@article{OKORIE:333826,
      recid = {333826},
      author = {OKORIE, Benedict Odinaka and NIRAJ, Yadav},
      title = {EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE PRACTICES ON SOIL FERTILITY  PROPERTIES: A REVIEW},
      journal = {International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental  Research},
      address = {2022-02-25},
      number = {2013-2023-700},
      month = {Feb},
      year = {2022},
      abstract = {Soil tillage is an important factor affecting soil  fertility properties and crop yield. Tillage impact certain  soil physical and chemical properties such as bulk density,  soil porosity and waterholding capacity, infiltration  rates, hydraulic conductivity, soil temperature, soil  organic carbon, pH, CEC, available nitrogen, phosphorus and  exchangeable potassium amongst others. The main objective  of the present work was to compare the effect of no-tillage  systems and the conventional tillage systems. Tillage  systems can be generally categorized into plow tillage  (conventional tillage), reduced tillage using chisel plow,  disc plow, harrow disc or cultivators and no-till systems.  Conservation tillage and its various types generally  improve the soil quality indicators including soil organic  carbon (SOC) storage. Whereas, conventional tillage  practices give birth to a finer and loose-setting soil  structure with a modified soil bulk density and soil  moisture content, hence, causing loss of soil organic  carbon and deterioration in other soil properties.  Generally, soil fertility properties are more favourable  with no-till than tillage-based systems. However, some  researchers observed no significant effect of tillage  methods (no-tillage and plow till) on bulk density (BD), pH  and total porosity, while others found otherwise. The  magnitude of these discrepancies could be due to the  differences in crop species, soil properties, climatic  characteristics and their complex interactions as well as  tillage system adopted.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333826},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.333826},
}