci 64:357–373. https://doi. effects of soil physical conditions on microbial activities is org/10.1111/ejss.12013 key to the selection and implementation of effective mitiga- Ball B, Cameron K, Di H, Moore S (2012) Effects of trampling of a wet tion strategies. dairy pasture soil on soil porosity and on mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions by a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide. Soil Use Manage 28:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012. 00389.x Author Contributions Conceptualization, L.J.M. and M.P.M.; literature Ball B, Crawford C (2009) Mechanical weeding effects on soil structure search and writing—original draft, M.P.M.; writing—review and editing, under field carrots (Daucus carota L.) and beans (Vicia faba L.). Soil S.O.P., L.J.M. and M.P.M.; funding acquisition, L.J.M. and S.O.P. Use Manage 25:303–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743. 2009.00226.x Funding This paper was funded by the TRACE Soils project (grant No. Ball B, Horgan G, Parker J (2000) Short-range spatial variation of nitrous 862695 EJP SOIL) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research oxide fluxes in relation to compaction and straw residues. Eur J Soil and Innovation programme. Sci 51:607–616. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2000.00347.x Ball BC, Campbell DJ, Douglas JT, Henshall JK, O'Sullivan MF (1997) Data availability All articles and data analysed in this study have been Soil structural quality, compaction and land management. Eur J Soil previously published and/or are available online. Sci 48:593–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997. tb00559.x Ball BC, Parker JP, Scott A (1999a) Soil and residue management effects Code availability Not applicable. on cropping conditions and nitrous oxide fluxes under controlled traffic in Scotland 2. Nitrous oxide, soil N status and weather. Soil Declarations Till Res 52:191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99) 00081-1 Ethics approval Not applicable Ball BC, Scott A, Parker JP (1999b) Field N O, CO and CH fluxes in 2 2 4 relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Till Res 53:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00074-4 Consent to participate Not applicable. Bao QL, Ju XT, Gao B, Qu Z, Christie P, Lu YH (2012) Response of nitrous oxide and corresponding bacteria to managements in an Consent for publication Not applicable. agricultural soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:130–141. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj2011.0152 Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Baral KR, Arthur E, Olesen JE, Petersen SO (2016) Predicting nitrous oxide emissions from manure properties and soil moisture: an incu- bation experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 97:112–120. https://doi.org/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.03.005 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Batey T (2009) Soil compaction and soil management—a review. Soil tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Use Manage 25:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743. you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- 2009.00236.x vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Beare M, Gregorich E, St-Georges P (2009) Compaction effects on CO made. The images or other third party material in this article are included and N O production during drying and rewetting of soil. Soil Biol in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Biochem 41:611–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.024 credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Berisso F, Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Weisskopf P, Stettler M, Keller T Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by (2013) Effects of the stress field induced by a running tyre on the soil statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain pore system. Soil Till Res 131:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this 2013.03.005 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Berisso FE, Schjønning P, Keller T, Lamandé M, Etana A, de Jonge LW, Iversen BV, Arvidsson J, Forkman J (2012) Persistent effects of subsoil compaction on pore size distribution and gas transport in a loamy soil. Soil Till Res 122:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. References 2012.02.005 Bertora C, Van Vliet PC, Hummelink EW, Van Groenigen JW (2007) Do Ambus P, Christensen S (1994) Measurement of N Oemissionfrom a 2 earthworms increase N O emissions in ploughed grassland? Soil fertilized grassland: an analysis of spatial variability. J Geophys Res- Biol Biochem 39:632–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006. Atmos 99:16549–16555. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00267 09.015 Antille DL, Chamen WCT, Tullberg JN, Lal R (2015) The potential of Bessou C, Mary B, Leonard J, Roussel M, Grehan E, Gabrielle B (2010) controlled traffic farming to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and Modelling soil compaction impacts on nitrous oxide emissions in enhance carbon sequestration in arable land: a critical review. T arable fields. Eur J Soil Sci 61:348–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. ASABE 58:707–731. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.11049 1365-2389.2010.01243.x Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED (2016) Soil Bhandral R, Saggar S, Bolan N, Hedley M (2007) Transformation of gas diffusivity controls N Oand N emissions and their ratio. Soil nitrogen and nitrous oxide emission from grassland soils as affected 2 2 Sci Soc Am J. 80:529–540. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.09. by compaction. Soil Till Res 94:482–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. still.2006.10.006 0350 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 23 of 26 38 Bluett C, Tullberg JN, McPhee JE, Antille DL (2019) Soil and Tillage Gasso V, Sorensen CAG, Oudshoorn FW, Green O (2013) Controlled traffic farming: a review of the environmental impacts. Eur J Agron Research: Why still focus on soil compaction? Soil Till Res 194:2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.028 48:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.02.002 Burrell LD, Zehetner F, Rampazzo N, Wimmer B, Soja G (2016) Long- Goutal N, Renault P, Ranger J (2013) Forwarder traffic impacted over at term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma 282: least four years soil air composition of two forest soils in northeast 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.019 France. Geoderma 193:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2012.10.012 Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister- Boltenstern S (2013) Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well Grant RF, Pattey E, Goddard TW, Kryzanowski LM, Puurveen H (2006) do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos T R Soc B Modeling the effects of fertilizer application rate on nitrous oxide 368:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122 emissions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:235–248. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2005.0104 Cardoso AD, Quintana BG, Janusckiewicz ER, Brito LD, Morgado ED, Reis RA, Ruggieri AC (2017) N O emissions from urine-treated Gregorich E, McLaughlin N, Lapen D, Ma B, Rochette P (2014) Soil tropical soil: effects of soil moisture and compaction, urine compo- compaction, both an environmental and agronomic culprit: in- creased nitrous oxide emissions and reduced plant nitrogen uptake. sition, and dung addition. Catena 157:325–332. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.catena.2017.05.036 Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:1913–1923. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2014.03.0117 Chamen WCT, Moxey AP, Towers W, Balana B, Hallett PD (2015) Mitigating arable soil compaction: a review and analysis of available Groffman PM, Butterbach-Bahl K, Fulweiler RW, Gold AJ, Morse JL, cost and benefit data. Soil Till Res 146:10–25. https://doi.org/10. Stander EK, Tague C, Tonitto C, Vidon P (2009) Challenges to 1016/j.still.2014.09.011 incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models. Biogeochemistry 93: Chamindu Deepagoda TKK, Arthur E, Moldrup P, Hamamoto S, 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-008-9277-5 Kawamoto K, Komatsu K, Wollesen de Jonge L (2013) Modeling air permeability in variably saturated soil from two natural clay Guimarães RML, Ball BC, Tormena CA (2011) Improvements in the gradients. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77(2):362–371. https://doi.org/10. visual evaluation of soil structure. Soil Use Manage 27:395–403. 2136/sssaj2012.0300 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00354.x Håkansson I, Reeder RC (1994) Subsoil compaction by vehicles with de Klein CAM, Eckard RJ (2008) Targeted technologies for nitrous oxide abatement from animal agriculture. Aust J Exp Agric 48:14–20. high axle load—extent, persistence and crop response. Soil Till https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07217 Res 29:277–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)90065-5 de Klein CAM, Ledgard SF (2005) Nitrous oxide emissions from New Hamza MA, Anderson WK (2005) Soil compaction in cropping systems: Zealand agriculture—key sources and mitigation strategies. Nutr a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Till Res Cycl Agroecosyst 72:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004- 82:121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009 7357-z Hansen S, Maehlum JE, Bakken LR (1993) N Oand CH fluxes in soil 2 4 De Rosa D, Rowlings DW, Fulkerson B, Scheer C, Friedl J, Labadz M, influenced by fertilization and tractor traffic. Soil Biol Biochem 25: Grace PR (2020) Field-scale management and environmental 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(93)90202-M drivers of N O emissions from pasture-based dairy systems. Nutr 2 Hargreaves P, Baker K, Graceson A, Bonnett S, Ball B, Cloy J (2021) Cycl Agroecosyst 117:299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705- Use of a nitrification inhibitor reduces nitrous oxide (N O) emis- 020-10069-7 sions from compacted grassland with different soil textures and cli- Dörner J, Horn R (2006) Anisotropy of pore functions in structured matic conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 310:107307. https://doi. stagnic luvisols in the Weichselian moraine region in N Germany. org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107307 J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln. Harris E, Diaz-Pines E, Stoll E, Schloter M, Schulz S, Duffner C, Li K, Moore K, Ingrisch J, Reinthaler D (2021) Denitrifying pathways Dörner J, Horn R (2009) Direction-dependent behaviour of hydraulic and dominate nitrous oxide emissions from managed grassland during mechanical properties in structured soils under conventional and drought and rewetting. Science Advances 7:eabb7118. https://doi. conservation tillage. Soil Till Res 102:225–232. https://doi.org/10. org/10.1126/sciadv.abb7118 1016/j.still.2008.07.004 Harrison-Kirk T, Thomas SM, Clough TJ, Beare MH, van der Weerden Etana A, Larsbo M, Keller T, Arvidsson J, Schjønning P, Forkman J, TJ, Meenken ED (2015) Compaction influences N Oand N emis- 2 2 Jarvis N (2013) Persistent subsoil compaction and its effects on sions from 15N-labeled synthetic urine in wet soils during succes- preferential flow patterns in a loamy till soil. GEODERMA 192: sive saturation/drainage cycles. Soil Biol Biochem 88:178–188. 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.05.022 Flessa H, Ruser R, Schilling R, Loftfield N, Munch JC, Kaiser EA, Beese Hartmann M, Niklaus PA, Zimmermann S, Schmutz S, Kremer J, F(2002) N Oand CH fluxes in potato fields: automated measure- Abarenkov K, Luscher P, Widmer F, Frey B (2014) Resistance 2 4 ment, management effects and temporal variation. GEODERMA and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated 105:307–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00110-0 compaction. Isme J 8:226–244. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013. Flynn HC, Smith J, Smith KA, Wright J, Smith P, Massheder J (2005) Climate- and crop-responsive emission factors significantly alter Hu W, Beare M, Tregurtha C, Gillespie R, Lehto K, Tregurtha R, Gosden estimates of current and future nitrous oxide emissions from fertil- P, Glasson S, Dellow S, George M (2020) Effects of tillage, com- izer use. Global Change Biol 11:1522–1536. https://doi.org/10. paction and nitrogen inputs on crop production and nitrogen losses 1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00998.x following simulated forage crop grazing. Agric Ecosyst Environ 289:106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106733 Frey B, Kremer J, Rudt A, Sciacca S, Matthies D, Luscher P (2009) Compaction of forest soils with heavy logging machinery affects Hu W, Drewry J, Beare M, Eger A, Müller K (2021) Compaction induced soil bacterial community structure. Eur J Soil Biol 45:312–320. soil structural degradation affects productivity and environmental https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.05.006 outcomes: a review and New Zealand case study. Geoderma 395: 115035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115035 Garcia-Marco S, Ravella SR, Chadwick D, Vallejo A, Gregory AS, Cardenas LM (2014) Ranking factors affecting emissions of GHG IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Core Writing from incubated agricultural soils. Eur J Soil Sci 65:573–583. https:// Team, P., R.K. , Meyer, L.A. (Ed.), Contribution of Working doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12143 Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 38 Page 24 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, Geneva, emissions? Soil Biol Biochem 104:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. soilbio.2016.10.006 Switzerland, p. 151. Jacinthe PA, Lal R (2006) Spatial variability of soil properties and trace Luo J, Wyatt J, van der Weerden TJ, Thomas SM, de Klein CA, Li Y, gas fluxes in reclaimed mine land of southeastern Ohio. Geoderma Rollo M, Lindsey S, Ledgard SF, Li J, Ding W (2017) Potential 136:598–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.04.020 hotspot areas of nitrous oxide emissions from grazed pastoral dairy farm systems. Advances in Agronomy 145:205–268. https://doi.org/ Jensen L, McQueen D, Shepherd T (1996) Effects of soil compaction on 10.1016/bs.agron.2017.05.006 N-mineralization and microbial-C and-NI Field measurements. Soil Markfoged R, Nielsen L, Nyord T, Ottosen L, Revsbech N (2011) Till Res 38:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(96) Transient N O accumulation and emission caused by O depletion 01033-1 2 2 in soil after liquid manure injection. Eur J Soil Sci 62:541–550. Keller M, Varner R, Dias JD, Silva H, Crill P, de Oliveira RC (2005) Soil- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01345.x atmosphere exchange of nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, methane, and Mouazen AM, Palmqvist M (2015) development of a framework for the carbon dioxide in logged and undisturbed forest in the Tapajos evaluation of the environmental benefits of controlled traffic farm- National Forest, Brazil. Earth Interact 9:28–28. https://doi.org/10. ing. Sustainability 7:8684–8708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684 1175/EI125.1 Müller K, Dal Ferro N, Katuwal S, Tregurtha C, Zanini F, Carmignato S, Keller T, Lamandé M, Peth S, Berli M, Delenne JY, Baumgarten W, De Jonge LW, Moldrup P, Morari F (2019) Effect of long-term Rabbel W, Radjai F, Rajchenbach J, Selvadurai A (2013) An inter- irrigation and tillage practices on X-ray CT and gas transport derived disciplinary approach towards improved understanding of soil de- pore-network characteristics. Soil Research 57:657–669. https://doi. formation during compaction. Soil Till Res 128:61–80. https://doi. org/10.1071/SR18210 org/10.1016/j.still.2012.10.004 Mutegi JK, Munkholm LJ, Petersen BM, Hansen EM, Petersen SO Kim H, Anderson S, Motavalli P, Gantzer C (2010) Compaction effects (2010) Nitrous oxide emissions and controls as influenced by tillage on soil macropore geometry and related parameters for an arable and crop residue management strategy. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1701– field. Geoderma 160:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.06.004 2010.09.030 Nash PR, Motavalli PP, Nelson KA (2012) Nitrous oxide emissions from Kool DM, Dolfing J, Wrage N, Van Groenigen JW (2011) Nitrifier de- claypan soils due to nitrogen fertilizer source and tillage/fertilizer nitrification as a distinct and significant source of nitrous oxide from placement practices. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:983–993. https://doi.org/ soil. Soil Biol Biochem 43:174–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.2136/sssaj2011.0296 soilbio.2010.09.030 Parkin TB (1987) Soil microsites as a source of denitrification variability. Kostyanovsky KI, Huggins DR, Stockle CO, Morrow JG, Madsen IJ Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1194–1199 (2019) Emissions of N Oand CO following short-term water and 2 2 Petersen CT, Abrahamsen P (2021) Predicting effects of soil compaction N fertilization events in wheat-based cropping systems. Front Ecol on crop yield and nitrogen dynamics. https://daisy.ku.dk/about- Evol 7:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00063 daisy/projects/commit/Simulating_compaction_effects_gudp.pdf Kravchenko AN, Toosi ER, Guber AK, Ostrom NE, Yu J, Azeem K, Petersen SO, Schjønning P, Olesen JE, Christensen S, Christensen BT Rivers ML, Robertson GP (2017) Hotspots of soil N Oemission (2013) Sources of nitrogen for winter wheat in organic cropping enhanced through water absorption by plant residue. Nat Geosci 10: systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:155–165. https://doi.org/10.2136/ 496–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2963 sssaj2012.0147 Kuncoro P, Koga K, Satta N, Muto Y (2014) A study on the effect of Petersen SO, Schjønning P, Thomsen IK, Christensen BT (2008) Nitrous compaction on transport properties of soil gas and water. II: Soil oxide evolution from structurally intact soil as influenced by tillage pore structure indices. Soil Till Res 143:180–187. https://doi.org/ and soil water content. Soil Biol Biochem 40:967–977. https://doi. 10.1016/j.still.2014.01.008 org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.017 Lamandé M, Schjønning P (2011) Transmission of vertical stress in a real Piva JT, Sartor LR, Sandini IE, de Moraes A, Dieckow J, Bayer C, da soil profile. Part II: effect of tyre size, inflation pressure and wheel Rose CM (2019) Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane in a sub- load. Soil Till Res 114:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010. tropical ferralsol subjected to nitrogen fertilization and sheep graz- 08.011 ing in integrated crop-livestock system. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 43:13. Lamandé M, Schjønning P, Dal Ferro N, Morari F (2021) Soil pore https://doi.org/10.1590/18069657rbcs20180140 system evaluated from gas measurements and CT images: a concep- Postma J, van Veen JA (1990) Habitable pore space and survival of tual study using artificial, natural and 3D-printed soil cores. Eur J Rhizobium leguminosarum biovartrifolii introduced into soil. Soil Sci 72:769–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12999 Microb Ecol 19:149–161 Laudone GM, Matthews GP, Bird NRA, Whalley WR, Cardenas LM, Pradel M, Pacaud T, Cariolle M (2013) Valorization of organic wastes Gregory AS (2011) A model to predict the effects of soil structure on through agricultural fertilization: coupling models to assess the ef- denitrification and N O emission. J Hydrol 409:283–290. https:// fects of spreader performances on nitrogenous emissions and related doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.026 environmental impacts. Waste Biomass Valori 4:851–872. https:// Li X, Sørensen P, Olesen JE, Petersen SO (2016) Evidence for denitrifi- doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9162-2 cation as main source of N O emission from residue-amended soil. Pulido-Moncada M, Munkholm LJ, Schjønning P (2019) Wheel load, Soil Biol Biochem 92:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio. repeated wheeling, and traction effects on subsoil compaction in 2015.10.008 northern Europe. Soil Till Res 186:300–309. https://doi.org/10. Lipiec J, Hajnos M, Świeboda R (2012) Estimating effects of compaction 1016/j.still.2018.11.005 on pore size distribution of soil aggregates by mercury porosimeter. Pulido-Moncada M, Petersen CT, Munkholm LJ (2021) Limiting water Geoderma 179:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02. range: crop responses related to in-season soil water dynamics, weather conditions and subsoil compaction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 85: Liu Q, Liu BJ, Zhang YH, Lin ZB, Zhu TB, Sun RB, Wang XJ, Ma J, Bei 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20174 QC, Liu G, Lin XW, Xie ZB (2017) Can biochar alleviate soil Rohe L, Apelt B, Vogel HJ, Well R, Wu GM, Schlüter S (2021) compaction stress on wheat growth and mitigate soil N2O Denitrification in soil as a function of oxygen availability at the Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 25 of 26 38 microscale. Biogeosciences 18:1185–1201. https://doi.org/10.5194/ Soane BD, Vanouwerkerk C (1995) Implications of soil compaction in crop production for the quality of the environment. Soil Till Res 35: bg-18-1185-2021 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(95)00475-8 Rousset C, Clough T, Grace P, Rowlings D, Scheer C (2020) Soil type, bulk density and drainage effects on relative gas diffusivity and N2O Spiro S (2012) Nitrous oxide production and consumption: regulation of emissions. Soil Res 58:726. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR20161 gene expression by gas-sensitive transcription factors. Philos T R Soc B 367:1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0309 Ruser R, Flessa H, Russow R, Schmidt G, Buegger F, Munch JC (2006) Emission of N O, N and CO from soil fertilized with nitrate: effect Stepniewski W (1980) Oxygen diffusion and strength as related to soil 2 2 2 of compaction, soil moisture and rewetting. Soil Biol Biochem 38: compaction: I. Polish J Soil Sci 13:3–13 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.005 Subbarao G, Ito O, Sahrawat K, Berry W, Nakahara K, Ishikawa T, Ruser R, Flessa H, Schilling R, Steindl H, Beese F (1998) Soil compac- Watanabe T, Suenaga K, Rondon M, Rao IM (2006) Scope and tion and fertilization effects on nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in strategies for regulation of nitrification in agricultural systems— potato fields. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1587–1595. https://doi.org/10. challenges and opportunities. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:303–335. 1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600794232 Saggar S, Luo J, Giltrap D, Maddena M (2009) Nitrous oxide emissions Swarts N, Montagu K, Oliver G, Southam-Rogers L, Hardie M, Corkrey from temperate grasslands: processes, measurements, modelling and R, Rogers G, Close D (2016) Benchmarking nitrous oxide emissions mitigation. Nitrous oxide emissions research progress. in deciduous tree cropping systems. Soil Res 54:500–511. https:// Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology Series. Nova doi.org/10.1071/SR15326 Science Publishers, New York, USA, 1-66 Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Janz B, Labouriau R, Olesen JE, Butterbach-Bahl Schäffer B, Mueller TL, Stauber M, Müller R, Keller M, Schulin R K, Petersen SO (2021) Nitrous oxide emissions from red clover and (2008) Soil and macro-pores under uniaxial compression. II. winter wheat residues depend on interacting effects of distribution, Morphometric analysis of macro-pore stability in undisturbed and soil N availability and moisture level. Plant Soil 466:121–138. repacked soil. Geoderma 146:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-05030-8 geoderma.2008.05.020 Tarawally MA, Medina H, Frometa M, Itza CA (2004) Field compaction Schindlbacher A, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Butterbach-Bahl K (2004) at different soil-water status: effects on pore size distribution and soil Effects of soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO , and N O water characteristics of a rhodic ferralsol in Western Cuba. Soil Till 2 2 emissions from European forest soils. J Geophys Res-Atmos 109. Res 76:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004590 Teepe R, Brumme R, Beese F, Ludwig B (2004) Nitrous oxide emission Schjønning P (2021) Thermal conductivity of undisturbed soil— and methane consumption following compaction of forest soils. Soil measurements and predictions. Geoderma 402:115188. https://doi. Sci Soc Am J 68:605–611. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.6050 org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115188 ten Damme L, Schjønning P, Munkholm L, Green O, Nielsen S, Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Berisso FE, Simojoki A, Alakukku L, Lamandé M (2021) Traction and repeated wheeling–effects on con- Andreasen RR (2013) Gas diffusion, non-Darcy air permeability, tact area characteristics and stresses in the upper subsoil. Soil Till and computed tomography images of a clay subsoil affected by Res 211:105020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105020 compaction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1977–1990. https://doi.org/10. ten Damme L, Stettler M, Pinet F, Vervaet P, Keller T, Munkholm LJ, 2136/sssaj2013.06.0224 Lamandé M (2019) The contribution of tyre evolution to the reduc- Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Munkholm LJ, Lyngvig HS, Nielsen JA tion of soil compaction risks. Soil Till Res 194:104283. https://doi. (2016) Soil precompression stress, penetration resistance and crop org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.029 yields in relation to differently-trafficked, temperate-region sandy Toková L, Igaz D, Horák J, Aydin E (2020) Effect of biochar application loam soils. Soil Till Res 163:298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and re-application on soil bulk density, porosity, saturated hydraulic still.2016.07.003 conductivity, water content and soil water availability in a silty loam Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Thorsøe M (2019) Soil compaction—drivers, Haplic Luvisol. Agronomy 10:1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ pressures, state, impacts and responses. DCA report agronomy10071005 Schmeer M, Loges R, Dittert K, Senbayram M, Horn R, Taube F (2014) Tullberg J, Antille DL, Bluett C, Eberhard J, Scheer C (2018) Controlled Legume-based forage production systems reduce nitrous oxide traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and meth- emissions. Soil Till Res 143:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. ane. Soil Till Res 176:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.09. 2014.05.001 014 Simek M, Brucek P, Hynst J, Uhlirova E, Petersen SO (2006) Effects of Uchida Y, Clough TJ, Kelliher FM, Sherlock RR (2008) Effects of ag- excretal returns and soil compaction on nitrous oxide emissions gregate size, soil compaction, and bovine urine on N2O emissions from a cattle overwintering area. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:186– from a pasture soil. Soil Biol Biochem 40:924–931. https://doi.org/ 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.018 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.007 Sitaula B, Hansen S, Sitaula J, Bakken L (2000) Effects of soil compac- van den Heuvel R, Hefting M, Tan N, Jetten M, Verhoeven J (2009) N2O tion on N O emission in agricultural soil. Chemosphere Global emission hotspots at different spatial scales and governing factors Change Sci 2:367–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1465-9972(00) for small scale hotspots. Sci Total Environ 407:2325–2332. https:// 00040-4 doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.010 Skiba U, Smith K, Fowler D (1993) Nitrification and denitrification as van der Weerden TJ, Styles TM (2012) Reducing nitrous oxide emissions sources of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide in a sandy loam soil. Soil from grazed winter forage crops. Proceedings of the New Zealand Biol Biochem 25:1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038- Grassland Association, Vol 74. New Zealand Grassland Assoc, 0717(93)90007-X Mosgiel, pp. 57-62 Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of van der Weerden TJ, Styles TM, Rutherford AJ, de Klein CAM, Dynes R greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertil- (2017) Nitrous oxide emissions from cattle urine deposited onto soil izer management effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:247–266. supporting a winter forage kale crop. N Z J Agric Res 60:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021 https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2016.1273838 38 Page 26 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 van Groenigen JW, Kuikman PJ, de Groot WJM, Velthof GL (2005) between greenhouse gas fluxes and soil structure recovery? Forests 10:18. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090726 Nitrous oxide emission from urine-treated soil as influenced by urine composition and soil physical conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 37: Yamulki S, Jarvis S (2002) Short-term effects of tillage and compaction 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.009 on nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, methane and carbon Verheijen FG, Zhuravel A, Silva FC, Amaro A, Ben-Hur M, Keizer JJ dioxide fluxes from grassland. Biol Fertility Soils 36:224–231. (2019) The influence of biochar particle size and concentration on https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0530-0 bulk density and maximum water holding capacity of sandy vs Zhai X, Horn R (2019) Dynamics of pore functions and gas transport sandy loam soil in a column experiment. Geoderma 347:194–202. parameters in artificially ameliorated soils due to static and cyclic https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.03.044 loading. Geoderma 337:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vermeulen G, Mosquera J (2009) Soil, crop and emission responses to geoderma.2018.09.039 seasonal-controlled traffic in organic vegetable farming on loam Zhen ZL, Ma GL, Zhang HY, Gai YX, Su ZY (2019) Thermal conduc- soil. Soil Till Res 102:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. tivities of remolded and undisturbed loess. J Mater Civ Eng 31: 2008.08.008 04018379. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. Wagner-Riddle C, Baggs EM, Clough TJ, Fuchs K, Petersen SO (2020) Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in the context of nitrogen loss reduction from agroecosystems: managing hot spots and hot mo- Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- ments. Curr Opin Env Sust 47:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. cosust.2020.08.002 Warlo H, von Wilpert K, Lang F, Schack-Kirchner H (2019) Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) on compacted skid trails: a trade-off http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agronomy for Sustainable Development Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/soil-compaction-raises-nitrous-oxide-emissions-in-managed-Gnc50GgxvD

Loading next page...

References (126)

C. Bluett, J. Tullberg, J. McPhee, D. Antille (2019)
Soil and Tillage Research: Why still focus on soil compaction?
Soil and Tillage Research
Mohamed Tarawally, H. Medina, M. Frómeta, Chichén Itzá (2004)
Field compaction at different soil-water status: effects on pore size distribution and soil water characteristics of a Rhodic Ferralsol in Western Cuba
Soil & Tillage Research, 76
Xiaoxi Li, P. Sørensen, J. Olesen, S. Petersen (2016)
Evidence for denitrification as main source of N2O emission from residue-amended soil
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 92
G. Subbarao, O. Ito, K. Sahrawat, W. Berry, K. Nakahara, T. Ishikawa, Toshihiro Watanabe, K. Suenaga, M. Rondón, I. Rao (2006)
Scope and Strategies for Regulation of Nitrification in Agricultural Systems—Challenges and Opportunities
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 25
E. Gregorich, N. McLaughlin, D. Lapen, B. Ma, P. Rochette (2014)
Soil Compaction, Both an Environmental and Agronomic Culprit: Increased Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Reduced Plant Nitrogen Uptake
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78
H. Flessa, R. Ruser, R. Schilling, N. Loftfield, J. Munch, E. Kaiser, F. Beese (2002)
N2O and CH4 fluxes in potato fields: automated measurement, management effects and temporal variation
Geoderma, 105
Hye Kim, S. Anderson, P. Motavalli, C. Gantzer (2010)
Compaction effects on soil macropore geometry and related parameters for an arable field
Geoderma, 160
H. Warlo, K. Wilpert, F. Lang, H. Schack-Kirchner (2019)
Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) on Compacted Skid Trails: A Trade-off between Greenhouse Gas Fluxes and Soil Structure Recovery?
Forests
G. Laudone, G. Matthews, N. Bird, W. Whalley, L. Cárdenas, A. Gregory (2011)
A model to predict the effects of soil structure on denitrification and N2O emission
Journal of Hydrology, 409
J. Dörner, R. Horn (2009)
Direction-dependent behaviour of hydraulic and mechanical properties in structured soils under conventional and conservation tillage
Soil & Tillage Research, 102
B. Soane, C. Ouwerkerk (1995)
Implications of soil compaction in crop production for the quality of the environment
Soil & Tillage Research, 35
W. Stepniewski (1980)
Oxygen-diffusion and strength as related to soil compaction. I. ODR.
M. Schmeer, R. Loges, K. Dittert, M. Senbayram, R. Horn, F. Taube (2014)
Legume-based forage production systems reduce nitrous oxide emissions
Soil & Tillage Research, 143
T. Keller, M. Lamandé, S. Peth, M. Berli, J. Delenne, W. Baumgarten, W. Rabbel, F. Radjai, J. Rajchenbach, A. Selvadurai, D. Or (2013)
An interdisciplinary approach towards improved understanding of soil deformation during compaction
Soil & Tillage Research, 128
L Jensen (1996)
10.1016/S0167-1987(96)01033-1
Soil Till Res, 38
M. Pradel, T. Pacaud, M. Cariolle (2013)
Valorization of Organic Wastes Through Agricultural Fertilization: Coupling Models to Assess the Effects of Spreader Performances on Nitrogenous Emissions and Related Environmental Impacts
Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4
S. Petersen, P. Schjønning, I. Thomsen, B. Christensen (2008)
Nitrous oxide evolution from structurally intact soil as influenced by tillage and soil water content
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 40
M. Hamzaa, W. Andersonb (2005)
Soil compaction in cropping systems A review of the nature , causes and possible solutions
U. Skiba, Keith Smith, D. Fowler (1993)
Nitrification and denitrification as sources of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide in a sandy loam soil
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 25
P. Schjønning, M. Lamandé, F. Berisso, A. Simojoki, L. Alakukku, R. Andreasen (2013)
Gas Diffusion, Non-Darcy Air Permeability, and Computed Tomography Images of a Clay Subsoil Affected by Compaction
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77
C. Bessou, B. Mary, J. Leonard, M. Roussel, E. Gréhan, B. Gabrielle (2010)
Modelling soil compaction impacts on nitrous oxide emissions in arable fields
European Journal of Soil Science, 61
M. Beare, E. Gregorich, P. St-Georges (2009)
Compaction effects on CO2 and N2O production during drying and rewetting of soil
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 41
Eliza Harris, Eugenio Díaz-Pinés, Elena Stoll, Michael Schloter, S. Schulz, Clara Duffner, Kexue Li, Katie Moore, Johannes Ingrisch, David Reinthaler, S. Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Glatzel, Nicolas Brüggemann, M. Bahn (2021)
Denitrifying pathways dominate nitrous oxide emissions from managed grassland during drought and rewetting
Science Advances, 7
B. Ball, G. Horgan, J. Parker (2000)
Short‐range spatial variation of nitrous oxide fluxes in relation to compaction and straw residues
European Journal of Soil Science, 51
W. Chamen, A. Moxey, W. Towers, B. Balana, P. Hallett (2015)
Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data
Soil & Tillage Research, 146
S. Spiro (2012)
Nitrous oxide production and consumption: regulation of gene expression by gas-sensitive transcription factors
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367
N. Goutal, P. Renault, J. Ranger (2013)
Forwarder traffic impacted over at least four years soil air composition of two forest soils in northeast France
Geoderma, 193
B. Ball, J. Parker, A. Scott (1999)
Soil and residue management effects on cropping conditions and nitrous oxide fluxes under controlled traffic in Scotland
Soil & Tillage Research, 52
K. Müller, N. Ferro, S. Katuwal, C. Tregurtha, F. Zanini, S. Carmignato, L. Jonge, P. Møldrup, F. Morari (2019)
Effect of long-term irrigation and tillage practices on X-ray CT and gas transport derived pore-network characteristics
Soil Research
P. Jacinthe, R. Lal (2006)
Spatial variability of soil properties and trace gas fluxes in reclaimed mine land of southeastern Ohio
Geoderma, 136
R. Markfoged, L. Nielsen, T. Nyord, Lars Ottosen, N. Revsbech (2011)
Transient N2O accumulation and emission caused by O2 depletion in soil after liquid manure injection
European Journal of Soil Science, 62
M. Hamza, W. Anderson (2005)
Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions
Soil & Tillage Research, 82
P. SchjØnning, M. Lamande, Martin Thorsøe (2019)
SOIL COMPACTION – DRIVERS , PRESSURES , STATE , IMPACTS AND RESPONSES
Bruce Ball (2013)
Soil structure and greenhouse gas emissions: a synthesis of 20 years of experimentation
European Journal of Soil Science, 64
B. Schäffer, T. Mueller, M. Stauber, R. Müller, M. Keller, R. Schulin (2008)
Soil and macro-pores under uniaxial compression. II. Morphometric analysis of macro-pore stability in undisturbed and repacked soil
Geoderma, 146
G. Vermeulen, J. Mosquera (2009)
Soil, crop and emission responses to seasonal-controlled traffic in organic vegetable farming on loam soil
Soil & Tillage Research, 102
C. Snyder, T. Bruulsema, T. Jensen, P. Fixen (2009)
Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133
C. Wagner-Riddle, E. Baggs, T. Clough, K. Fuchs, S. Petersen (2020)
Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in the context of nitrogen loss reduction from agroecosystems: managing hot spots and hot moments
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 47
P. Groffman, K. Butterbach‐Bahl, R. Fulweiler, A. Gold, J. Morse, E. Stander, C. Tague, C. Tonitto, P. Vidon (2009)
Challenges to incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models
Biogeochemistry, 93
J. Groenigen, P. Kuikman, W. Groot, G. Velthof (2005)
Nitrous oxide emission from urine-treated soil as influenced by urine composition and soil physical conditions
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 37
A. Mouazen, Martin Palmqvist (2015)
Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of Controlled Traffic Farming
Sustainability, 7
T. Weerden (2012)
Reducing nitrous oxide emissions from grazed winter forage crops
K. Kostyanovsky, D. Huggins, C. Stockle, J. Morrow, Isaac Madsen (2019)
Emissions of N2O and CO2 Following Short-Term Water and N Fertilization Events in Wheat-Based Cropping Systems
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
B. Ball, D. Campbell, J. Douglas, J. Henshall, M. O'sullivan (1997)
Soil structural quality, compaction and land management
European Journal of Soil Science, 48
Qi Liu, Benjuan Liu, Yanhui Zhang, Zhibin Lin, T. Zhu, Ruibo Sun, Xiaojie Wang, Jing Ma, Q. Bei, Gang Liu, Xingwu Lin, Z. Xie (2017)
Can biochar alleviate soil compaction stress on wheat growth and mitigate soil N2O emissions
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 104
A. Taghizadeh-Toosi, B. Janz, R. Labouriau, J. Olesen, K. Butterbach‐Bahl, S. Petersen (2021)
Nitrous oxide emissions from red clover and winter wheat residues depend on interacting effects of distribution, soil N availability and moisture level
Plant and Soil, 466
B. Sitaula, S. Hansen, J. Sitaula, L. Bakken (2000)
Effects of soil compaction on N2O emission in agricultural soil
Chemosphere - Global Change Science, 2
D. Rosa, D. Rowlings, Bill Fulkerson, C. Scheer, J. Friedl, Martin Labadz, P. Grace (2020)
Field-scale management and environmental drivers of N2O emissions from pasture-based dairy systems
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 117
N. Swarts, K. Montagu, G. Oliver, L. Southam-Rogers, M. Hardie, R. Corkrey, G. Rogers, D. Close (2016)
Benchmarking nitrous oxide emissions in deciduous tree cropping systems
Soil Research, 54
Jiafa Luo, J. Wyatt, T. Weerden, S. Thomas, C. Klein, Yan Li, M. Rollo, S. Lindsey, S. Ledgard, Jie Li, W. Ding, S. Qin, N. Zhang, N. Bolan, M. Kirkham, Z. Bai, Lin Ma, Xiying Zhang, Hailong Wang, Hongbin Liu, G. Rys (2017)
Potential Hotspot Areas of Nitrous Oxide Emissions From Grazed Pastoral Dairy Farm Systems
Advances in Agronomy, 145
P. Schjønning (2021)
Thermal conductivity of undisturbed soil – Measurements and predictions
Geoderma, 402
N. Balaine, T. Clough, M. Beare, S. Thomas, E. Meenken, J. Ross (2013)
Changes in Relative Gas Diffusivity Explain Soil Nitrous Oxide Flux Dynamics
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77
P. Hargreaves, K. Baker, A. Graceson, S. Bonnett, B. Ball, J. Cloy (2021)
Use of a nitrification inhibitor reduces nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from compacted grassland with different soil textures and climatic conditions
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 310
B. Ball, C. Crawford (2009)
Mechanical weeding effects on soil structure under field carrots (Daucus carota L.) and beans (Vicia faba L.)
Soil Use and Management, 25
J. Lipiec, M. Hajnos, R. Świeboda (2012)
Estimating effects of compaction on pore size distribution of soil aggregates by mercury porosimeter
Geoderma, 179
(1999)
A (1999a) Soil and residue management effects
F. Berisso, P. Schjønning, T. Keller, M. Lamandé, A. Etana, L. Jonge, B. Iversen, J. Arvidsson, J. Forkman (2012)
Persistent effects of subsoil compaction on pore size distribution and gas transport in a loamy soil
Soil & Tillage Research, 122
M. Hartmann, P. Niklaus, S. Zimmermann, S. Schmutz, J. Kremer, K. Abarenkov, P. Lüscher, F. Widmer, B. Frey (2013)
Resistance and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated compaction
The ISME Journal, 8
Wei Hu, J. Drewry, M. Beare, A. Eger, K. Müller (2021)
Compaction induced soil structural degradation affects productivity and environmental outcomes: A review and New Zealand case study
Geoderma, 395
Zuo-lin Zhen, Guo-liang Ma, Hu-yuan Zhang, Yu-xi Gai, Zhen-yan Su (2019)
Thermal Conductivities of Remolded and Undisturbed Loess
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
K. Butterbach‐Bahl, E. Baggs, M. Dannenmann, R. Kiese, S. Zechmeister-Boltenstern (2013)
Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls?
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368
R. Ruser, H. Flessa, R. Russow, Gustav Schmidt, F. Buegger, J. Munch (2006)
Emission of N2O, N2 and CO2 from soil fertilized with nitrate: effect of compaction, soil moisture and rewetting
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 38
Yamulki S., Jarvis S. (2002)
Short-term effects of tillage and compaction on nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from grassland
Biology and Fertility of Soils, 36
L. Damme, M. Stettler, F. Pinet, Patrick Vervaet, T. Keller, L. Munkholm, M. Lamandé (2019)
The contribution of tyre evolution to the reduction of soil compaction risks
Soil and Tillage Research
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
T. Batey (2009)
Soil compaction and soil management – a review
Soil Use and Management, 25
M. Pulido‐Moncada, C. Petersen, L. Munkholm (2020)
Limiting water range: Crop responses related to in‐season soil water dynamics, weather conditions, and subsoil compaction
Soil Science Society of America Journal
M. Lamandé, M. Lamandé, P. Schjønning, N. Ferro, F. Morari (2020)
Soil pore system evaluated from gas measurements and CT images: A conceptual study using artificial, natural and 3D‐printed soil cores
European Journal of Soil Science, 72
C. Bertora, Petra Vliet, Eduard Hummelink, J. Groenigen (2007)
Do earthworms increase N2O emissions in ploughed grassland
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39
C. Rousset, T. Clough, P. Grace, D. Rowlings, C. Scheer (2020)
Soil type, bulk density and drainage effects on relative gas diffusivity and N2O emissions
Soil Research, 58
Lena Rohe, B. Apelt, H. Vogel, R. Well, Gi‐Mick Wu, S. Schlüter (2021)
Denitrification in soil as a function of oxygen availability at the microscale
Biogeosciences
J. Dörner, R. Horn (2006)
Anisotropy of pore functions in structured Stagnic Luvisols in the Weichselian moraine region in N Germany
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 169
Mann, M. Collings, B. Young (1992)
Nitrous oxide emissions
A. Schindlbacher, S. Zechmeister-Boltenstern, K. Butterbach‐Bahl (2004)
Effects of soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO2, and N2O emissions from European forest soils
Journal of Geophysical Research, 109
F. Berisso, P. Schjønning, M. Lamandé, P. Weisskopf, M. Stettler, T. Keller (2013)
Effects of the stress field induced by a running tyre on the soil pore system
Soil & Tillage Research, 131
T. Parkin (1987)
Soil Microsites as a Source of Denitrification Variability1
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51
Bruce Ball, Keith Cameron, Hong Di, S. Moore (2012)
Effects of trampling of a wet dairy pasture soil on soil porosity and on mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions by a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide
Soil Use and Management, 28
J. Postma, J. Veen (1990)
Habitable pore space and survival ofRhizobium leguminosarum biovartrifolii introduced into soil
Microbial Ecology, 19
M. Keller, R. Varner, Jadson Dias, H. Silva, P. Crill, G. Asner (2005)
Soil-Atmosphere Exchange of Nitrous Oxide, Nitric Oxide, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide in Logged and Undisturbed Forest in the Tapajos National Forest, Brazil
Earth Interactions, 9
Martijn Gough (2009)
Climate change
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 181
K. Baral, E. Arthur, J. Olesen, S. Petersen (2016)
Predicting nitrous oxide emissions from manure properties and soil moisture: An incubation experiment
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 97
J. Mutegi, L. Munkholm, B. Petersen, E. Hansen, S. Petersen (2010)
Nitrous oxide emissions and controls as influenced by tillage and crop residue management strategy
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 42
T. Harrison-Kirk, S. Thomas, T. Clough, M. Beare, T. Weerden, E. Meenken (2015)
Compaction influences N2O and N2 emissions from 15N-labeled synthetic urine in wet soils during successive saturation/drainage cycles
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 88
L. Damme, P. Schjønning, L. Munkholm, O. Green, S. Nielsen, M. Lamandé (2021)
Traction and repeated wheeling – effects on contact area characteristics and stresses in the upper subsoil
Soil and Tillage Research
T. Deepagoda, E. Arthur, P. Møldrup, S. Hamamoto, K. Kawamoto, T. Komatsu, L. Jonge (2013)
Modeling Air Permeability in Variably Saturated Soil from Two Natural Clay Gradients
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77
Leigh Burrell, F. Zehetner, N. Rampazzo, B. Wimmer, G. Soja (2016)
Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties
Geoderma, 282
J. Piva, L. Sartor, I. Sandini, A. Moraes, J. Dieckow, C. Bayer, Carla Rosa (2019)
Emissions of Nitrous Oxide and Methane in a Subtropical Ferralsol Subjected to Nitrogen Fertilization and Sheep Grazing in Integrated Crop-Livestock System
Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
Vicent Gassó, C. Sørensen, F. Oudshoorn, Ole Green (2013)
Controlled traffic farming: A review of the environmental impacts
European Journal of Agronomy, 48
Y. Uchida, T. Clough, F. Kelliher, R. Sherlock (2008)
Effects of aggregate size, soil compaction, and bovine urine on N2O emissions from a pasture soil
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 40
C. Klein, S. Ledgard (2005)
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from New Zealand Agriculture – key Sources and Mitigation Strategies
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 72
B. Ball, A. Scott, J. Parker (1999)
Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland
Soil & Tillage Research, 53
R. Ruser, R. Schilling, H. Steindl, H. Flessa, F. Beese (1998)
Soil Compaction and Fertilization Effects on Nitrous Oxide and Methane Fluxes in Potato Fields
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 62
N. Balaine, T. Clough, M. Beare, S. Thomas, E. Meenken (2016)
Soil gas diffusivity controls N₂O and N₂ Emissions and their ratio
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 80
Rachel Guimarães, B. Ball, C. Tormena (2011)
Improvements in the visual evaluation of soil structure
Soil Use and Management, 27
R. Heuvel, M. Hefting, N. Tan, M. Jetten, J. Verhoeven (2009)
N2O emission hotspots at different spatial scales and governing factors for small scale hotspots.
The Science of the total environment, 407 7
A. Cardoso, B. Quintana, E. Janusckiewicz, L. Brito, E. Morgado, R. Reis, A. Ruggieri (2017)
N2O emissions from urine-treated tropical soil: Effects of soil moisture and compaction, urine composition, and dung addition
Catena, 157
F. Verheijen, A. Zhuravel, F. Silva, A. Amaro, M. Ben-Hur, J. Keizer (2019)
The influence of biochar particle size and concentration on bulk density and maximum water holding capacity of sandy vs sandy loam soil in a column experiment
Geoderma
D. Kool, J. Dolfing, N. Wrage, J. Groenigen (2011)
Nitrifier denitrification as a distinct and significant source of nitrous oxide from soil
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43
Wei Hu, M. Beare, C. Tregurtha, R. Gillespie, Kathryn Lehto, R. Tregurtha, P. Gosden, Sarah Glasson, S. Dellow, M. George, F. Tabley, W. Qiu, D. Baird (2020)
Effects of tillage, compaction and nitrogen inputs on crop production and nitrogen losses following simulated forage crop grazing
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 289
M. Šimek, P. Brůček, J. Hynšt, E. Uhlířová, S. Petersen (2006)
Effects of excretal returns and soil compaction on nitrous oxide emissions from a cattle overwintering area
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112
Xiafei Zhai, R. Horn (2019)
Dynamics of pore functions and gas transport parameters in artificially ameliorated soils due to static and cyclic loading
Geoderma
T. Weerden, T. Styles, A. Rutherford, C. Klein, R. Dynes (2017)
Nitrous oxide emissions from cattle urine deposited onto soil supporting a winter forage kale crop
New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 60
R. Grant, E. Pattey, T. Goddard, L. Kryzanowski, H. Puurveen (2006)
Modeling the Effects of Fertilizer Application Rate on Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70
P. Schjønning, M. Lamandé, L. Munkholm, Henning Lyngvig, Janne Nielsen (2016)
Soil precompression stress, penetration resistance and crop yields in relation to differently-trafficked, temperate-region sandy loam soils
Soil & Tillage Research, 163
R. Bhandral, S. Saggar, N. Bolan, M. Hedley (2007)
Transformation of nitrogen and nitrous oxide emission from grassland soils as affected by compaction
Soil & Tillage Research, 94
D. Antille, W. Chamen, J. Tullberg, R. Lal (2015)
The potential of controlled traffic farming to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in arable land: a critical review
Transactions of the ASABE, 58
B. Ball, A. Scott, J. Parker (1999)
Field N 2 O , CO 2 and CH 4 ̄ uxes in relation to tillage , compaction and soil quality in Scotland
A. Etana, M. Larsbo, T. Keller, J. Arvidsson, P. Schjønning, J. Forkman, N. Jarvis (2013)
Persistent subsoil compaction and its effects on preferential flow patterns in a loamy till soil
Geoderma, 192
M. Lamandé, P. Schjønning (2011)
Transmission of vertical stress in a real soil profile. Part II: Effect of tyre size, inflation pressure and wheel load
Soil & Tillage Research, 114
R. Teepe, R. Brumme, F. Beese, B. Ludwig (2004)
Nitrous oxide emission and methane consumption following compaction of forest soils
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68
S. Petersen, P. Schjønning, J. Olesen, S. Christensen, B. Christensen (2013)
Sources of Nitrogen for Winter Wheat in Organic Cropping Systems
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77
B. Frey, J. Kremer, Andreas Rüdt, Stéphane Sciacca, D. Matthies, P. Lüscher (2009)
Compaction of forest soils with heavy logging machinery affects soil bacterial community structure
European Journal of Soil Biology, 45
J. Tullberg, D. Antille, C. Bluett, J. Eberhard, C. Scheer (2018)
Controlled traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and methane
Soil & Tillage Research, 176
S. Hansen, J. Mæhlum, L. Bakken (1993)
N2O and CH4 fluxes in soil influenced by fertilization and tractor traffic
Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 25
H. Flynn, Jo Smith, Keith Smith, James Wright, Pete Smith, J. Massheder (2005)
Climate‐ and crop‐responsive emission factors significantly alter estimates of current and future nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use
Global Change Biology, 11
S. García-Marco, S. Ravella, D. Chadwick, A. Vallejo, A. Gregory, L. Cárdenas (2014)
Ranking factors affecting emissions of GHG from incubated agricultural soils
European Journal of Soil Science, 65
C. Klein, R. Eckard (2008)
Targeted technologies for nitrous oxide abatement from animal agriculture
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48
Lucia Toková, D. Igaz, J. Horák, Elena Aydın (2020)
Effect of Biochar Application and Re-Application on Soil Bulk Density, Porosity, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, Water Content and Soil Water Availability in a Silty Loam Haplic Luvisol
Agronomy
I. Håkansson, R. Reeder (1994)
Subsoil compaction by vehicles with high axle load—extent, persistence and crop response
Soil & Tillage Research, 29
Q. Bao, X. Ju, Bing Gao, Zhi Qu, P. Christie, Yahai Lu (2012)
Response of Nitrous Oxide and Corresponding Bacteria to Managements in an Agricultural Soil
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76
M. Pulido‐Moncada, L. Munkholm, P. Schjønning (2019)
Wheel load, repeated wheeling, and traction effects on subsoil compaction in northern Europe
Soil and Tillage Research
A. Kravchenko, E. Toosi, A. Guber, N. Ostrom, J. Yu, K. Azeem, M. Rivers, G. Robertson (2017)
Hotspots of soil N 2 O emission enhanced through water absorption by plant residue
Nature Geoscience, 10
P. Kuncoro, K. Koga, N. Satta, Y. Muto (2014)
A study on the effect of compaction on transport properties of soil gas and water. II: Soil pore structure indices
Soil & Tillage Research, 143
P. Ambus, S. Christensen (1994)
Measurement of N2O emission from a fertilized grassland: An analysis of spatial variability
Journal of Geophysical Research, 99
P. Nash, P. Motavalli, K. Nelson (2012)
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Claypan Soils Due to Nitrogen Fertilizer Source and Tillage/Fertilizer Placement Practices
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76
10.33584/jnzg.2012.74.2884

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
ISSN: 1774-0746
eISSN: 1773-0155
DOI: 10.1007/s13593-022-00773-9
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Nitrous oxide (N O) is the contributor to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions with the highest warming global potential. It is widely recognised that traffic and animal-induced compaction can lead to an increased potential for N O emissions by decreasing soil oxygen supply. The extent to which the spatial and temporal variability of N O emissions can be explained by soil compaction is unclear. This review aims to comprehensively discuss soil compaction effects on N O emissions, and to under- stand how compaction may promote N O emission hotspots and hot moments. An impact factor of N O emissions due to 2 2 compaction was calculated for each selected study; compaction effects were evaluated separately for croplands, grasslands and forest lands. Topsoil compaction was found to increase N O emissions by 1.3 to 42 times across sites and land uses. Large impact factors were especially reported for cropland and grassland soils when topsoil compaction—induced by field traffic and/or grazing—is combined with nitrogen input from fertiliser or urine. Little is known about the contribution of subsoil compaction to N O emissions. Water-filled pore space is the most common water metric used to explain N O emission vari- 2 2 ability, but gas diffusivity is a parameter with higher prediction potential. Microbial community composition may be less critical than the soil environment for N O emissions, and there is a need for comprehensive studies on association between environ- mental drivers and soil compaction. Lack of knowledge about the interacting factors causing N O accumulation in compacted soils, at different degrees of compactness and across different spatial scales, limits the identification of high-risk areas and development of efficient mitigation strategies. Soil compaction mitigation strategies that aim to loosen the soil and recover pore system functionality, in combination with other agricultural management practices to regulate N O emission, should be evaluated for their effectiveness across different agro-climatic conditions and scales. . . . . Keywords Hotspots Hot moments Topsoil compaction Subsoil compaction Gas diffusivity 1 Introduction Soil compaction is exacerbated under wet conditions and at low soil organic matter contents (Hamza and Anderson, Soil compaction is a component of land degradation, which 2005). Under such conditions, the intrinsic soil factors (e.g. has mainly been associated with agricultural traffic, forest texture, aggregate stability) interact with the external pressure harvesting, animal trampling and industrial activities (Batey, forces (e.g. wheel load, inflation pressure, traction, number of 2009). This degradation process is defined by the European passes, stocking rate, trampling frequency) to determine the Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) as ‘a form of physical degradation extent (i.e. topsoil only, below the plough layer, or to greater resulting in densification and distortion of the soil where bio- depth) and degree of compactness. logical activity, porosity and permeability are reduced, One of the concerns about soil compaction is its potential strength is increased and soil structure partly destroyed’. contribution to emission of nitrous oxide (N O) by promoting oxygen (O ) limited conditions (Fig. 1). Nitrous oxide is a by- product of nitrification and a free intermediate of denitrification at the interface (in space or time) between aerobic and anaerobic * Mansonia Pulido-Moncada conditions (Butterbach-Bahl et al., 2013), and changes in soil mansoniapulido@gmail.com structural quality caused by compaction may influence both production, consumption and transport of N O (Ball et al., Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Research Centre 1999a). Depending on the climate scenario and management Foulum, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark 38 Page 2 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Fig. 1 Example of nitrous oxide flux measurement in a long-term tillage experiment (no-till and ploughed soil with and without a winter cover crop) (left), and a compacted soil structure with high potential to increase nitrous oxide emissions (right). Photographs by the authors. practices adopted, emissions of N O from agricultural soils are abundance and activity, mineral N, labile C, soil pH, soil tem- expected to increase with increasing compaction (Flynn et al., perature, water content or water-filled pore space (WFPS), soil 2005), which represents a potentially high off-site cost for envi- texture, soil structure (aggregate sizes, pore space characteris- ronmental damage (Chamen et al., 2015), as N Oisassigneda tics, gas diffusion rate), surface sealing and soil drainage global warming potential of 265 (IPCC, 2014). (Laudone et al., 2011; Ball, 2013; Garcia-Marco et al., The fact that soil compaction can potentially increase N O 2014). The extent of soil compaction (Garcia-Marco et al., emissions from agricultural soils has been recognised in the 2014), and the spatiotemporal distribution of the above- literature, and for example Hu et al. (2021) published a review mentioned factors in the soil profile (Groffman et al., 2009), of soil compaction effects on productivity and environment are additional factors in the regulation of N O emissions. with New Zealand as a case study, which concluded that the The release of N O to the atmosphere is determined by the extent to which the variability in N O emissions can be ex- balance between production, consumption and transport plained by soil compaction is unclear. Alleviating C (Ambus (Soane and Vanouwerkerk, 1995), and therefore the pore sys- and Christensen, 1994) or N limitation (Ball et al., 2000)has tem of a given soil, as determined by texture and structure, is been found to reduce the spatial variability of N O emissions, critical in regulating the gas exchange between soil and atmo- and there were positive interactions with, respectively, wet de- sphere (Laudone et al., 2011). The soil pore system is studied pressions and soil compaction, presumably because production in many research papers, and found to changes with depth, of N O was sustained in a larger fraction of the soil volume. being best described as having a sponge-like system in the Furthermore, the response of N O emission to soil physical topsoil, whereas a tube-like system dominates the subsoil changes caused by soil compaction are not yet well understood, (Lamandé et al., 2021). When compaction occurs, pores are and knowledge gaps related to soil physical parameters, organic not completely destroyed, but instead, a closing of branching matter decomposition, microbiology and compaction drivers pores and diameter reduction of vertical (tube-like) pores can were identified. The present review aims to comprehensively be seen (Schäffer et al., 2008; Schjønning et al., 2013). In discuss the mechanisms behind soil compaction effects on N O general, compaction, therefore, promotes the development of emissions, with emphasis on understanding the promotion of a direction-dependent behaviour of the pore system (Dörner N O emission hotspots and hot moments by soil compaction. and Horn, 2006, 2009) that negatively affects the size, tortu- osity and connectivity of pores, and directly affects fluid trans- We first introduce the factors determining the effect of soil compaction on N O emissions. Then follows a section port in soil (e.g. Kim et al., 2010; Berisso et al., 2012; Berisso reviewing, based on calculated impact factors, observations et al., 2013; Kuncoro et al., 2014; Zhai and Horn, 2019). This of soil compaction effects separately for cropland, grassland in turn may promote anaerobic conditions and change the and forest land. This is followed by sections discussing direction of soil processes (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006; Chamen knowledge gaps and strategies for mitigating compaction ef- et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2019; Rohe et al., 2021). As fects on N O emissions, respectively. summarised by Ball (2013), limited pore continuity and gas transport capacity within (leading to anaerobic centres) and between aggregates (blocked or reduced inter-aggregate po- 2 Soil compaction as a driver of N Oemissions rosity) influence N O production, consumption and transport to the soil surface. As a product of microbial nitrogen transformations in soil, At the level of the soil profile, soil N O emission responses to N O emissions depend on the co-occurrence of suitable soil compaction are regulated by factors such as microbial 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 3 of 26 38 electron donors and acceptors. Denitrification including nitri- even to regional level (Groffman et al., 2009). The variability fier denitrification has been identified as the main source of of N O emission hotspot may depend on spatial scale, with N O emissions from soil (Skiba et al., 1993; Saggar et al., gas diffusion as an important environmental factor (van den 2009;Koolet al., 2011;Harriset al., 2021), and this process Heuvel et al., 2009). requires degradable organic matter (energy source and O External factors affecting the occurrence of N Ohotspots 2 2 − − sink) and nitrogen oxyanions (NO or NO ). For a given and hot moments include weather conditions and farming op- 3 2 soil, as defined by texture, pH etc., the balance between N O erations (Chamen et al., 2015). Hotspots may become activat- and N production further depends on the degree of anaerobi- ed under wet conditions (Grant et al., 2006; Ruser et al., osis, since even traces of O inhibit the expression of N O 2006). In the presence of substrates, precipitation (or irriga- 2 2 reductase, the enzyme responsible for N O reduction to N tion) can induce N O emissions by increasing soil water con- 2 2 2 (Spiro, 2012). Therefore, soil compaction effects on N O tent and thereby reduce the supply of O to sites of microbial 2 2 emissions will depend on management factors such as residue activity (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006;Beare et al., 2009). Air tem- recycling, fertilisation with manure or synthetic N and traffic, perature also controls N O emissions from soils by affecting factors which all influence soil O status. soil temperature and, consequently, rates of enzymatic pro- Soil volumes and episodes supporting N O emissions are cesses (Schindlbacher et al., 2004; Flynn et al., 2005). Soil referred to as hotspots and hot moments, respectively structural conditions have been found to affect soil thermal (Wagner-Riddle et al., 2020). Figure 2 presents a conceptual properties. Schjønning (2021), for example, found that ther- framework to illustrate how differing soil structural states and mal conductivity increases with bulk density, and Zhen et al. interacting factors may trigger net N O production and trans- (2019) showed that thermal conductivity of undisturbed sam- port. The occurrence of N O emitting hotspots varies with the ples is larger than on remolded samples when measured at the scale of measurement (Luo et al., 2017; Wagner-Riddle et al., same degree of saturation and dry bulk density. 2020), i.e. ranging from a few millimetres (Laudone et al., Depending on the farming system, management strategies 2011;Rohe et al., 2021) to metres at field or landscape level such as the quantity of N applied in animal excreta and (Ambus and Christensen, 1994; Jacinthe and Lal, 2006), or fertilisers (e.g. Hu et al., 2020), the intensity of animal Fig. 2 Conceptual framework illustrating how differing soil structural structural soil quality based on the Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure statuses, and interacting factors, may trigger hotspots and hot moments test (Guimarães et al., 2011). for N O production and transport. Soil quality score refers to the 2 38 Page 4 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 trampling (e.g. de Klein and Eckard, 2008) or traffic (e.g. effects of soil compaction on N O emissions, papers including Pradel et al., 2013) in combination with local weather and soil one or several compaction treatments (traffic-, animal- or conditions (soil type, structural status and landscape position), repacking-induced compaction) were selected and then all contribute to determine the occurrence of N Ohotspotsand organised in tables by land use (cropland, grassland and forest hot moments (Chamen et al., 2015). land) and measurement method (in situ or ex-situ). The impact Spatiotemporal distribution of N O emission hotspots is also factor for N O emissions shown in the tables is calculated as 2 2 influenced by management practices (Ball, 2013). Under good the ratio of the emissions from the compaction treatment to the structural conditions, the soil is mostly well-aerated, and deni- non-compacted/control, using either mean or cumulative trification and N O production is restricted to patches within the values depending on what was reported in the papers. In cases soil that are dominated by fresh organic matter undergoing de- where the papers provided data from different sites and report- composition, such as plant debris (Parkin, 1987; Lietal., 2016) ed combined effects, a mean value across factors was calcu- or manure (Markfoged et al., 2011). Less intense decomposer lated instead. Additionally, the information provided in the activity may also, with adequate N supply, support N Oemis- papers with respect to the type of compactness indicators re- sion when soil volumes are saturated following rainfall or irri- ported was used to assess the level of detail evaluated and the gation (hot moments) (Kostyanovsky et al., 2019). type of association with N O emissions provided (theoretical Within compacted soil layers, the dominant tube-like pores or mathematical associations). in the system are critical upward and downward conductive paths for O and gases produced (Laudone et al., 2011). Soil 3.1 Impact of topsoil compaction on N O emissions 2 2 structure with preferential pathways allows applied N fertilisers to be transport with infiltrating water, which may For this review, topsoil is defined as the soil depth of the then become a source of N O at depth below the plough layer plough layer, which is around 0.25 m. Traffic-induced com- (Ball, 2013). Through the creation of bio-pores, earthworm paction occurs from the top few centimetres up to 0.9 m depth activity has been reported to increase N O production, yet (e.g. Håkansson and Reeder, 1994; Berisso et al., 2012)and its direct effect on emissions is negligible when compared can become a long-lasting problem (Berisso et al., 2012;Etana with the overall soil fluxes (e.g. Bertora et al., 2007). Rather, et al., 2013), whereas trampling-induced compaction is report- in the massive structure of compacted soil, particularly the ed to occur only in the topsoil, with the greatest impact caused subsoil, the transport functionality of burrows could be a fac- at depths of < 0.10 m (Hamza and Anderson, 2005). tor of importance for the release of N O from the sites of In Tables 1, 2 and 3, it can be seen that topsoil compaction production to the atmosphere. A similar contribution is ex- generally increases N O emissions, with the highest reported pected from deep cracks. Blocked or disconnected structural rate being 42 times higher than in uncompacted soil. pores may hold N O which could be released when these soil structural pores are disrupted (Ball, 2013). Importantly, the 3.1.1 Croplands distribution and connectivity between hotspots zones and the upward transport pathways controls the rate of N O emissions N O emissions from croplands are characterised by a large 2 2 to atmosphere, as a longer path delays and allows for reduc- temporal variation, with seasonal peaks as a response to tion of N O during transport (Laudone et al., 2011). fertiliser application, precipitation/irrigation and/or freeze- In summary, N O emissions from soil depend on biophys- thaw events (Bessou et al., 2010; Gregorich et al., 2014;Liu ical interactions, structural stratification in the soil and et al., 2017). As mentioned above, soil compaction may ex- management practices, but the net effect of the many acerbate the production and emission of N Oassociated with potential interactions on N O emissions is complex and fertilisation and other management practices. requires further investigation. The work of Rohe et al. (2021) is an example of potential protocols for the assessment Fertilisation Table 1 shows for studies conducted in croplands of the relationships between soil structural changes, climatic that topsoil compaction is reported to increase N O emissions conditions and the denitrification process through the use of between 1.4 (Hansen et al., 1993) and 9.9 times (Ruser et al., advanced imaging techniques in combination with transport 1998), and up to 42 times when compaction + NO based N- parameter measurements. fertiliser + glucose was tested (Bao et al., 2012). Across a num- ber of published studies, the differences in N O emissions be- tween compacted and non-compacted areas were especially 3 Impact of soil compaction on N Oemissions large after N fertilisation (Ball et al., 1999b; Sitaula et al., 2000). The potential residual effect of soil compaction and N We used Web of Science to review the literature published fertiliser on cumulative N O emissions was found to be signifi- before 19 April 2021 using the search term ‘soil-compaction cant 1 year after compaction and where fertiliser treatments were AND (nitrous-oxide-emission* OR N O)’. To determine the applied to a clay loam soil cropped to maize (Gregorich et al., 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 5 of 26 38 Table 1 Example of croplands studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact Factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non- compacted/control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions In situ Australia, 15, Wheat, barley, From sandy Sampling frequency from 8 to 18 Controlled traffic farming fields Random traffic (on 2.3 (1.2-5.0) Not provided Tullberg 1-2 sorghum loam to times per site per cropping have permanent traffic lanes permanent crop et al. clay soils season and non-trafficked beds. beds) to permanent (2018) Additionally, a random wheel untrafficked beds track applied on the permanent crop beds mimic traffic impact in non-controlled (random) traffic farming Random traffic to 1.6 (1.1–4.0) permanent controlled traffic (average of both traffic lanes and untrafficked beds) Australia, 4, Apple and cherry Sandy loam Weekly sampling during the peak Details on traffic operations in the Grassed interrow to 1.6 Bulk density: Interrow = Swarts −3 1 orchards growing season interrows was not provided. tree line 1.18-1.53 Mg m , Treeline= et al. −3 (November–April) and once 1.03–1.48 Mg m . (2016) monthly during the winter Infiltration: Interrow = ~ −1 period (May–August) 0.5–1.2 cm h , Tree line = ~ −1 14–12 cm h , Statistics not provided Data not shown: volumetric water content, water-filled pore space, gravimetric water content and matric potential. Water-filled pore space mentioned as being higher at two sites along the interrow than the tree line. Statistical association analysis between water content and porosity with N O emissions were provided. Canada, 1, 3 Maize and Clay loam Sampling frequency from 15 to 21 Wheel-beside-wheel passes with Compacted (+ N 2.3 (1.6–3.4) Relative soil bulk density: Gregorich soybean times (depending on the year) at an agricultural tractor with fertiliser rates) to Compacted = 90–92%, et al. approximately 1-week intervals single rear and front tyres. uncompacted (+ N Uncompacted = 80–81%. (2014) throughout the growing season Total tractor mass+tank of 14 fertiliser rates) Significant only at 0-0.15 m Mg. Compaction was applied depth, (p < 0.05) annually in spring 38 Page 6 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions China, 1, 1 Winter Silt loam During the growing season of One compaction event with a Soil compaction 42 Bulk density: Compacted = Bao et al. − −3 wheat-summer maize, gas sampling was done ‘compactor’ at 0.2 m depth 1 (+NO N fertiliser 1.50 Mg m , Uncompacted = (2012) −3 maize rotation once every 3 days. Daily week before sowing the maize. +glucose)to 1.37 Mg m , Statistics not measurements only after Details on ‘compactor’ uncompacted (+ provided fertilisation and irrigation characteristics and compaction zero N fertiliser) Water-filled pore space events for approximately 10 pressure was not provided. (distribution during the days. measured period): Compacted = ~ 60% (peaks), Uncompacted = ~ 80% (peaks), Statistics not provided China, 1, 1 Winter wheat Silt loam Gas sampling was conducted at One compaction event was Compacted (± In the study Bulk density: Compacted = Liu et al. −3 7-10 days interval during the applied to mesocosm installed biochar) to the 1.06–1.30 Mg m , (2017) growing season. 1-2 day in the field by placing a 400 kg uncompacted (± treatments Uncompacted = 0.86-1.13 Mg −3 interval was used after N panel+bricks on top of the biochar) were m ,(p < 0.01) fertilisation until N O corresponding mesocosm to found not Total porosity: Compacted = emissions reached levels equal pressure of 2 × 10 Pa signifi- 51–60%, Uncompacted = comparable to those before cantly 57-67%, (p < 0.01) fertilisation different Soil water holding capacity: Compacted = 36-43%, Uncompacted = 41–56%, (p < 0.001) France, 1, 2 Sugar beet Silt loam Four times per day throughout the Annual pass of a loaded tractor in Compacted to 1.5 Bulk density: Compacted = Bessou −3 growth cycle of the crop (8–9 early March under wet uncompacted 1.43–1.68 Mg m , et al. months per year) conditions. Details on tractor Uncompacted = 1.24–1.29 Mg (2010) −3 characteristics and compaction m , Statistics not provided pressure was not provided Water-filled pore space Distribution during the measured period. Variation between years. Mean data not shown. Statistics not provided Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam Daily measurements during the Ridge-till practice caused Ridges to 1.6 Bulk density: Ridge = 0.99 Mg Flessa et al. −3 2 growingseason(Mayto compaction in the interrow by uncompacted m , (2002) September) each year tractor traffic. Details on traffic interrows Compacted interrow = 1.38 Mg −3 characteristics and compaction m , Uncompacted interrow = −3 pressure was not provided 1.11 Mg m , Statistics not Tractor-compacted 2.3 provided interrows to Water-filled pore space: Ridge = uncompacted 30%, Compacted interrow = interrows 61%, Uncompacted interrow = 49%, Statistics not provided Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 7 of 26 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam Daily measurements during the Soil compaction by tractor traffic. Tractor-compacted 6.4-9.9 Bulk density: Compacted = Ruser et al. −3 1 growing season Details on traffic interrow 1.43-1.68 Mg m , (1998) characteristics and compaction (+fertiliser) to Uncompacted = 1.24-1.29 Mg −3 pressure was not provided uncompacted m interrow Macropores > 54 μm: (+fertiliser) Compacted = 4%, Uncompacted = 22%, Pore size distribution provided Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period provided Statistics not provided Netherlands, Carrot, spinach, Loam Measurement frequency from a All machinery is automatically Random traffic to 1.5 (1.3-1.8) Total porosity: Random Vermeulen 1, 2 onion (tile-- daily basis (after manure guided over fixed traffic lanes. untrafficked beds traffic-compacted = 0.45–0.48 and 3 −3 drained) spreading or after rain events) The main tractor was a (seasonal-- m m , Untrafficked beds = Mosque- 3 −3 to 1–2 measurements per week 140 kW four-wheel drive, controlled traffic 0.48-0.51 m m ,(p < 0.05) ra (2009) at the end of the growing fitted with 30-cm wide rubber farming) Air-filled porosity: Random season. Growing season for 2–3 tracks to increase tractor traffic-compacted = ~ 3 −3 months depending on the crop. stability and to avoid lateral 0.10–0.16 m m , slippage under wet field Untrafficked beds = 0.14–0.20 3 −3 conditions. Tractors used for m m ,(p < 0.05) seedbed preparation and Maximum penetration resistance sowing in spinach and onions (across crops): Random were operated with 0.5 bar tyre traffic-compacted = ~ 3 MPa, pressure. For random traffic Untrafficked beds = ~ 2 MPa, treatment manure application Penetration resistance was conducted with an extra distribution in the 0-30 cm pass of a tractor. depth. Only significant for spinach. Norway, 1, 4 Green fodder/ Sandy loam Sampling frequency from 4 to 17 Annual compaction by two Compacted (+ NPK 2.7 Gas diffusivity: Compacted = ~ Sitaula 2 −1 barley with ley times (depending on the year), passes of a 4-Mg tractor, wheel fertiliser) to 1.5 mm s (0.05–0.1 m et al. 2 −1 (timothy and during the first half of the by wheel in early spring. The uncompacted (+ depth), ~ 0.6 mm s (2000) clover) growing season during the 7th, rear wheels were NPK fertiliser) (0.1–0.18 m depth), 2 −1 under-sown 8th, 9th and 10th years of double-settings with an Uncompacted = ~ 1.9 mm s fertilisation and compaction inflation pressure of 57 kPa. In (0.05–0.1 m depth), ~1.2 mm −1 treatment front, there were low-pressure s (0.1–0.18 m depth), tyres Statistics not provided Norway, 1, 1 Green fodder/ Sandy loam 14 times in the period 4 June-8 Annual compaction by two Compacted 1.4 Total porosity: Distribution Hansen th barley/peas/- July during the 7 year of passes of a 4-Mg tractor, wheel (+NPK/cattle during measured period et al. vetch and fertilisation and compaction by wheel in early spring. The slurry) to Air-filled porosity: Distribution (1993) rye-grass treatment rear wheels were uncompacted during measured period. 38 Page 8 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions double-settings with an (+NPK/cattle Compacted = ~ 0.02–0.14 m −3 inflation pressure of 57 kPa. In slurry) m , Uncompacted = ~ 3 −3 front, there were low-pressure 0.08–0.18 m m tyres Compacted 0.9 Water-filled pore space (after (unfertilised) to rainfall): Compacted = 81%, uncompacted Uncompacted = 73% (unfertilised) Statistics not provided United Winter barley – Daily measurements from March Compaction by loaded tractor (up Compacted to 1.6 (1.3–2.4) Bulk density: Heavy compaction Ball et al. −3 Kingdom, to May to 4.2 Mg). Details on traffic uncompacted =1.4 Mg m ,75–89% of the (1999) 2, 1 characteristics and compaction theoretical (proctor) maxima pressure was not provided Penetration resistances: Heavy compaction=2MPa, Information provided as complementary, Data not shown Ex situ Canada, 1, - Maize Clay loam Daily during 18 days of incubation Compaction was applied through Compacted 20 Bulk density: Compacted = Beare et al. −3 multiple passes with a tractor (+wet/dry/wet 1.49 Mg m , Uncompacted = (2009) −3 during wet conditions after cycles) to 1.01 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) fertilisation but prior to sowing uncompacted Porosity: Compacted = 44%, maizecropineachoftwo (+wet/dry/wet Uncompacted = 62%, (p < consecutive years prior to the cycles) 0.05) measurements Water-filled pore space: Compacted = 77% (wet soil) and 14% (dry soil), Uncompacted = 45% (wet soil) and7% (drysoil),(p < 0.05) Germany, 1, Potato Silt loam During 42 days of incubation after Soil compaction by tractor traffic Tractor-compacted 0.3-2.0 (at Bulk density: Ridge = 1.02 Mg Ruser et al. −3 – moisture content adjusted and interrow (+soil 90-98% m , Compacted interrow = (2006) −3 fertilisation applied. Then the moisture levels of 1.65 Mg m , Uncompacted −3 cores were dried for 2 weeks. +fertiliser) to water-- interrow =1.24Mgm ,(p < On day 56 after fertilisation, the uncompacted filled pore 0.05) cores were rewetted to the interrow (+soil space) Water-filled pore space: N Oflux initial soil water content and moisture levels + rates measured at 40, 60, 70, N O fluxes were monitored for fertiliser) and ridge 90, and 98% an additional 16 days. United Carrot Sandy loam For 1 h Multiple passes of a tractor, 6.4 Tramline to reference 1.3 (2–7cm Bulk density: Tramline centre Ball and −3 Kingdom, and loam Mg, on row-crop wheels with cropped zone depth) =1.50–1.54 Mg m ,In Crawfor- 1, 1 35-cm-wide tyres at high cropped rows = 1.02–1.09 Mg d(2009) −3 m ,(p < 0.05) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 9 of 26 38 Table 1 (continued) Location, Crop Soil texture Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment effect Impact Compactness indicators Reference Number of characteristic studied factor for sites, Years N O emissions inflation pressures (250–300 4.6 Vane shear strength: Tramline kPa) (15–20 c- centre = 62–>90kPa,In mdepth) cropped rows = 9–21 kPa, (p < Statistics not 0.05) provided Water content: Tramline centre = 13–21%, In cropped rows = 11–19%, (p > 0.05) Structure score: Tramline centre = 4.5-5, In cropped rows = 1.6, Statistics not provided Maximum Penetration resistance (10 cm depth): Tramline centre = 4–6MPa In cropped rows ≤ 0.5 MPa, Distributioninthe 0–50 cm depth provided, Statistics not provided 38 Page 10 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 2 Example of grassland studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non-compacted/ control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions In situ Australia, 2, Kikuyu pasture over-sown Clay 48 samplings per year Intensive (farm stocking rate of 5 Intensive grazing 5.8 Soil water content: Intensive grazing = De Rosa et al. −1 −1 3 with Italian ryegrass and head ha ) and non-intensive to 0.4–0.6 g g , non-intensive (2020) clay grazing systems (farm stocking non-intensive grazing = data not provided −1 loam rate of 3 head ha ) grazing Brazil, 1, 1 Pasture of ryegrass plus oats Clay 13 sampling sessions over ~ 10 Two sheep grazing levels Grazed 0.4 Water-filled pore space: Distribution Piva et al. in winter, and common months at intervals of 2 to 76 days, (continuous grazing, and (+fertiliser) to during the measuring period is (2019) beans in the summer being the shortest intervals after ungrazed). The stocking rate ungrazed given, but differences between nitrogen application. wasvariedtomaintainthe (+fertiliser) grazed and ungranzed are not pasture with a mean height of provided. Bulk density and water 0.14 m content data were not shown. Czech A perennial mixture of Sandy Four occasions during winter Since1995, the 4.04 ha pasture Footpath to In the study the Bulk density: Footpath = 1.46 Mg Simek et al. −3 Republic, grasses, clovers and other loam hadbeen usedby around90 light/none treatments m , Light/none impact = 1.32 Mg (2006) −3 1, 1 dicotyledonous plants cows each winter impact of were found m ,(p <0.05) animals not Total porosity: Footpath = 42%, significantly Light/none impact = 46%, (not different significantly different) Water-filled pore space: Footpath = 82%, Light/none impact = 77% (not significantly different) Germany, 1, Mixture species: perennial Sandy Daily sampling after compaction and Soil compaction by a single pass Compacted (+ 1.5 (grass Bulk density after compaction: Schmeer et al. −3 3 ryegrass, meadow fescue, loam fertilization for two weeks, then of a tractor with a slurry tanker fertiliser) to swards) 1.48–1.57 Mg m (2014) smooth-stalked meadow the sampling intervals were (total weight = 22 Mg, contact uncompacted 0.9 Soil water content at the time of grass, timothy grass, extended to once a week. area pressure = 321 kPa) in (+ fertiliser) (lucerne–- compaction: Compacted = orchard grass, white Sampling period from April to early April every year grass 35–51%, Uncompacted = 34–39% clover and lucerne October in all experimental years mixtures) Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period was modelled New Grass Sandy Daily sampling during 70 days Trampling was simulated using a Trampled 2.8 Bulk density: Trampled = 1.00 Mg (Ball et al., −3 −3 Zealand, loam mechanical hoof and applying (+urine) to not m , Not trampled = 0.96 Mg m 2012) 1, – a pressure of 220 kPa for 5 s trampled (not significantly different) twice (+urine) Volumetric water content: Trampled = 3 −3 0.46 m m ,Not trampled =0.45 3 −3 m m ,(p <0.05) Water-filled pore space: Trampled = 0.81, Not trampled = 0.76, (p < 0.01) Total porosity: Trampled = 0.57 m −3 3 −3 m , Not trampled = 0.59 m m , (not significantly different) Air-filled porosity: Trampled = 0.11 3 −3 3 m m , Not trampled = 0.14 m −3 m ,(p <0.01) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 11 of 26 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions Air permeability: Trampled = 24 μm , Not trampled = 94 μm ,(p < 0.001) Pore continuity: Trampled = 288, Not trampled = 693, (p < 0.05) New Permanent legume-based Sandy Daily from September to December Uniformly compacted soil was Compacted (+ 7 Bulk density: Compacted = Bhandral et al. −3 Zealand, pasture loam obtained through a total of 10 different N 1.19–1.31 Mg m , Uncompacted (2007) −3 1, – passes of Toyota Hilux Utility sources) to = 1.18-1.19 Mg m ,(p <0.05) vehicle with a ground pressure uncompacted Penetrometer resistance: Compacted = −1 of 632 kPa at 2.78 m s (+ different N 1.30-1.86 MPa, Uncompacted = sources) 1.19–1.28 MPa, Statistics not provided Oxygen diffusion rate: Compacted = −2 −1 0.29–0.58 μgcm min , Uncompacted = 0.52–0.63 μg −2 −1 cm min , Statistics not provided Water-filled pore space: Compacted = 0.54–1.21, Uncompacted = 0.59–0.94, Statistics not provided New Winter swede in a Silt 130 and 96 days Compaction was applied by Compacted (± 2.0–4.1 van der Bulk density: Compacted = −3 Zealand, previously pasture loam bodyweight, with stilts urine) to In the study the 1.12-1.21 Mg m , Uncompacted Weerden −3 2, 1 strapped on thebaseofshoes to uncompacted treatments =1.00–1.22 Mg m et al. simulate cow hoofs –pressure (no urine) were found Macroporosity: Compacted = 9–13%, (2012) of ca. 300 kPa. The swede crop Compacted (no not Uncompacted = 12–17% wasgrazedbycows urine) to significantly Total porosity: Compacted = 54–58%, uncompacted different Uncompacted = 54-62%, For all (no urine) three parameters, p <0.01 at 0–0.05 m depth and not significant at 0.05–0.1 cm depth Water-filled pore space: distribution during the measuring period, Compacted = 100% (wet), ~ 60% (dry), Uncompacted = 80–95% (wet), ~ 50% (dry) New Kale in a previously pasture Silty Twice a week for the first 6 weeks Compaction was applied by Compacted (± 3.2–7.4 Bulk density: Compacted = van der −3 Zealand, clay after treatment application and bodyweight, with stilts urine) to 0.79–0.82 Mg m , Uncompacted Weerden −3 1, 1 loam then once a week from June to strapped on thebaseofshoes to uncompacted =0.76–0.81 Mg m et al. October simulate cow hoofs –pressure (no urine) Macroporosity: Compacted = (2017) of ca. 300 kPa. The swede crop 22–28%, Uncompacted = 27–31% wasgrazedbycows Total porosity: Compacted = 69–70%, Uncompacted = 70-71%, For all parameters, p <0.01 at0–0.05 m depth and not significant at 0.05–0.1 m depth 38 Page 12 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compactiontreatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions Water-filled pore space: Distribution during the measuring period, Compacted about 10% larger than the uncompacted United Perennial ryegrass Silt Weekly samplings with variation Twotramplingevents (7days Trampled (+ N In the study the Bulk density: Trampled = Hargreaves −3 Kingdom, clay within the years apart) were applied with 12 fertiliser/- ,Tractor = et al. treatments 1.11–1.21 Mg m −3 2, 3 loam cows of 520 kg each, during 1 slurry) to were found 1.13–1.23 Mg m , (2021) −3 and h. Trampling compactive uncompacted not Uncompacted = 0.94–1.18 Mg m san- pressure of ~250 kPa. (+ N significantly dy fertiliser/- different loam slurry) Mechanical compaction with a Mechanical 1.2–1.5 Water-filled pore space: Trampled = 10-ton tractor and a tyre compaction 83-90%, Tractor = 89-93%, pressure of 160 K N/m (+ N Uncompacted = 68–75%, For all applied to the complete area. fertiliser/- parameters, p <0.05onlyatone slurry) to site uncompacted (+ N fertiliser/- slurry) United Grassland Clay – Conventional traffic. Details on Conventional 1.9 Bulk density: Conventional traffic = Ball et al. −3 Kingdom, loam traffic characteristics and traffic to zero 1.48 Mg m , Zero traffic = (1997) −3 1, 2 compaction pressure was not traffic 1.31 Mg m , (3-year average was provided statistically different between treatments) Vane shear strength: Conventional traffic = 63 kPa, Zero traffic = 40 kPa, (3-year average was statistically different between treatments) Air-filled porosity: Conventional traffic = 5%, Zero traffic = 12%. Statistics not provided Air permeability: Conventional traffic 2 2 =361 μm , Zero traffic = 22 μm . Statistics not provided Relative diffusivity: Conventional traffic = 0.009, Zero traffic = 0.018. Statistics not provided Infiltration rate: Conventional traffic = −1 1.27 mm min , Zero traffic = −1 13.55 mm min . Statistics not provided 3.5 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 13 of 26 38 Table 2 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/incubation period Compaction treatment Treatment Impact factor Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture characteristic effect studied for N O sites, Years emissions United A mixture of perennial Clay Daily measurements for 21 days Three passages of a mini-tractor Compacted (± Bulk density: Compacted = Yamulki and −3 Kingdom, ryegrass, clover and other loam between July and August towing a roller, 200 cm width, fertiliser ± 0.79–0.81 Mg m , Uncompacted Jarvis −3 1, – grasses with a total weight of ca. 500 tillage) to =0.76 Mgm (2002) kg uncompacted Water-filled pore space: Compacted = (+ fertiliser, 58–86%, Uncompacted = 56–80%. no-tillage) Statistics not provided Ex situ Brazil, 1, – Brachiaria brizantha Clay 25 times within 106 days of The soil (< 4mm) was compacted Compacted 1.5 Bulk density: Compacted = 2.0 Mg Cardoso et al. −3 −3 incubation by compressing the soil in the (+urine) to m , Uncompacted = 1.2 Mg m (2017) jars (using a piece of wood) up uncompacted Water-filled pore space: Compacted = to a bulk density of 2.0 Mg (+urine) 89–100%, Uncompacted = −3 m and a water-filled 40–62%. Statistics not provided pore-space of 56.8%. Netherlands, – Loamy 27 measurements during the 103-day Soil compaction was simulated by Compacted 5.0(26and50 Bulk density: Compacted = 1.22 Mg van Groenigen −3 −3 1, – sand incubation period compressing the soil in the jars (+urine) to mL urine m , Uncompacted = 1.07 Mg m et al. −1 using a piece of wood until the uncompacted kg dry Water-filled pore space: Compacted = (2005) initial bulk density was (+urine) soil) 100%, Uncompacted = 80%. increased from approximately 1.0(102mL Statistics not provided −3 −1 1.07–1.22 Mg m urine kg dry soil) New Ryegrass -white clover Silt Daily measurements during 36 days Repacked soil cores were Compacted In the study the Bulk density: Compacted = Harrison-Kirk −3 Zealand, loam constructed by packing (synthetic treatments 0.85–0.88 Mg m , Uncompacted et al. −3 1, – field-moist soil into PVC urine) to were found =0.82 Mgm ,(p < 0.001) (2015) cylinders applying pressure of uncompacted not Total porosity of 18–34% reduction either 220 or 400 kPa at the (synthetic significantly after compaction, (p < 0.001) core surface urine) different Water content (− 10 kPa): Compacted =52–54%, Uncompacted = 51%, (p < 0.001) New Perennial ryegrass and white – Daily measurements during 37 days Repacked soil cores with four Heavy 2.5 (aggregates Bulk density: Compacted = Uchida et al. −3 Zealand, clover different soil aggregate sizes (< compacted of < 1 mm) 1.08-1.29 Mg m , Uncompacted (2008) −3 1, 1 1.0–5.6 mm) to a level of (+urine) to 7.4-8.3 =0.78–0.97 Mg m (aggregates compaction ranged from 0.78 uncompacted (aggregates between < 1.0–5.6 mm). Statistics −3 to 1.29 Mg m . (+urine) of 1–4 mm) not provided 38 Page 14 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Table 3 Example of forest land studies showing the impact of topsoil compaction on nitrous oxide emission. Impact Factor is the ratio of the emissions from compaction treatment to that of non- compacted/control. The statistical results refer to the statistical analysis conducted in each article. Location, Crop Soil Sampling/ Compaction treatment characteristic Treatment Impact factor for N O Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture incubation effect studied emissions sites, Years period In situ Brazil, 2, 2 Timber Clay and 31 dates within Mechanical disturbance and compaction due to Logged area 1.7–17 Bulk density: Compacted = ~ 1.27 Mg Keller −3 −3 species sandy the 2 years the passage of skidders, loaders, crawler to m , Uncompacted = ~ 1.03 Mg m ,(p et al. and loam tractors, and trucks back- < 0.05) (2005) various ground Water-filled pore space: Distribution tree forest during measuring time. Direct relation species between N O emissions and water-filled pore space was provided. France,2,3 Sessileoak Silt loam Once a month After the timber was extracted, one pass (back Trafficked ≤ 1.0 (0.05–0.2 m depth) Bulk density: Trafficked = 1.47–1.56 Mg Goutal −3 −3 with and within and forth) of an 8-wheel drive forwarder was plots to ~1.2 to ~ 12 (at or below m , Control = 1.23–1.38 Mg m ,(p < et al. secondary two days driven. Tyres inflation was 360 kPa and the control 0.3 m depth), 0.05) (2013) ground wood-loaded forwarder weighted 17–23 Mg. plots significance of the Air-filled pore space (distribution during vegeta- After compaction, the area was planted with effect of treatment was measuring time) tion cover sessile oak not tested in the study Significantly lower in the trafficked treatment only at one site, mean data not shown Germany, 3, Beech Silty 2–3-week Compaction treatments were applied by two Compacted 40 Bulk density: Compacted = 1.01–1.52 Mg Teepe −3 1 stands clay interval for 1 passes of a half-loaded, eight-wheeled (in the m (0–0.05 m depth), 1.36-1.42 Mg et al. −3 (60- to loam, year forwarder (total weight about 16 Mg, speed wheel m (0.1–0.15 m depth), Uncompacted (2004) −1 −3 90-year sandy approximately 2 m s ). Compaction applied to track) to =1.07–1.22 Mg m (0–0.05 m depth), −3 old) loam, emulate conditions comparable to harvest uncompa- 1.27-1.36 Mg m (0.1-0.15 m depth), (p < and practices cted 0.05, only one site at 0-0.05 m depth) silt Macropore ≥ 50 μm: Compacted = 4–7% (0–0.05 m depth), 4–6% (0.1–0.15 m depth), Uncompacted = 10–15% (0–0.05 m depth), 11–14% (0.1–0.15 m depth), (p < 0.05) Germany, 1, Beech and Loam 17 Wheel track represent former skid trail with 15 Wheel track 3.3 (under beech) Bulk density: Wheel track = Warlo -3 1 black measure- years without trafficking to stand In the study the 0.94–1.20 Mg m ,Stand =0.76– et al. −3 alder (15 ments within treatments in the alder 1.06 Mg m . Statistics not provided (2019) year old) 12 months stand were found not Total porosity relative to control: Wheel significantly different track = ~ 85%, Stand = ~ 100%, (p < 0.05) Macroporosity relative to control: Wheel track = ~ 55%, Stand = ~100%, (p < 0.05) Water-filled pore space: Distribution during measuring time per site with no distinction between trafficked areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 15 of 26 38 Table 3 (continued) Location, Crop Soil Sampling/ Compaction treatment characteristic Treatment Impact factor for N O Compactness indicators Reference Number of texture incubation effect studied emissions sites, Years period Gas diffusivity: Distribution during measuring time per site with no distinction between trafficked areas Switzerland, Forest Loam Monthly Compaction was induced using a fully loaded Compacted 3.6 Bulk density: Compacted = ~ Hartmann −3 2, 2 intervals forwarder (26-Mg) with four passes (contact (in the 1.50–1.58 Mg m , Uncompacted = ~ et al. −3 between pressure of 240–320 kPa) wheel 1.30 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) (2014) September track) to Macropores: Compacted = ~ 3–6% and uncompa- Uncompacted = ~10%, (p < 0.05) December of cted Air permeability: Compacted ≤ 10 μm , each year Uncompacted = ~ 200 μm ,(p < 0.05) Hydraulic conductivity: Compacted = < −1 0.1 m day , Uncompacted = ~ 0.6 m −1 day ,(p < 0.05) Compaction was induced using an unloaded Compacted In the study the Bulk density: Compacted = ~ −3 skidder with four passes at Heiteren (14 tons, (in the treatments were found 1.28–1.38 Mg m , Uncompacted = ~ −3 210–280 kPa) wheel not significantly 1.10 Mg m ,(p < 0.05) track) to different Macropores: Compacted = ~ 4-6%, uncompa- Uncompacted = ~16%, (p < 0.05) cted Air permeability: Compacted ≤ 10 μm , Uncompacted = ~ 200 μm ,(p < 0.05) Hydraulic conductivity: Compacted ≤ 0.6 −1 −1 mday , Uncompacted = ~ 3.0 m day , (p < 0.05) 38 Page 16 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 2014). N O emissions were found to correlate better with soil When comparing compacted interrow soil to uncompacted compaction than with N fertiliser rates on a silt loam soil under soil, Ruser et al. (2006) found that drying/rewetting cycles in sugar beet with preceding winter wheat and winter barley straw the soils could induce high N O emission peaks that exceed by incorporation (Bessou et al., 2010), which indicates that O lim- about a factor of two the maximum flux rates measured after itation was the most important driver. However, Ball et al. (2000) nitrate addition at constant soil water contents. Moreover, dur- found that N O fluxes were better correlated with soil physical ing the drying/rewetting cycles, larger emissions are measured properties after N fertilisation, and they stressed the importance after rewetting (Beare et al., 2009), which also proportionally of interacting effects. increase with increasing water content (Ruser et al., 2006). The type of fertiliser is another key factor controlling N O emissions. For example, in sandy loam soil under rotation Row crop systems In row crop systems, the tractor-compacted (green fodder/barley/peas/vetch and rye-grass), Hansen et al. interrow areas are characterised by a poor structure with higher (1993) reported that in compacted soils the soil air concentra- bulk density, a large reduction in the air-filled pore space and tion of N O was seven times higher in NPK-fertilised plots than higher soil moisture content than the cropped rows (Ruser et al., in plots fertilised with cattle slurry, whereas no difference was 1998;Balland Crawford, 2009). Anaerobic conditions in the found in the uncompacted soil. This was probably because compacted interrows induced a higher N Oproductionbyan NPK fertilisers contain NO , which can directly serve as an impact factor ranging between 2.0 and 9.9 times compared to electron acceptor for denitrification, whereas ammoniacal N in the rows growing potato (Ruser et al., 1998;Flessaetal., 2002; manure must await nitrification, which may be delayed by re- Ruser et al., 2006) and corresponding impact factors of 1.3–4.6 duced O availability in compacted soil (Jensen et al., 1996). in carrot fields (Ball and Crawford, 2009). Other examples of combined compaction effects include a In an incubation experiment, the maximum N Oflux rates studybyBalletal. (1999a) for loam and sandy loam soils under occurred from compacted interrow soil sampled from a potato winter wheat in the UK. Their study found that compaction field, but the cumulative N O emission at 90% WFPS was significantly increased N O emissions after fertiliser application higher for the ridge soil compared to the compacted interrow or residue incorporation, with marked emissions in the periods (Ruser et al., 2006). In row crop systems, N O emissions are of the year when the soil was wet (volumetric soil water content also found to increase after surface application of residues in > ca. 38%). Similarly, Sitaula et al. (2000) reported that preva- combination with compaction (Flessa et al., 2002), and after lent high volumetric water contents of > 45% on measurement heavy precipitation (Ruser et al., 1998;Flessa et al., 2002). days favoured greater N O production in a traffic-compacted However, N O release can be relatively low in the interrows if 2 2 sandy loam soil compared to uncompacted soil. measured immediately after precipitation (under waterlogged For maize on a silt loam soil, a combined compaction conditions) (Ruser et al., 1998). Importantly, N O losses from (+NO +glucose) treatment was found to explain nearly 70% the interrows might vary with the degree of compactness, the of the variation in N O emissions compared to 24% for a amount of WFPS and the rate of N inputs (Flessa et al., 2002), control treatment, and 60% WFPS was found to be a threshold similar to other cropping systems. for increasing N O emissions in all the treatments both with In apple and cherry orchards, interrows were reported to and without compaction (Bao et al., 2012). increase daily N O emissions approximately two-fold com- In incubation experiments, an increase in N O emissions pared to within the tree lines during summer in Australia by compaction, in combination with fertiliser and/or water (Swarts et al., 2016). However, in both the interrows and tree content, was reported to range from 1.3 to 20 times that in lines, the emission rates during summer were low, which was the uncompacted soils (e.g. Ruser et al., 2006;Balland attributed to the judicious management of irrigation and N Crawford, 2009; Beare et al., 2009). fertiliser application through tree line drippers, as the volumet- ric water content rarely exceeded field capacity. Drying/rewetting Irrigation resulting in drying/rewetting cycles In relation to controlled-traffic farming, Tullberg et al. is another factor of importance for N O production in (2018) presented work wherein the N O emission reduction 2 2 compacted agricultural soils (Ruser et al., 2006;Beareetal., ratio was calculated for 15 sites based on the traffic impact 2009). In an incubation experiment on a clay loam soil, the total factors of permanent traffic lanes, random-trafficked soil and N O production from compacted soil was 70, 3 and 20 times the non-wheeled area. This work showed that trafficked lanes higher than that from uncompacted soil during, respectively, the increased N O release 1.1 to 5.0 times compared to the preincubation phase at field capacity, the drying phase and the untrafficked areas across sites. rewetting phase (Beare et al., 2009). In the same experiment, the production of N O was increased by drying and rewetting cycles 3.1.2 Grasslands compared to the continuously wet treatment, though in both cases compaction resulted in a larger increase in N O Topsoil compaction in grasslands has been found to increase production relative to the uncompacted soil. N O emissions between 1.2 and 7.4 times when measured 2 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 17 of 26 38 directly under field conditions, and between 1.0 and 8.3 times (Hargreaves et al., 2021). This study, conducted in the UK, in incubation experiments (Table 2). In tractor compacted confirmed that the largest mean daily N O fluxes are generally grasslands, Ball et al. (1997) found that trafficked areas with, observed after external input of N. In contrast to these various respectively, 1.3-, 16- and 2-fold lower air-filled porosity, air reports, a study by Piva et al. (2019) on a clay oxisol in Brazil permeability and relative gas diffusivity, produced about two found that the N OemissionpeakafterNapplicationwasmore times more N O than the zero-traffic areas. Some studies, intenseinungrazedcomparedtograzedpasture,especiallyat however, reported no significant compaction effect on N O low WFPS. Hence, grazing affects N O emissions through 2 2 emissions from grasslands and pasture soil (Simek et al., interacting effects of N input and compaction that are modified 2006; van der Weerden and Styles, 2012;Harrison-Kirk by site-specific conditions. This has been confirmed in manip- et al., 2015); all studies concluded that production of N was ulative incubation experiments with urine, dung and simulated probably favoured. compaction (van Groenigen et al., 2005; Cardoso et al., 2017). Fertilisation Yamulki and Jarvis (2002), in a clay loam soil Mechanisms In an ex-situ experiment, conducted with a silty under a mixture of perennial grasses, found that traffic- loam soil under ryegrass-white clover, soil cores were packed compaction significantly increased the total cumulative flux by applying pressures of 0, 220 or 400 kPa and treated with of N O regardless of fertiliser application, though the varia- synthetic urine, and then subjected to successive saturation- tion in N O fluxes was large within and between the drainage cycles on tension tables (Harrison-Kirk et al., 2015). treatments. In contrast, work conducted by Schmeer et al. At 0 and 220 kPa compaction levels, N Ofluxes dropped as (2014) on traffic-compaction of a sandy loam soil under per- soil cores were drained to 6 kPa matric potential, whereas N O manent perennial species only caused an increase in N O fluxes in the most compacted treatment persisted longer and emissions on N-fertilised plots (mean of three years). In a persisted until the soil was drained to 8 kPa tension. This combined compaction-fertiliser experiment, Bhandral et al. indicates a relationship between matric potential and soil (2007) showed that traffic-compaction of a sandy loam soil structure with respect to N O emissions, but Balaine et al. increased N O emissions from grassland irrespective of the N (2013) found that relative gas diffusivity was a better predictor source, yet the effect of nitrate application was more pro- compared to matric potential. In their study of a silt loam soil nounced in the compacted soil compared to other N sources. packed to five dry bulk densities and one of seven matric These studies indicate that on light-textured soil with perenni- potentials, Balaine et al. (2013) found a consistent maximum al vegetation, compaction alone will not greatly influence of N O-N fluxes when the relative gas diffusivity ranged be- N O emissions, possibly because plants ensure a low mineral tween 0.0060 and 0.0067, regardless of bulk density. It should N availability except for a period after fertilisation. With finer- be stressed that this conclusion applied to bulk soil and did not textured soil, compaction can result in more wide-spread O consider variations in organic matter or nitrate availability. limitation and hence potential for denitrification, but the po- Soil compaction will change soil structure, as shown in a tential for N O reduction to N will also increase. study where repacked soil cores were prepared with aggre- 2 2 gates of different sizes (Uchida et al., 2008). The highest Grazing The effect of trampling-induced soil compaction on N O fluxes occurred at moderate to severe compaction and N O emissions has been widely investigated. In a cattle over- in the smallest aggregates (0–1.0 mm), which also had the wintering area in the Czech Republic, Simek et al. (2006) lowest porosity after compaction. After a drying/rewetting found higher N O emissions in trampled areas compared to cycle, N O fluxes increased in all treatments but with the 2 2 those of areas with less or no disturbance by trampling, but the highest fluxes in the moderately to severely compacted soils. difference was not statistically significant, which was attribut- The smaller the aggregate size, the longer was the period in ed to a high spatial variability. In another study from Scotland, which N O fluxes continued to increase (Uchida et al., 2008). simulation of trampling in a wet dairy pasture soil showed a three-fold increase in N O emissions (Ball et al., 2012). 3.1.3 Forest land In New Zealand, van der Weerden and Styles (2012)and van der Weerden et al. (2017) found that N Ofluxes from Under forest land, compaction by mechanical disturbance has pasture on silt loam soil were greatest from compacted treat- been reported to be an impact factor causing N O emissions of ments after urine application and remained elevated for two to 1.7 to 40 times (Table 3). four weeks; thereafter fluxes declined and remained stable for In oak forests, Goutal et al. (2013) found that trafficked plots about four months. In silt clay loam and sandy loam soils under had a higher N O production in comparison to the control treat- perennial ryegrass, compaction by both traffic and trampling ment, but only below 0.3 m depth where the soil air-filled po- induced larger cumulative N O emissions compared to rosity was significantly reduced. The residual effect of compac- uncompacted control soil, although the difference was only tion on N O emissions was evident after 2 years of applying statistically significant for the traffic compaction treatment compaction, although with seasonal variation. Compaction with 38 Page 18 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 heavy machinery also significantly increased N O emissions in reviews literature on how to best describe changes in soil two forests in Switzerland, and the difference in N O emission structure in relation to risk of creating N O emission hotspots 2 2 between the compacted and natural area remained largely con- and hot moments and knowledge gaps are identified. sistent up to around 5 years post-disturbance (Hartmann et al., 2014). The N O emission in forests on clay Oxisol showed high 4.1 Soil physical parameters fluxes during the wet season and low fluxes during the dry season for both compacted and uncompacted areas, whereas in Studies summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3 across the three land- the logging decks an inverted pattern was observed (Keller et al., use categories, i.e. cropland, grassland and forest land, 2005). At another site under beech, cumulative annual N O recognised that changes in soil structure strongly affect N O 2 2 emissions were 3.3 times higher in the wheel track than in the emissions, but often limit their assessments of traffic/ undisturbed stand (Warlo et al., 2019). In that study, N Oemis- trampling-compaction impact on N O emissions to either a 2 2 sions across trafficked and non/trafficked areas were larger under brief description of the compaction status (Ball et al., 1999a; alder than under beech, but no compaction effect was observed van Groenigen et al., 2005; Schmeer et al., 2014; Cardoso in the site under alder stands. Presumably the role of traffic and et al., 2017; Tullberg et al., 2018;De Rosa et al., 2020), or climatic conditions are the same in managed forests as in the to a theoretical or indirect association between N O emissions other land use categories. and bulk density, water content and/or WFPS (Yamulki and Jarvis, 2002;Keller et al., 2005; Ruser et al., 2006;Uchida 3.2 Impact of subsoil compaction on N O emissions et al., 2008; van der Weerden and Styles, 2012; Gregorich et al., 2014; van der Weerden et al., 2017;Piva et al., 2019; Although most studies focus on N O emissions from the soil Hargreaves et al., 2021); or with bulk density, total porosity surface, the production of N O may occur in the entire soil and water holding capacity (Liu et al., 2017); with air-filled profile depending on soil conditions. porosity (Hansen et al., 1993;Goutalet al., 2013); pore size In compacted subsoil, gas and water transport mainly occurs distribution, bulk density and WFPS (Ruser et al., 1998; through vertical biopores that remain functional, though with Teepe et al., 2004); or with soil strength measurements such reduced volume, after compaction (Schjønning et al., 2013; a penetration resistance and vane shear (e.g. Ball et al., 1997; Schjønning et al., 2019). Anaerobic conditions in the soil matrix Bhandral et al., 2007; Ball and Crawford, 2009;Vermeulen between vertical macropores in compacted subsoil may turn and Mosquera, 2009). One notable exception is the work by hardened layers into emission sources. Additionally, subsoil Ball et al. (1997), who presented a complete description of soil compaction may reduce water flow in saturated, or near- physical status including the majority of the parameters men- saturated state, thus impeding drainage and resulting in a wetter tioned above. This study established an association of in- topsoil in early spring, as shown by, for example, Pulido- creases in N O emissions from trafficked grassland areas with Moncada et al. (2021). This is expected to increase the risk of poor structure and limited fluid transport—yet no direct rela- N O emissions associated with fertilisation, manure application tionships were established. and crop residue turnover. Despite this, there is a paucity of The response of N O fluxes to soil compaction has often knowledge about the contribution of subsoil compaction to the been quantified with a particular focus on the association with emission of the greenhouse gas N O (Schjønning et al., 2019). soil water content, most often represented by WFPS. An ex- Recently, Petersen and Abrahamsen (2021) simulated the ample of this is the study by Swarts et al. (2016)intree expected long-term effects of traffic with heavy machinery cropping systems, where several soil physical parameters (resulting in subsoil compaction) on nitrogen balances and were measured, but direct associations with N O emissions the environment by using the model Daisy with input data were only investigated with water content (gravimetric and from a 10-year field trial in Denmark. The study showed that volumetric) and WFPS. These associations were statistically the simulated extra nitrogen loss (as N or N O) associated weak (r < 0.40) and had no consistent pattern, neither in the 2 2 with subsoil compaction can increase losses by up to 50%. tree line nor interrow, between seasons or sites. In contrast, in This simulation result highlights the need to determine to what a study of grazed soils under winter forage crops, van der extent subsoil compaction contributes to losses of gaseous Weerden et al. (2017) showed a strong relationship between nitrogen (N Oin particular). N O emissions and WFPS (R =0.83, p =0.005) across urine 2 2 and compaction treatments. In a study from China, WFPS was directly proportional to N Ofluxrates (R =0.57–0.70) across 4 Responses of N O emission to changes compaction and N source combined treatments, but only when in soil physical properties: knowledge gaps WFPS reached 56–63% (Bao et al., 2012). A significant linear relationship between WFPS and log-transformed N O emis- Soil compaction promotes N O emission due to changes in sions was also found by Flessa et al. (2002) for compacted and soil physical and biological properties. The following section non-compacted inter-rows of a potato field with on average 61 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 19 of 26 38 and 49% WFPS, and by Simek et al. (2006) in a cattle how soil structure contributes to the production and transport overwintering area with WFPS at 65–82%. However, Flessa of denitrification products (Rohe et al., 2021). At this time, the et al. (2002)also observed high N O emissions from the ridge morphology of the soil pore system and its contribution to position at only 30% WFPS. Beare et al. (2009)found asig- N O fluxes are poorly understood and documented, and stud- nificant exponential relationship (r = 0.67, p < 0.001) be- ies characterising soil-gas phase relationships may help fill tween WFPS and N O production during pre-incubation and this knowledge gap. An example is the study of Chamindu drying phases of an incubation experiment, but no clear dif- Deepagoda et al. (2013), which presented a comprehensive ference in this relationship between compacted and analysis of pore tortuosity-discontinuity in variably saturated uncompacted soil was observed when WFPS was < 60%. soils and showed strong relationships between pore tortuosity To summarise, WFPS is not a general predictor of compaction (air permeability-based index) and clay content, particle size effects on N O emissions, indicating that the effect of WFPS distribution and water retention parameters. interacts with other soil properties. In early works by Stepniewski (1980), O diffusion was 4.2 Organic matter decomposition found to be a potential parameter to determine critical ranges of soil compaction and moisture tension for plant growth. The relationship between relative gas diffusivity and N Oemis- Later studies have shown relationship between N O sions may be confounded by organic matter degradation emissions and relative gas diffusivity. Balaine et al. (2013) (Petersen et al., 2013; Balaine et al., 2016). Fresh organic matter showed that relative gas diffusivity was a better predictor of associated with plant residues or animal manure represent a local N O emissions than WFPS across several combinations of O demand that may sustain denitrification activity and N O 2 2 2 soil bulk density and water potential. In accordance with this, emissions across a wide range of soil conditions, as demonstrat- Petersen et al. (2008), comparing N O emissions from intact ed in laboratory studies (e.g. Parkin, 1987;Lietal., 2016), but soil cores under no-till or moldboard ploughing at seven also under field conditions (Flessa et al., 2002). In these situa- matric potentials, found that relative gas diffusivity was a tions, organic matter decomposition rather than bulk soil condi- stronger predictor than either WFPS or volumetric water con- tions is the main driver of N O emissions (Wagner-Riddle et al., tent. Harrison-Kirk et al. (2015) also compared WFPS, volu- 2020). Baraletal. (2016) concluded, based on a factorial incu- metric water content and relative gas diffusivity in an experi- bation experiment with three soil moisture levels and three ma- ment with compaction of urine-treated soil cores; they always nure types, that relative gas diffusivity controls the proportions of found statistically significant relationships with N Oflux (R aerobic and anaerobic degradation through the O supply to 2 2 = 0.46–0.62, p < 0.001), but again pointed to relative gas putative N O emission hotspots, although also soil NO avail- 2 3 diffusivity as the best predictor across variable soil conditions. ability affects the extent of denitrification and N O emissions Furthermore, Harrison-Kirk et al. (2015) reported that soil (Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2021). An effect of soil particle size compaction led to reduced macro-porosity and more complete distribution and N O emissions from crop residues was also denitrification to N in the most compacted soil. reported by Kravchenko et al. (2017). If the role of relative gas The observations from controlled laboratory incubations diffusivity for oxic vs anoxic decomposition is confirmed, this are confirmed by field observations. In a study of beech and may link bulk soil conditions with C and N turnover in organic alder forest, Warlo et al. (2019) evaluated the relationship hotspots. between N O flux and soil structure by continuously monitor- ing several soil physical parameters. Although the authors 4.3 Microbiology gave more attention to the N O fluxes for the tree species than for the effect of traffic, the best tree-species specific models Soil compaction will reduce the volume of macropores and (R =0.26–0.64) showed that gas diffusivity was the main increase that of smaller pores. While this is mostly discussed variable controlling N O flux. This is in agreement with a in the context of water availability (Lipiec et al., 2012)and compaction study conducted by Sitaula et al. (2000)where hydraulic properties (Tarawally et al., 2004), the change in an increase in N O emissions was related to a decrease in pore size distribution could also alter conditions for microbial gas diffusivity, and with results from Mutegi et al. (2010) survival and activity. Postma and van Veen (1990) investigat- where gas diffusivity was found to be a better explanatory ed microbial numbers at different bulk densities in two soil factor for N O emissions compared to WFPS in tillage exper- types and found little effect of increasing bulk density on iments. Furthermore, Rousset et al. (2020) showed that, across microbial numbers. They estimated that less than 1% of the four soils of different texture, each packed to three bulk den- habitable pore space was occupied, which may explain the sities, gas diffusivity predicted the onset of N O emissions lack of response. This was in contrast to the effect of increas- under conditions of C and NO availability supporting deni- ing soil moisture, which resulted in declining cell numbers, an trification. Hence, gas diffusivity appears to be is an important effect that was explained by increasing oxygen limitation characteristic, together with water saturation, in determining (Postma and van Veen, 1990). 38 Page 20 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Frey et al. (2009) observed changes in bacterial community manure); and soil-N source (O supply interactions), with a par- structure in severely compacted forest soils (32% higher bulk ticular focus on hotspots and hot moments. Here, we summarise density) and related this to reduced air and water conductivi- possible mitigation approaches specifically related to compacted ties. In a study by Liu et al. (2017), compaction negatively soils as a high-risk environment for N O emissions. affected soil physical properties, but the latter had little effect In general, ploughing and subsoiling (biological or me- on N O-related microbial community size as it was correlated chanical) are options to mitigate soil compaction, whereas only to a few microbial gene abundances. A study by Bao compaction-intelligent traffic and controlled-traffic farming et al. (2012) showed that compaction combined with NO + are soil compaction avoidance strategies (Chamen et al., glucose enhanced the activity and abundance of denitrifiers in 2015). The adoption of controlled-traffic farming may give alignment with an increase in N O emission, but did not sig- an overall improvement of soil conditions that can reduce nificantly affect the overall community composition. In their greenhouse gas emissions (Antille et al., 2015). Mouazen study, however, the isolated effect of compaction on the mi- and Palmqvist (2015) developed a framework for the evalua- crobial community was not investigated. A study by tion of environmental benefits of controlled traffic farming Hartmann et al. (2014), however, provided a comprehensive based on a European Commission Soil Framework Directive evaluation of compaction-associated alterations of N O-relat- and scientific literature review, where soil compaction and ed microbial community characteristics; this was an integrated greenhouse gas emissions were identified as the main and approach (soil physical, microbial and functional characteris- secondary environmental parameters, respectively. tics) to measuring resistance and resilience of the soil system Reduction in traffic intensity through controlled-traffic to compaction, e.g. by determining compaction thresholds of farming translates into 10–20% trafficked area compared to detrimental impact on ecosystem functioning. > 80% for conventional management (Gasso et al., 2013; Although the above-mentioned studies assessed the effect Tullberg et al., 2018), which in itself minimises the area at of compaction on the N O-related microbial community, there risk of increased WFPS due to compaction (Antille et al., is still a need for more comprehensive studies on how 2015), thus potentially leading to lower risk of N O emissions. compaction-induced changes in soil physical properties (e.g. Indeed, the use of seasonal or permanent controlled-traffic pore characteristics, thermal conductivity) influence the farming has been found to reduce N O emissions by up to microbiome under different scenarios, including different de- 50% when compared to random traffic (Vermeulen and grees of compaction. Mosquera, 2009). Estimations based on Australian soils indi- cate that in non-controlled traffic systems with 50%, 75% or 4.4 Compaction drivers 100% randomly wheeled area, when replaced by controlled- traffic farming with 15% designated traffic lane area, the N O Based on the literature review conducted here, only a few emissions would be 69%, 58% or 50%, respectively, of their studies quantifying traffic-compaction effects on N O emis- previous values (Tullberg et al., 2018). In the Netherlands, sions characterised the traffic treatment applied (e.g. Hansen Vermeulen and Mosquera (2009) also found that the applica- et al., 1993; Sitaula et al., 2000; Teepe et al., 2004;Ball and tion of seasonal controlled-traffic farming decreased N O Crawford, 2009; Goutal et al., 2013; Gregorich et al., 2014; emissions on average by 20-50% in four vegetable crops. Hartmann et al., 2014). However, the degree of compactness Bluett et al. (2019) suggested that traffic-induced soil com- depends on the soil-machinery interaction, in turn depending paction could probably be avoided through the use of light- on the characteristics of the machinery used in the field, and weight machinery, but that with the current available technology key to understanding the traffic-induced soil stress (Lamandé the ‘solution’ would be the adoption of controlled-traffic farm- and Schjønning, 2011;Keller et al., 2013; ten Damme et al., ing. However, while research supports that the number of passes 2019). This calls for a better understanding of the specific is significant for the impact of wheel load (e.g. Chamen et al., aspects of machinery-soil interactions leading to N O emis- 2015; Pulido-Moncada et al., 2019), reduction of traffic intensity sions in different soils and climates, including those associated is not the only factor of importance when attempting to reduce or with hotspots and hot moments, in order to identify risk con- avoid soil compaction. The driving factors for trafficked-soil ditions and critical thresholds. compaction determine the magnitude of the stress imposed on soil, which is susceptible to deformation—typically wet soil (Keller et al., 2013). Hence, key elements in the reduction of soil 5 Mitigation and avoidance of soil compaction risks are tyre type, tyre inflation pressure and wheel compaction: impact on N Oemissions load (Lamandé and Schjønning, 2011; ten Damme et al., 2019), the combination of wheel load with number of passes Wagner-Riddle et al. (2020) listed possible agroecosystem N O (Schjønning et al., 2016), and traction and repeated wheeling mitigation strategies such as fertiliser management—source, rate, (ten Damme et al., 2021). This suggests that there are other time and place; management of organic input (crop residues and specific field traffic practices, besides controlled-traffic farming, Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 21 of 26 38 with a potential to reduce compaction and consequently the po- to N O emissions in managed agroecosystems. Nevertheless, tential for N O emissions. There is, however, a need for com- most studies have focused on specific N O-soil interactions, 2 2 prehensive studies on the causal mechanisms linking compaction and there is a lack of comprehensive studies which can relate to N O emission in order to establish the least emissions-prone the spatiotemporal distribution of N O emissions, in an inte- 2 2 agricultural systems. grated way, to soil biophysical interactions as modified by More than just minimising compaction, it is also necessary structural stratification, management practices and climate to consider how compaction may interact with agricultural variation. The complex nature of the interactions among these management practices. The choice of fertiliser, for example, factors is poorly understood and this has revealed a number of is a key factor in mitigating N O emissions in compacted more specific knowledge gaps. The present literature review soils, as 10 times less N O was emitted when reduced N identified a need for future research focusing on (i) under- sources such as urine, ammonium and urea were used com- standing fluid transport-pore network behaviour in relation pared to nitrate in a grassland soil affected by compaction to denitrification as the main source of N O; (ii) N Oflux 2 2 (Bhandral et al., 2007). Presumably compaction increased thresholds as constrained by selected model explanatory var- the volume of soil with oxygen limitation supporting N O iables (site-specific conditions) such as soil texture, structure, production via denitrification, but not N O production via plant cover (mineral N availability) and fertilisation; (iii) un- ammonia oxidation. Fertiliser application management (rate, derstanding the relationship between N Ofluxes from organic timing and placement) is also recognised as an important prac- hotspots and the interactive effects of gas diffusivity, labile tice to minimise N O emissions from soil (Snyder et al., organic matter and nitrate availability, as well as the influence 2009). In systems with compacted interrows, the selection of of soil compaction on the development of N Ohotspots and banded fertiliser placement could be a mitigation option, by hot moments; (iv) seasonal variations in the effects of topsoil separating N sources from high-risk areas, compared to broad- and subsoil compaction on N O emissions and the impact of cast placement (Nash et al., 2012). soil recovery after compaction; (v) understanding the contri- In grassland soils, the regulation of grazing periods based bution of subsoil compaction to N O emissions to the atmo- on the soil water content (Bhandral et al., 2007), and the re- sphere; (vi) assessment of links and interactions among soil duction of stocking rates and/or length of grazing periods (de compaction, pore morphology, thermal conductivity and Klein and Ledgard, 2005), is regarded as important in limiting microbiome; and (vii) influence of soil compaction drivers the trampling-compaction impact on N O emission. It was (vehicular traffic, livestock trampling) on spatiotemporal indicated above that delaying nitrification of reduced N changes in the degree of soil compaction and the development sources can mitigate N O emissions. In accordance with this, of N O hotspots and hot moments. Future studies are hence 2 2 the use of nitrification inhibitors has been found to reduce called upon to contribute to developing least emissions-prone N O emissions from both trampled and non-trampled soils agricultural systems. with prolonged effectiveness, examples of inhibitors are dicyandiamide, nitrapyrin and 3, 4-dimethyl pyrazole phos- phate (DMPP) (Subbarao et al., 2006). 7 Conclusions Another management strategy may be the use of biochar. In China, biochar application in compacted soils was found to The international literature reviewed here recognises the sig- mitigate N O emissions by 18%, with significance for the nificant risk for higher N O emissions caused by soil compac- 2 2 time/magnitude of peak emissions after N fertilisation and tion. Fertilisation, moisture content, drying/rewetting cycles precipitation/irrigation (Liu et al., 2017). However, in that and agricultural systems are the main observation criteria same study, the biochar effect on N O emission was mainly when evaluating compaction effects for cropland, grassland associated with a chemically-mediated (change in pH) rise in and forest land. The main focus has been given to topsoil the abundance of both nitrifiers and denitrifiers, and biochar compaction, since the contribution of subsoil compaction to may not have directly contributed to the reduction of soil N O emission is poorly known. Most often soil water metrics anaerobic microsites. Other studies have shown an effect of interacting with soil compaction has been evaluated for regu- biochar on soil bulk density or hydraulic properties (e.g. lation of N O emissions, but gas diffusivity has been found to Burrell et al., 2016; Verheijen et al., 2019; Toková et al., better explain N O fluxes. Gas diffusivity in soil is determined 2020), indicating that biochar has a N O mitigation potential. by both air-filled porosity and tortuosity. Yet, a common issue in studies focusing on soil compaction-induced N O emission is the poor characterisation of the structural state of the soil, 6 Future research directions meaning the degree of compactness and pore system function- ality, and the drivers causing the structural damage. This leads This literature review shows that significant efforts have al- to uncertainties in the selection and evaluation of critical man- ready been made to elucidate how soil compaction contributes agement factors. A large proportion of N O emissions are 2 38 Page 22 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED, Ross JG associated with hotspots and hot moments, and there is a need (2013) Changes in relative gas diffusivity explain soil nitrous oxide for comprehensive studies to understand how conditions for C flux dynamics. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1496–1505. https://doi.org/10. and N turnover in these situations are modified by different 2136/sssaj2013.04.0141 degrees of compaction. Understanding the direct and indirect Ball B (2013) Soil structure and greenhouse gas emissions: a synthesis of 20 years of experimentation. Eur J Soil Sci 64:357–373. https://doi. effects of soil physical conditions on microbial activities is org/10.1111/ejss.12013 key to the selection and implementation of effective mitiga- Ball B, Cameron K, Di H, Moore S (2012) Effects of trampling of a wet tion strategies. dairy pasture soil on soil porosity and on mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions by a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide. Soil Use Manage 28:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012. 00389.x Author Contributions Conceptualization, L.J.M. and M.P.M.; literature Ball B, Crawford C (2009) Mechanical weeding effects on soil structure search and writing—original draft, M.P.M.; writing—review and editing, under field carrots (Daucus carota L.) and beans (Vicia faba L.). Soil S.O.P., L.J.M. and M.P.M.; funding acquisition, L.J.M. and S.O.P. Use Manage 25:303–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743. 2009.00226.x Funding This paper was funded by the TRACE Soils project (grant No. Ball B, Horgan G, Parker J (2000) Short-range spatial variation of nitrous 862695 EJP SOIL) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research oxide fluxes in relation to compaction and straw residues. Eur J Soil and Innovation programme. Sci 51:607–616. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2000.00347.x Ball BC, Campbell DJ, Douglas JT, Henshall JK, O'Sullivan MF (1997) Data availability All articles and data analysed in this study have been Soil structural quality, compaction and land management. Eur J Soil previously published and/or are available online. Sci 48:593–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997. tb00559.x Ball BC, Parker JP, Scott A (1999a) Soil and residue management effects Code availability Not applicable. on cropping conditions and nitrous oxide fluxes under controlled traffic in Scotland 2. Nitrous oxide, soil N status and weather. Soil Declarations Till Res 52:191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99) 00081-1 Ethics approval Not applicable Ball BC, Scott A, Parker JP (1999b) Field N O, CO and CH fluxes in 2 2 4 relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Till Res 53:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00074-4 Consent to participate Not applicable. Bao QL, Ju XT, Gao B, Qu Z, Christie P, Lu YH (2012) Response of nitrous oxide and corresponding bacteria to managements in an Consent for publication Not applicable. agricultural soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:130–141. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj2011.0152 Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Baral KR, Arthur E, Olesen JE, Petersen SO (2016) Predicting nitrous oxide emissions from manure properties and soil moisture: an incu- bation experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 97:112–120. https://doi.org/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.03.005 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Batey T (2009) Soil compaction and soil management—a review. Soil tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Use Manage 25:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743. you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- 2009.00236.x vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Beare M, Gregorich E, St-Georges P (2009) Compaction effects on CO made. The images or other third party material in this article are included and N O production during drying and rewetting of soil. Soil Biol in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Biochem 41:611–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.024 credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Berisso F, Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Weisskopf P, Stettler M, Keller T Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by (2013) Effects of the stress field induced by a running tyre on the soil statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain pore system. Soil Till Res 131:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this 2013.03.005 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Berisso FE, Schjønning P, Keller T, Lamandé M, Etana A, de Jonge LW, Iversen BV, Arvidsson J, Forkman J (2012) Persistent effects of subsoil compaction on pore size distribution and gas transport in a loamy soil. Soil Till Res 122:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. References 2012.02.005 Bertora C, Van Vliet PC, Hummelink EW, Van Groenigen JW (2007) Do Ambus P, Christensen S (1994) Measurement of N Oemissionfrom a 2 earthworms increase N O emissions in ploughed grassland? Soil fertilized grassland: an analysis of spatial variability. J Geophys Res- Biol Biochem 39:632–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006. Atmos 99:16549–16555. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00267 09.015 Antille DL, Chamen WCT, Tullberg JN, Lal R (2015) The potential of Bessou C, Mary B, Leonard J, Roussel M, Grehan E, Gabrielle B (2010) controlled traffic farming to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and Modelling soil compaction impacts on nitrous oxide emissions in enhance carbon sequestration in arable land: a critical review. T arable fields. Eur J Soil Sci 61:348–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. ASABE 58:707–731. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.11049 1365-2389.2010.01243.x Balaine N, Clough TJ, Beare MH, Thomas SM, Meenken ED (2016) Soil Bhandral R, Saggar S, Bolan N, Hedley M (2007) Transformation of gas diffusivity controls N Oand N emissions and their ratio. Soil nitrogen and nitrous oxide emission from grassland soils as affected 2 2 Sci Soc Am J. 80:529–540. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.09. by compaction. Soil Till Res 94:482–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. still.2006.10.006 0350 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 23 of 26 38 Bluett C, Tullberg JN, McPhee JE, Antille DL (2019) Soil and Tillage Gasso V, Sorensen CAG, Oudshoorn FW, Green O (2013) Controlled traffic farming: a review of the environmental impacts. Eur J Agron Research: Why still focus on soil compaction? Soil Till Res 194:2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.028 48:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.02.002 Burrell LD, Zehetner F, Rampazzo N, Wimmer B, Soja G (2016) Long- Goutal N, Renault P, Ranger J (2013) Forwarder traffic impacted over at term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma 282: least four years soil air composition of two forest soils in northeast 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.019 France. Geoderma 193:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2012.10.012 Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister- Boltenstern S (2013) Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well Grant RF, Pattey E, Goddard TW, Kryzanowski LM, Puurveen H (2006) do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos T R Soc B Modeling the effects of fertilizer application rate on nitrous oxide 368:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122 emissions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:235–248. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2005.0104 Cardoso AD, Quintana BG, Janusckiewicz ER, Brito LD, Morgado ED, Reis RA, Ruggieri AC (2017) N O emissions from urine-treated Gregorich E, McLaughlin N, Lapen D, Ma B, Rochette P (2014) Soil tropical soil: effects of soil moisture and compaction, urine compo- compaction, both an environmental and agronomic culprit: in- creased nitrous oxide emissions and reduced plant nitrogen uptake. sition, and dung addition. Catena 157:325–332. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.catena.2017.05.036 Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:1913–1923. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2014.03.0117 Chamen WCT, Moxey AP, Towers W, Balana B, Hallett PD (2015) Mitigating arable soil compaction: a review and analysis of available Groffman PM, Butterbach-Bahl K, Fulweiler RW, Gold AJ, Morse JL, cost and benefit data. Soil Till Res 146:10–25. https://doi.org/10. Stander EK, Tague C, Tonitto C, Vidon P (2009) Challenges to 1016/j.still.2014.09.011 incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models. Biogeochemistry 93: Chamindu Deepagoda TKK, Arthur E, Moldrup P, Hamamoto S, 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-008-9277-5 Kawamoto K, Komatsu K, Wollesen de Jonge L (2013) Modeling air permeability in variably saturated soil from two natural clay Guimarães RML, Ball BC, Tormena CA (2011) Improvements in the gradients. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77(2):362–371. https://doi.org/10. visual evaluation of soil structure. Soil Use Manage 27:395–403. 2136/sssaj2012.0300 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00354.x Håkansson I, Reeder RC (1994) Subsoil compaction by vehicles with de Klein CAM, Eckard RJ (2008) Targeted technologies for nitrous oxide abatement from animal agriculture. Aust J Exp Agric 48:14–20. high axle load—extent, persistence and crop response. Soil Till https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07217 Res 29:277–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)90065-5 de Klein CAM, Ledgard SF (2005) Nitrous oxide emissions from New Hamza MA, Anderson WK (2005) Soil compaction in cropping systems: Zealand agriculture—key sources and mitigation strategies. Nutr a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Till Res Cycl Agroecosyst 72:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004- 82:121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009 7357-z Hansen S, Maehlum JE, Bakken LR (1993) N Oand CH fluxes in soil 2 4 De Rosa D, Rowlings DW, Fulkerson B, Scheer C, Friedl J, Labadz M, influenced by fertilization and tractor traffic. Soil Biol Biochem 25: Grace PR (2020) Field-scale management and environmental 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(93)90202-M drivers of N O emissions from pasture-based dairy systems. Nutr 2 Hargreaves P, Baker K, Graceson A, Bonnett S, Ball B, Cloy J (2021) Cycl Agroecosyst 117:299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705- Use of a nitrification inhibitor reduces nitrous oxide (N O) emis- 020-10069-7 sions from compacted grassland with different soil textures and cli- Dörner J, Horn R (2006) Anisotropy of pore functions in structured matic conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 310:107307. https://doi. stagnic luvisols in the Weichselian moraine region in N Germany. org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107307 J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln. Harris E, Diaz-Pines E, Stoll E, Schloter M, Schulz S, Duffner C, Li K, Moore K, Ingrisch J, Reinthaler D (2021) Denitrifying pathways Dörner J, Horn R (2009) Direction-dependent behaviour of hydraulic and dominate nitrous oxide emissions from managed grassland during mechanical properties in structured soils under conventional and drought and rewetting. Science Advances 7:eabb7118. https://doi. conservation tillage. Soil Till Res 102:225–232. https://doi.org/10. org/10.1126/sciadv.abb7118 1016/j.still.2008.07.004 Harrison-Kirk T, Thomas SM, Clough TJ, Beare MH, van der Weerden Etana A, Larsbo M, Keller T, Arvidsson J, Schjønning P, Forkman J, TJ, Meenken ED (2015) Compaction influences N Oand N emis- 2 2 Jarvis N (2013) Persistent subsoil compaction and its effects on sions from 15N-labeled synthetic urine in wet soils during succes- preferential flow patterns in a loamy till soil. GEODERMA 192: sive saturation/drainage cycles. Soil Biol Biochem 88:178–188. 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.05.022 Flessa H, Ruser R, Schilling R, Loftfield N, Munch JC, Kaiser EA, Beese Hartmann M, Niklaus PA, Zimmermann S, Schmutz S, Kremer J, F(2002) N Oand CH fluxes in potato fields: automated measure- Abarenkov K, Luscher P, Widmer F, Frey B (2014) Resistance 2 4 ment, management effects and temporal variation. GEODERMA and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated 105:307–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00110-0 compaction. Isme J 8:226–244. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013. Flynn HC, Smith J, Smith KA, Wright J, Smith P, Massheder J (2005) Climate- and crop-responsive emission factors significantly alter Hu W, Beare M, Tregurtha C, Gillespie R, Lehto K, Tregurtha R, Gosden estimates of current and future nitrous oxide emissions from fertil- P, Glasson S, Dellow S, George M (2020) Effects of tillage, com- izer use. Global Change Biol 11:1522–1536. https://doi.org/10. paction and nitrogen inputs on crop production and nitrogen losses 1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00998.x following simulated forage crop grazing. Agric Ecosyst Environ 289:106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106733 Frey B, Kremer J, Rudt A, Sciacca S, Matthies D, Luscher P (2009) Compaction of forest soils with heavy logging machinery affects Hu W, Drewry J, Beare M, Eger A, Müller K (2021) Compaction induced soil bacterial community structure. Eur J Soil Biol 45:312–320. soil structural degradation affects productivity and environmental https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.05.006 outcomes: a review and New Zealand case study. Geoderma 395: 115035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115035 Garcia-Marco S, Ravella SR, Chadwick D, Vallejo A, Gregory AS, Cardenas LM (2014) Ranking factors affecting emissions of GHG IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Core Writing from incubated agricultural soils. Eur J Soil Sci 65:573–583. https:// Team, P., R.K. , Meyer, L.A. (Ed.), Contribution of Working doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12143 Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 38 Page 24 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, Geneva, emissions? Soil Biol Biochem 104:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. soilbio.2016.10.006 Switzerland, p. 151. Jacinthe PA, Lal R (2006) Spatial variability of soil properties and trace Luo J, Wyatt J, van der Weerden TJ, Thomas SM, de Klein CA, Li Y, gas fluxes in reclaimed mine land of southeastern Ohio. Geoderma Rollo M, Lindsey S, Ledgard SF, Li J, Ding W (2017) Potential 136:598–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.04.020 hotspot areas of nitrous oxide emissions from grazed pastoral dairy farm systems. Advances in Agronomy 145:205–268. https://doi.org/ Jensen L, McQueen D, Shepherd T (1996) Effects of soil compaction on 10.1016/bs.agron.2017.05.006 N-mineralization and microbial-C and-NI Field measurements. Soil Markfoged R, Nielsen L, Nyord T, Ottosen L, Revsbech N (2011) Till Res 38:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(96) Transient N O accumulation and emission caused by O depletion 01033-1 2 2 in soil after liquid manure injection. Eur J Soil Sci 62:541–550. Keller M, Varner R, Dias JD, Silva H, Crill P, de Oliveira RC (2005) Soil- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01345.x atmosphere exchange of nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, methane, and Mouazen AM, Palmqvist M (2015) development of a framework for the carbon dioxide in logged and undisturbed forest in the Tapajos evaluation of the environmental benefits of controlled traffic farm- National Forest, Brazil. Earth Interact 9:28–28. https://doi.org/10. ing. Sustainability 7:8684–8708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078684 1175/EI125.1 Müller K, Dal Ferro N, Katuwal S, Tregurtha C, Zanini F, Carmignato S, Keller T, Lamandé M, Peth S, Berli M, Delenne JY, Baumgarten W, De Jonge LW, Moldrup P, Morari F (2019) Effect of long-term Rabbel W, Radjai F, Rajchenbach J, Selvadurai A (2013) An inter- irrigation and tillage practices on X-ray CT and gas transport derived disciplinary approach towards improved understanding of soil de- pore-network characteristics. Soil Research 57:657–669. https://doi. formation during compaction. Soil Till Res 128:61–80. https://doi. org/10.1071/SR18210 org/10.1016/j.still.2012.10.004 Mutegi JK, Munkholm LJ, Petersen BM, Hansen EM, Petersen SO Kim H, Anderson S, Motavalli P, Gantzer C (2010) Compaction effects (2010) Nitrous oxide emissions and controls as influenced by tillage on soil macropore geometry and related parameters for an arable and crop residue management strategy. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1701– field. Geoderma 160:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.06.004 2010.09.030 Nash PR, Motavalli PP, Nelson KA (2012) Nitrous oxide emissions from Kool DM, Dolfing J, Wrage N, Van Groenigen JW (2011) Nitrifier de- claypan soils due to nitrogen fertilizer source and tillage/fertilizer nitrification as a distinct and significant source of nitrous oxide from placement practices. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:983–993. https://doi.org/ soil. Soil Biol Biochem 43:174–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.2136/sssaj2011.0296 soilbio.2010.09.030 Parkin TB (1987) Soil microsites as a source of denitrification variability. Kostyanovsky KI, Huggins DR, Stockle CO, Morrow JG, Madsen IJ Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1194–1199 (2019) Emissions of N Oand CO following short-term water and 2 2 Petersen CT, Abrahamsen P (2021) Predicting effects of soil compaction N fertilization events in wheat-based cropping systems. Front Ecol on crop yield and nitrogen dynamics. https://daisy.ku.dk/about- Evol 7:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00063 daisy/projects/commit/Simulating_compaction_effects_gudp.pdf Kravchenko AN, Toosi ER, Guber AK, Ostrom NE, Yu J, Azeem K, Petersen SO, Schjønning P, Olesen JE, Christensen S, Christensen BT Rivers ML, Robertson GP (2017) Hotspots of soil N Oemission (2013) Sources of nitrogen for winter wheat in organic cropping enhanced through water absorption by plant residue. Nat Geosci 10: systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:155–165. https://doi.org/10.2136/ 496–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2963 sssaj2012.0147 Kuncoro P, Koga K, Satta N, Muto Y (2014) A study on the effect of Petersen SO, Schjønning P, Thomsen IK, Christensen BT (2008) Nitrous compaction on transport properties of soil gas and water. II: Soil oxide evolution from structurally intact soil as influenced by tillage pore structure indices. Soil Till Res 143:180–187. https://doi.org/ and soil water content. Soil Biol Biochem 40:967–977. https://doi. 10.1016/j.still.2014.01.008 org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.017 Lamandé M, Schjønning P (2011) Transmission of vertical stress in a real Piva JT, Sartor LR, Sandini IE, de Moraes A, Dieckow J, Bayer C, da soil profile. Part II: effect of tyre size, inflation pressure and wheel Rose CM (2019) Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane in a sub- load. Soil Till Res 114:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010. tropical ferralsol subjected to nitrogen fertilization and sheep graz- 08.011 ing in integrated crop-livestock system. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 43:13. Lamandé M, Schjønning P, Dal Ferro N, Morari F (2021) Soil pore https://doi.org/10.1590/18069657rbcs20180140 system evaluated from gas measurements and CT images: a concep- Postma J, van Veen JA (1990) Habitable pore space and survival of tual study using artificial, natural and 3D-printed soil cores. Eur J Rhizobium leguminosarum biovartrifolii introduced into soil. Soil Sci 72:769–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12999 Microb Ecol 19:149–161 Laudone GM, Matthews GP, Bird NRA, Whalley WR, Cardenas LM, Pradel M, Pacaud T, Cariolle M (2013) Valorization of organic wastes Gregory AS (2011) A model to predict the effects of soil structure on through agricultural fertilization: coupling models to assess the ef- denitrification and N O emission. J Hydrol 409:283–290. https:// fects of spreader performances on nitrogenous emissions and related doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.026 environmental impacts. Waste Biomass Valori 4:851–872. https:// Li X, Sørensen P, Olesen JE, Petersen SO (2016) Evidence for denitrifi- doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9162-2 cation as main source of N O emission from residue-amended soil. Pulido-Moncada M, Munkholm LJ, Schjønning P (2019) Wheel load, Soil Biol Biochem 92:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio. repeated wheeling, and traction effects on subsoil compaction in 2015.10.008 northern Europe. Soil Till Res 186:300–309. https://doi.org/10. Lipiec J, Hajnos M, Świeboda R (2012) Estimating effects of compaction 1016/j.still.2018.11.005 on pore size distribution of soil aggregates by mercury porosimeter. Pulido-Moncada M, Petersen CT, Munkholm LJ (2021) Limiting water Geoderma 179:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02. range: crop responses related to in-season soil water dynamics, weather conditions and subsoil compaction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 85: Liu Q, Liu BJ, Zhang YH, Lin ZB, Zhu TB, Sun RB, Wang XJ, Ma J, Bei 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20174 QC, Liu G, Lin XW, Xie ZB (2017) Can biochar alleviate soil Rohe L, Apelt B, Vogel HJ, Well R, Wu GM, Schlüter S (2021) compaction stress on wheat growth and mitigate soil N2O Denitrification in soil as a function of oxygen availability at the Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 Page 25 of 26 38 microscale. Biogeosciences 18:1185–1201. https://doi.org/10.5194/ Soane BD, Vanouwerkerk C (1995) Implications of soil compaction in crop production for the quality of the environment. Soil Till Res 35: bg-18-1185-2021 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(95)00475-8 Rousset C, Clough T, Grace P, Rowlings D, Scheer C (2020) Soil type, bulk density and drainage effects on relative gas diffusivity and N2O Spiro S (2012) Nitrous oxide production and consumption: regulation of emissions. Soil Res 58:726. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR20161 gene expression by gas-sensitive transcription factors. Philos T R Soc B 367:1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0309 Ruser R, Flessa H, Russow R, Schmidt G, Buegger F, Munch JC (2006) Emission of N O, N and CO from soil fertilized with nitrate: effect Stepniewski W (1980) Oxygen diffusion and strength as related to soil 2 2 2 of compaction, soil moisture and rewetting. Soil Biol Biochem 38: compaction: I. Polish J Soil Sci 13:3–13 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.005 Subbarao G, Ito O, Sahrawat K, Berry W, Nakahara K, Ishikawa T, Ruser R, Flessa H, Schilling R, Steindl H, Beese F (1998) Soil compac- Watanabe T, Suenaga K, Rondon M, Rao IM (2006) Scope and tion and fertilization effects on nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in strategies for regulation of nitrification in agricultural systems— potato fields. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1587–1595. https://doi.org/10. challenges and opportunities. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:303–335. 1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600794232 Saggar S, Luo J, Giltrap D, Maddena M (2009) Nitrous oxide emissions Swarts N, Montagu K, Oliver G, Southam-Rogers L, Hardie M, Corkrey from temperate grasslands: processes, measurements, modelling and R, Rogers G, Close D (2016) Benchmarking nitrous oxide emissions mitigation. Nitrous oxide emissions research progress. in deciduous tree cropping systems. Soil Res 54:500–511. https:// Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology Series. Nova doi.org/10.1071/SR15326 Science Publishers, New York, USA, 1-66 Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Janz B, Labouriau R, Olesen JE, Butterbach-Bahl Schäffer B, Mueller TL, Stauber M, Müller R, Keller M, Schulin R K, Petersen SO (2021) Nitrous oxide emissions from red clover and (2008) Soil and macro-pores under uniaxial compression. II. winter wheat residues depend on interacting effects of distribution, Morphometric analysis of macro-pore stability in undisturbed and soil N availability and moisture level. Plant Soil 466:121–138. repacked soil. Geoderma 146:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-05030-8 geoderma.2008.05.020 Tarawally MA, Medina H, Frometa M, Itza CA (2004) Field compaction Schindlbacher A, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Butterbach-Bahl K (2004) at different soil-water status: effects on pore size distribution and soil Effects of soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO , and N O water characteristics of a rhodic ferralsol in Western Cuba. Soil Till 2 2 emissions from European forest soils. J Geophys Res-Atmos 109. Res 76:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004590 Teepe R, Brumme R, Beese F, Ludwig B (2004) Nitrous oxide emission Schjønning P (2021) Thermal conductivity of undisturbed soil— and methane consumption following compaction of forest soils. Soil measurements and predictions. Geoderma 402:115188. https://doi. Sci Soc Am J 68:605–611. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.6050 org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115188 ten Damme L, Schjønning P, Munkholm L, Green O, Nielsen S, Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Berisso FE, Simojoki A, Alakukku L, Lamandé M (2021) Traction and repeated wheeling–effects on con- Andreasen RR (2013) Gas diffusion, non-Darcy air permeability, tact area characteristics and stresses in the upper subsoil. Soil Till and computed tomography images of a clay subsoil affected by Res 211:105020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105020 compaction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1977–1990. https://doi.org/10. ten Damme L, Stettler M, Pinet F, Vervaet P, Keller T, Munkholm LJ, 2136/sssaj2013.06.0224 Lamandé M (2019) The contribution of tyre evolution to the reduc- Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Munkholm LJ, Lyngvig HS, Nielsen JA tion of soil compaction risks. Soil Till Res 194:104283. https://doi. (2016) Soil precompression stress, penetration resistance and crop org/10.1016/j.still.2019.05.029 yields in relation to differently-trafficked, temperate-region sandy Toková L, Igaz D, Horák J, Aydin E (2020) Effect of biochar application loam soils. Soil Till Res 163:298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and re-application on soil bulk density, porosity, saturated hydraulic still.2016.07.003 conductivity, water content and soil water availability in a silty loam Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Thorsøe M (2019) Soil compaction—drivers, Haplic Luvisol. Agronomy 10:1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ pressures, state, impacts and responses. DCA report agronomy10071005 Schmeer M, Loges R, Dittert K, Senbayram M, Horn R, Taube F (2014) Tullberg J, Antille DL, Bluett C, Eberhard J, Scheer C (2018) Controlled Legume-based forage production systems reduce nitrous oxide traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and meth- emissions. Soil Till Res 143:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. ane. Soil Till Res 176:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.09. 2014.05.001 014 Simek M, Brucek P, Hynst J, Uhlirova E, Petersen SO (2006) Effects of Uchida Y, Clough TJ, Kelliher FM, Sherlock RR (2008) Effects of ag- excretal returns and soil compaction on nitrous oxide emissions gregate size, soil compaction, and bovine urine on N2O emissions from a cattle overwintering area. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:186– from a pasture soil. Soil Biol Biochem 40:924–931. https://doi.org/ 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.018 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.007 Sitaula B, Hansen S, Sitaula J, Bakken L (2000) Effects of soil compac- van den Heuvel R, Hefting M, Tan N, Jetten M, Verhoeven J (2009) N2O tion on N O emission in agricultural soil. Chemosphere Global emission hotspots at different spatial scales and governing factors Change Sci 2:367–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1465-9972(00) for small scale hotspots. Sci Total Environ 407:2325–2332. https:// 00040-4 doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.010 Skiba U, Smith K, Fowler D (1993) Nitrification and denitrification as van der Weerden TJ, Styles TM (2012) Reducing nitrous oxide emissions sources of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide in a sandy loam soil. Soil from grazed winter forage crops. Proceedings of the New Zealand Biol Biochem 25:1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038- Grassland Association, Vol 74. New Zealand Grassland Assoc, 0717(93)90007-X Mosgiel, pp. 57-62 Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of van der Weerden TJ, Styles TM, Rutherford AJ, de Klein CAM, Dynes R greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertil- (2017) Nitrous oxide emissions from cattle urine deposited onto soil izer management effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:247–266. supporting a winter forage kale crop. N Z J Agric Res 60:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021 https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2016.1273838 38 Page 26 of 26 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 38 van Groenigen JW, Kuikman PJ, de Groot WJM, Velthof GL (2005) between greenhouse gas fluxes and soil structure recovery? Forests 10:18. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090726 Nitrous oxide emission from urine-treated soil as influenced by urine composition and soil physical conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 37: Yamulki S, Jarvis S (2002) Short-term effects of tillage and compaction 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.009 on nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, methane and carbon Verheijen FG, Zhuravel A, Silva FC, Amaro A, Ben-Hur M, Keizer JJ dioxide fluxes from grassland. Biol Fertility Soils 36:224–231. (2019) The influence of biochar particle size and concentration on https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0530-0 bulk density and maximum water holding capacity of sandy vs Zhai X, Horn R (2019) Dynamics of pore functions and gas transport sandy loam soil in a column experiment. Geoderma 347:194–202. parameters in artificially ameliorated soils due to static and cyclic https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.03.044 loading. Geoderma 337:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vermeulen G, Mosquera J (2009) Soil, crop and emission responses to geoderma.2018.09.039 seasonal-controlled traffic in organic vegetable farming on loam Zhen ZL, Ma GL, Zhang HY, Gai YX, Su ZY (2019) Thermal conduc- soil. Soil Till Res 102:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still. tivities of remolded and undisturbed loess. J Mater Civ Eng 31: 2008.08.008 04018379. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. Wagner-Riddle C, Baggs EM, Clough TJ, Fuchs K, Petersen SO (2020) Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in the context of nitrogen loss reduction from agroecosystems: managing hot spots and hot mo- Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- ments. Curr Opin Env Sust 47:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. cosust.2020.08.002 Warlo H, von Wilpert K, Lang F, Schack-Kirchner H (2019) Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) on compacted skid trails: a trade-off

Journal

Agronomy for Sustainable Development – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 2022

Keywords: Hotspots; Hot moments; Topsoil compaction; Subsoil compaction; Gas diffusivity

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

Soil compaction raises nitrous oxide emissions in managed agroecosystems. A review

References (126)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies