Page | 1

Interrelation between indicators of soil organic matter composition

and water storing capacity measured under laboratory conditions

To obtain the academic degree of

Master of Engineering (M. Eng.)

Faculty of Civil Engineering/ Architecture

University of Applied Sciences – Hochschule für Technik und Wirthschaft Dresden

Presented Master’s Thesis:

Jash Dharmendra Parmar

27.11.1995

Jamnagar, Gujarat, India

Date of Submission: 17.01.2020

Reviewer: Prof. Dr. habil. Christian Siewert

Rer.nat. David Tokarski

Page | 2
 Page | 3

List of Tables
Table 1 Traceability matrix for proposed research questions ............................................. 12
Table 2 Classification of soil samples based upon location, soil texture, number of soil
samples and soil type ......................................................................................................... 19
Table 3 Characteristics and classification of soil sample .................................................... 22
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for WSC of soil samples ....................................................... 25
Table 5 Comparison of WSC with different calculated parameters (Linear and Non-linear
function) .............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 6 Comparison between coefficients of determination of soil properties with the
corresponding indicator based upon Thermal mass analysis ............................................. 68
 Page | 4

List of figures
Figure 1 Research structure ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 2 Number of documents published by the keyword “Field Capacity” and
“Thermogravimetry” Source:Scopus ................................................................................... 16
Figure 3 overview about the soil texture of used soil samples according to Ács et al., (2010)
and based on data from (Kucerik, Demyan, & Siewert, 2016) and (Tokarski et al., 2018).. 18
Figure 4 Top view of soil samples for experimental setup of water storing capacity on
pressure plate ..................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 5 Front view of soil samples for experimental setup of water storing capacity on
pressure plate ..................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6 Measured WSC (arithmetic mean) of soil with applied fertilization treatment and
number of soil. .................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 7 Measured WSC (arithmetic mean) of soil from LTAE with applied fertilization
treatment and number of soil samples ................................................................................ 28
Figure 8 Dynamics of average thermal mass losses from all three locations ..................... 30
Figure 9 Correlation curve (overall sample set) of TML with WSC of soil samples. ............ 32
Figure 10 Correlation curve of TML with WSC from all three sites ..................................... 33
Figure 12 Interrelation between WSC and TML between 470°C and 480°C for all three
locations ............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 11 Interrelation between WSC and TML between 290°C and 300°C for all three
locations ............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 13 Correlation between organic carbon ( reference OC and TG OC) and ............... 37
Figure 14 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for BL. (b) mean absolute percent error of the
residuals. ............................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 15 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for Gb, (b) mean absolute Percent error of the
residuals ............................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 16 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for Mü (b) mean absolute Percent error of the
residuals ............................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 17 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon fertilization and
LMP from BL. Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019) ..................................................... 48
Figure 18 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon fertilization and
LMP from Gb Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019) ..................................................... 49
Figure 19 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon fertilization and
LMP from Mü Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019) ..................................................... 50
Figure 20 Correlation between WSC and TML290-300 for classified soil samples from Bad
Lauchstädt .......................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 21 Correlation between WSC and TML480 for classified of soil samples from Bad
Lauchstädt. ......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 22 Correlation between WSC and TML290-300 for classified soil samples from
Grossbeeren. ...................................................................................................................... 53
 Page | 5

Figure 23 Correlation between water storing capacity and thermal mass losses WSC and
TML480 for classified of soil samples from Grossbeeren. .................................................. 54
Figure 24 Correlation betwe en Water storing capacity and thermal mass losses at 480°C of
soil samples from Grossbeeren. ......................................................................................... 55
Figure 25 Correlation between Water storing capacity and thermal mass losses at 480°C
for classified soil samples from Münchenberg .................................................................... 56
Figure 26 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified soil samples
from Bad Lauchstädt........................................................................................................... 57
Figure 27 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Sand
from Grossbeeren (KP Sand) ............................................................................................. 58
Figure 28 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Loam
from Grossbeeren (KP Loam) ............................................................................................. 60
Figure 29 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Loess
from Grossbeeren (KP Loess) ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 30 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified Dv2c from
Grossbeeren (DV2c) ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 31 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified from
Münchenberg...................................................................................................................... 64
 Page | 6

List of Abbreviations

Acronym Abbreviation

Bad Lauchstädt BL
Clayey silt CS
Coefficient of determination CD
Diameter D
Greenhouse emission gases GHG
Grossbeeren Gb
Landuse management practices LMP
Loamy sand LS
Long term agricultural experiments LTAE
Kastenparzellen (box plots) KP
Münchenberg Mü
Nitrogen N
Organic carbon/Soil organic carbon OC/SOC
Sandy loam SL
Silty loam SLo
Silty sand SS
Structural equation modelling SEM
Soil organic matter SOM
Thermal mass losses TML
Thermogravimetry TG
Water storing capacity WSC
World reference base WRB
 Page | 7

Abstract
The growing rate of greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector has concern
researchers and policymakers to come up with sustainable land use in management
practices. Soil is a complex element, demands higher investigation based upon the organic
matter content and other soil properties responsible for carrying out land use management
practices. The study focuses on the dependency of water storing capacity of soil with soil
organic matter content. A sample set of 446 soils were used from three long term field
experiment sites in Germany based upon different texture, vegetation, and fertilization
techniques. The soil samples were air-dried and sieved less than 2mm in the laboratory. The
water storing capacity of soil samples was done on ceramic plates at pF 1.8, and the result
of thermal mass losses was obtained from the thermogravimetry experiment. The results
showed an interrelationship between water storing capacity and indicators of soil organic
matter with the coefficient of determination of 0.92. The highest correlation for thermal mass
losses was between 460°C and 500°C. This temperature range lies in the range of assumed
decomposition of thermally stable organic matter. The found relationship confirmed the
knowledge about water storing capacity depending upon soil texture, carbon content, and
soil fertilization. The derived regression functions allow estimating water storing capacity from
thermogravimetric data and predict changes in water storing capacity by agricultural practices
in dependency on agricultural practices, soil organic matter management.
 Page | 8

Table of contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of figures................................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10

Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3 Materials and methods ............................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Site description and experimental ..................................................................................... 18

3.2 Soil sample and analyses ................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Soil sample preparation .................................................................................................. 19

3.2.2 Water storing capacity experiment .................................................................................. 20

3.2.3 Characteristics and classification of soil sample .............................................................. 22

3.3 Data analyses and evaluation ............................................................................................. 23

3.3.1 Descriptive analysis of measured WSC .......................................................................... 23

3.3.2 Variance analyses........................................................................................................... 23

3.3.3 Correlation analysis ........................................................................................................ 23

3.3.4 Autocorrelation analysis .................................................................................................. 23

3.3.5 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) .............................................................................. 23

hapter 4 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 25

4.1 Descriptive statistics (WSC) of soil samples..................................................................... 25

4.2 WSC based upon fertilization amendments ...................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Classification of soil samples based upon general fertilization techniques ...................... 26

4.2.2 Classification of soil samples based upon specific field experiment ............................... 27

4.3 Characteristics of TG .......................................................................................................... 30

4.3.1 General characteristic of DTG curve (including all three agricultural sites) ...................... 30
 Page | 9

4.4 Interrelation between WSC and dynamics of TML ............................................................ 32

4.4.1 Common correlation of WSC and DTG curve. ................................................................. 32

4.4.2 Site-specific correlation of WSC and DTG curve. ............................................................ 32

4.4.3 Correlation of TG with WSC based upon the influence of fertilization at an individual
site ........................................................................................................................................... 34

4.5 Relationship between soil properties, SOM indicators, and WSC ................................... 36

4.6 Multiplecorrelation based upon regression models ......................................................... 39

4.7 Summary of results ............................................................................................................. 42

Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 46

5.1 Soil characteristics based upon laboratory experiment ................................................... 46

5.2 WSC based upon fertilization amendments ...................................................................... 46

5.3.1 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (BL) ...................................................... 47

5.3.2 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (Gb) ....................................................... 48

5.3.3 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (Mü) ...................................................... 49

5.4 Interrelation between WSC and dynamics of TML ............................................................ 50

5.5 Relationship between soil properties, SOM indicators, and WSC ................................... 56

5.6 Multiplecorrelation based upon regression models ......................................................... 64

Chapter 6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 69

Chapter 7 Outlook ........................................................................................................................................ 70

Chapter 8 References .................................................................................................................................. 72

Statement of authorship ............................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................... 76
 Page | 10

Chapter 1 Introduction
Soil is a global contributor to ecosystem services. Due to technological advancements, there
have been changes observed in land use management practices (LMP). However, on the
negative side of this technological advancement, there has been a rise in greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) detected. The agricultural sector contributes about one-quarter of overall
GHG emissions along with reported cases of land degradation (FAO, 2015).

Soil organic matter (SOM) is an essential link between agricultural productivity and
ecosystem performances. Throughout the intense research, Yu et al.,(2020);Haynes &
Naidu, (1998), Kätterer et al., (2014) believe that the rise in SOM enhances the overall soil
structure and soil characteristics such as water storing capacity (WSC). Furthermore, the rise
in SOM sequesters a high amount of organic carbon (OC) and an increase in microbial
activities. However, the study of SOM is complex. At the micro-level, each soil unit forms a
different system compared to the neighboring units and is independent of each other based
upon solid, liquid, gaseous phases, and organic constituents (Yudina, 2019). The non-
uniformity in soil structure cohere with the soil classification system of Vasily Dokuchaev, who
believed that the formation of soil is dependent upon climate, vegetation, parent material
(Florinsky, 2012). Recent development covers five areas for modeling SOM: 1. Thermal
analysis for SOM quality and quantity, 2. Microbial activity for SOM stability, 3. Depth based
SOM dynamics, 4. SOM kinetics 5. The global system based SOM model (Campbell &
Paustian, 2015).

Thermogravimetry (TG) is a technique of thermal analysis that has the potential to record the
weight of a substance as a function of time and temperature(Plante et al., 2009). The
substance is cooled or heated in an environment at a controlled rate. The induced thermal
mass losses (TML) from TG can be explicitly studied. Based on a statistical analysis of the
derived thermogravimetry curve (DTG), various indicators of soil properties and SOM (quality
and quantity) can be detected (Siewert, 2004).

WSC is the most important physical property of soil. The capacity of soil to retain maximum
moisture under the influence of gravity and is measured after 2-3 days of rainfall or an
irrigation event at the field level (Veihmeyer & Hendrickson, 1931). However, the method to
calculate the water storing capacity of the soil (WSC) is expensive and time-consuming.
 Page | 11

Moreover, experiments require intensive care and monitoring. Hence, a better approach can
help to determine to obtain WSC quickly and cost-effectively based upon TG experiments.

The current research aimed to investigate the interrelationship between indicators of (SOM)
and the WSC of numerous soil samples from three long-term agricultural field experiments.

The outcome of the study may verify the correlation between TML and WSC and quantify to
which extent WSC depends on carbon content and quality, clay content, and other
components of soil.

The specific objectives were proposed based on the research questions. Following Ra, Rb,
Rc, and Rd are the proposed research questions, and the bullets represent specific objectives
that conjugate with individual research questions.
Ra. Why is it necessary to carry out research on agricultural soils?
 To conduct a literature review about TG and WSC.
 To illustrate the relevance and significance of the WSC and TG in the science
community.
Rb. How to conduct a WSC experiment
 To generate a database and to gather information from the provided data of the soil
samples.
 To develop a pre-experimental design based upon the available laboratory devices
and equipment.
 To perform a pilot test on limited samples, perceive the obtained results, and to modify
the experimental design.
 To monitor, regulate, and report the operations during the experiment.
Rc. How to validate the results obtained from WSC experiments?
 To evaluate the classified soil samples using Analysis of variances (ANOVA).
 To verify evaluated results with different case studies and traditional approaches
(external validation).
Rd. How can the results obtained from WSC experiments and TML data be quantified?
 To incorporate calculation of coefficients of determination (CD) with linear and non-
linear models.
 To evaluate the results that include the application of different statistical models for
correlation and autocorrelation analysis and ANOVA.
 To identify variables that can be helpful to predict WSC.
 Page | 12

 To develop a structural equation modeling (SEM) for the current data sets and to
identify the associated challenges.
Table 1 provides a short guideline about the development of research questions through
various chapters. The first column includes the list of chapters included in the research. The
second column reflects the established research questions parallel to the chapters.
Table 1 Traceability matrix for proposed research questions

Chapters Research question

1 Introduction -

2 Literature Review Ra

3 Materials and methods Rb

4 Results Rb, Rc

5 Discussion Rd

6 Conclusion All research questions

7 Outlook -

8 References -
 Page | 13

Figure 1 Research structure

Figure 1 shows research structure in the graphical representation. Individual block provides
an overview of the respective chapter. The graphical representation is developed to have a
uniformity and a sequential flow of proposed research questions and hypothesis.
 Page | 14

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Soil interacts with Biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere, hence supporting
a cause for life on Earth (FAO, 2015). The study proves that over the years, humans are
dependent on soil directly or indirectly. The land use includes agriculture, landscape
development, forestry, pastures, and wetlands. Moreover, a large amount of land-use
changes has been observed globally throughout the years (IPCC, 2014) (FAO, 2015).

The agricultural sector is one of the most critical sectors for food production. Over 7 billion of
the population depends upon soil for food production. On the contrary, the report (IPCC,
2014) highlights the reduction of cropland area by 53 hectares over the years due to the
intensification of agricultural practices and poor management of available resources (FAO
2015). Interestingly, there has been a rise observed in the emission of non Co2 GHG from
agricultural soils (IPCC 2014), and it contributes about a quarter to GHG emission. These
statistics lead to 2 crucial questions to scientists and landscape developers; A)How the global
demand for food for an expected population of 9 billion people by 2050 (UN, 2014) can be
satisfied by the agricultural sector? B) Whether is it possible to execute sustainable land use
management techniques and how to execute the policies in an optimum way (IPCC, 2014)?
The answer to questions holds the potential to have an effective yield and to mitigate climate
change, respectively.

Adaptation and mitigation policies hold the potential to generate sustainable land use
management. The report (IPCC, 2014) suggests methods/ ideas/steps to develop policies
and to have a balance on demand and supply-side options based upon agricultural, forestry,
and land use management. The demand side option includes measures to reduce the loss
and waste of food, changes in the regular diet of people followed by a reduction in
overconsumption of food (to tackle food security). The supply-side option effectively focuses
upon reduction of greenhouse gas emission, to sequester carbon, and to substitute practices
of higher greenhouse gas emission by lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Soil formation is a dynamic and complicated process. Based on the structure, the soil is
composed of minerals, air, water, and organic matter (Florinsky, 2012). However,(Yudina
2019) agrees to the fact that considering only these four elements may not help to different
upscale models based upon the interaction of soil and GHG emissions. A concrete up scaling
of the model-based upon limited sites may be complicated, but various correlation and
analysis can be helpful to understand the process on a larger scale. (Yudina, 2019)
 Page | 15

Research by (Pan et al., 2009) demonstrates that the overall yield of crops can increase due
to the increase in SOM. An increase in SOM also leads to sequester carbon in soil and thus
providing help to tackle food security. (Haynes & Naidu, 1998). Conceptualized a model that
represents the effects of lime and organic manure on soil conditions and SOM for long term
agricultural plots. They verified the enhancement in soil microbial activity, soil physical
properties, and overall yield due to the amendment of long term lime and organic fertilizers.
However, they highlighted detrimental effects that may occur due to over-application of
fertilizers. Yu et al. (2020) illustrate the importance of the application of organic fertilizers in
agricultural plots. They showed that the more prolonged application of organic fertilizers leads
to improve soil productivity and a significant rise in soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nitrogen
(N).To carry out sustainable agricultural practices, it becomes necessary to incorporate
natural fertilizers and to manage resources parallel. The management of resources may
include the measurement of sequestered organic carbon, nitrogen, SOM, and other
macronutrients.

Furthermore, it is also required to measure the changes in the soil properties over the period.
For example, soil water properties are one of the most important physical properties that may
help us to calculate water fluxes and hydraulic aspects of soil under field conditions.
Understanding soil water relations further leads to the optimized use of water as a resource
(Nielsen, 1985).

The main aim of the earlier researchers was to study the potential of different soils to hold
the moisture that can be readily available for plants and to optimize the amount of water in
the agricultural field. As a result, the WSC and permanent wilting point (PWP, the point at
which the plant wilts) holds equal importance with this context (Veihmeyer & Hendrickson,
1931). At the laboratory level, researchers used temporal remote sensing (Araya, 2017),
pedotransfer function (Qiao et al., 2019) However, the time, effort, and costs required to
determine water storing capacity, available water content, and the permanent wilting point is
more. Moreover, intense care is required to perform the experiments.

The thermogravimetry method is a helpful method to understand the behavior of mass losses
in a particular soil sample/s concerning the function of temperature (Plante et al., 2009). Over
the years of development in Thermal analysis techniques, TG has shown great potential in
determining the physical and chemical properties of soil (Siewert, C.2004) detectability of soil
organic matter over wide ranges of national parks and reserves and long term agricultural
 Page | 16

plots(Kucerik, Demyan, & Siewert, 2016)(Kučerík & Siewert, 2014). They are successful in
developing a system that may be helpful to model and predict soil respiration. The
development of this PTF is due to iterative statistical regression analysis (Pachepsky & van
Genuchten, 2011). The result by PTF seems to reduce/ replace the cumbersome techniques
required to determine individual properties of soil and quantity of SOM (Pachepsky & van
Genuchten, 2011).

Hence, the result of the WSC experiment and TG has the potential to bridge the gap of
tedious laboratory experiments and may help to develop a PTF that may determine WSC.

5000 120
Field capacity Thermogravimetry

4000
90

3000
60
2000

30
1000

0 0
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Figure 2 Number of documents published by the keyword “Field
Capacity” and “Thermogravimetry” Source:Scopus

Figure 2 illustrates the number of documents of field capacity (FC) and TG published over
the years. WSC is also known as FC (Veihmeyer & Hendrickson, 1931). The graph was
obtained by the keyword “soil,” followed by agricultural soil and field capacity. For TG, the
graph was obtained by the keyword “soil,” followed by thermogravimetry. The emphasis was
laid upon agricultural soil for FC because the current research is upon determining the WSC
for agricultural soils. The graph reflects the development of WSC in soil science
exponentially. About 4500 documents were published in the previous year, and based upon
the nature of the curve, and it is most likely that further research would be carried upon by
scientists and researchers. Whereas, the year 1995 observed a significant reduction in the
 Page | 17

published documents of TG. However, the number of documents has increased over the
years.
 Page | 18

Chapter 3 Materials and methods

3.1 Site description and experimental

The research was conducted on the collected soil samples from three long term agricultural
experiments (LTAE) in Germany. The LTAE stations are located at Bad Lauchstädt,
Grossbeeren, and Münchenberg. The experimental sites differ from each other by soil type,
soil texture, fertilization practices, crop production, LMP, clay content. The total number of
soil samples used for this research was 446. The primary data (properties) and TG data were
used from publications (Kucerik, Demyan, & Siewert, 2016) and (Tokarski et al., 2018)

Figure 3 overview about the soil texture of

used soil samples according to Ács et al.,
(2010) and based on data from (Kucerik,
Demyan, & Siewert, 2016) and (Tokarski et
al., 2018).

Table 2 classifies the distribution of soil samples from Figure 3. The first column represents
the location of the soil sample and soil type as per world reference base (WRB). The second
column shows the number of soil samples corresponding to the location and their texture.
The third column reflects the symbol linked to the type of soil marked in figure 6.The arithmetic
mean of WSC for an individual soil texture was calculated. The texture of soil samples
collected from Bad Lauchstädt and Münchenberg remain the same for all the samples, i.e.,
silty loam and loamy sand, respectively
 Page | 19

Out of 190 soil samples from Grossbeeren, 87 soil samples contain silt, 55 samples contain
sandy loam, and the rest of the 48 samples had a texture of clayey silt.

Table 2 Classification of soil samples based upon location, soil texture, number of soil
samples and soil type

Location Number of Symbol * Remark

samples
[Soil type]
Bad Lauchstädt
104
[Haplic-
Chernozem
(WRB)]

Grossbeeren 48 +
[Arenic Luvisols The differences in soil types can be
(WRB)] 55 observed because they are imported from
various LTAE sites.(Mluv, 2009).
87

Münchenberg
152
[Albic
Luvisols(WRB)]
Reference : (Tokarski et al., 2018)

Note: * - Refer Figure 3

3.2 Soil sample and analyses

3.2.1 Soil sample preparation
The collected soil samples were air-dried and sieved at <2mm. The research aims to
establish a correlation between WSC and dynamics of (TML), various soil properties such as
clay content, organic carbon content, and various indicators of SOM components.
 Page | 20

The values for WSC calculated independently(see Section 3.2 ), whereas the other variables
calculated from laboratory experiments performed by Siewert & Kučerík, (2015) and Kucerik
et al. ( 2016).

TG experiments were performed in Mettler-Toledo TGA/SDTA 851 instrument. The soil

samples were conditioned at 76% relative humidity. The further detailed information of TG
experiments referenced from Kučerík et al., (2013). Confirm the potential to have better
comparable results from moderate air-dried soil samples.

The amount of sand, silt, and clay by the standard method was obtained by particle size
distribution method (Kučerík et al., 2013). Total organic carbon and nitrogen contents were
obtained by the Elemental analyzer (Elemetar Vario EL III). The methods mentioned above
for the determination of soil properties are reference methods. Furthermore, Siewert(2004)
confirms that the results from TG can help determine various soil properties such as clay
content, OC content, and N content. The specific soil property correlates with an individual
TML within the temperature range of 30°C to 950°C. Hence, the values derived from TG
results referenced from various publications Siewert, (2004), Plante et al.,( 2009),Kučerík et
al., (2013) and Tokarski et al.,( 2019).

3.2.2 Water storing capacity experiment

The WSC experiment for sieved and air dried soil samples was performed at pF 1.8 as per
DIN/ISO 11274

The following equipment are used for experiment.

• Ceramic plate

• Water column

• Weighing scale (accuracy: 0.01g)

• Filter paper(Whatman® diameter(D):42.5mm)

• Hollow plastic rings(D: approx.30mm)

Experimental design
 Page | 21

Figure 4 Top view of soil samples for experimental setup of water storing capacity on
pressure plate

Figure 5 Front view of soil samples for experimental setup of water storing capacity on
pressure plate

Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows the arrangement of soil samples for WSC experiment on a
pressure plate. The water column is adjacent to the ceramic plates and can be controlled
manually. One space was occupied for the filter papers (number of filter paper: 10) to
calculate the average weight of paper after saturation phase (explained in further passages).

The surface area of the ceramic plate was cleaned with a wet cloth regardless of the material
of cloth. There was no alien element interference on ceramic plates before or during the
arrangement of soil samples. The unwanted elements may result in interference, thus giving
poor results for the WSC experiment.

For the first set of repeating, arbitrary dry soil mass was taken, and for the second repeating,
12 gm. Of dry soil mass was taken for all samples. The idea of 12 gm. Of the soil sample in
every ring proved advantageous as it standardizes the process for enumeration of dry soil
masses. The soil was filled in the ring using a small filler.
 Page | 22

Ten filter papers were arranged at the end of the ceramic plate. The individual mass of filter
papers was measured throughout the experiment.

The following care was taken during the arrangement of soil samples

• No soil comes out from the ring

• No filter paper overlaps each other

• The soil was filled up to 80% of the plastic ring to prevent swelling (if it occurs) of the
soil during the saturated phase (explained in further passages).

• The soil formed an arch in the plastic rings. A smooth surface of the permanent marker
was used to press the soil gently and to make the surface smooth. In this way, the
water can distribute evenly over the compact soil sample.

The water column plays an essential role in determining the WSC of the soil. The complete
distilled water column is 100 cm. The reading scale starts from 0 at the top up to 100 cm at
the bottom.

3.2.3 Characteristics and classification of soil sample

Table 3 summarizes the number of soil samples and calculated soil characteristics(by
reference method) from different long-term agricultural field experiment plots. WSC, SOC,
and N from Bad Lauchstädt recorded the highest between 29% and 38%, 1.4%, and 5.4%
and 0.1% and 0.5%, respectively. Despite being collected from different locations and
different applied agricultural field experiments, N content from all soil samples is almost
equivalent. Münchenberg recorded the lowest amount of clay content between 4% and 8%
(rounded off).
Table 3 Characteristics and classification of soil sample

Location Number of WSC Total SOC Total N (%) Total Clay

samples (%) (%) (%)

Bad
104 24.29-45.33 1.4-5.4 0.1-0.5 23.0-26.9
Lauchstädt
 Page | 23

Grossbeeren 190 11.02-36.67 0.6-2.4 0.0-0.2 5.5-27.5

Münchenberg 152 10.24-23.08 0.4-1.0 0.0-0.1 3.6-7.6

3.3 Data analyses and evaluation

3.3.1 Descriptive analysis of measured WSC
The first step of statistical data analyses was descriptive analysis. The characteristics of WSC
based upon individual site and overall sample set calculated and reported. The primary
element of descriptive analysis includes mean, median, mode, standard deviation, sample
variances.
3.3.2 Variance analyses
The statistical analyses of changes in WSC were carried out by a one-way ANOVA based
upon small capital letters enumerated as follows:
1. Five different types of soil texture (classified based upon location)
2. General fertilization techniques and LMP (classified based upon location)
3. Classification based upon specific agricultural experiment
The significant effect based on ANOVA for three conditions was calculated for the confidence
level of 99%.
3.3.3 Correlation analysis
The strength of the relationship between two variables (TML and WSC) was carried out by
correlation analysis. The values of TML was obtained from the TG experiment conducted by
(Kucerik et al., 2016) the correlation analysis was classified, based upon the relationship of
variables between individual locations and overall sample set.
3.3.4 Autocorrelation analysis
A bilateral relationship between different soil properties, SOM quality and quantity indicators,
and WSC was calculated. The linear, non-linear, and power functions were developed to
analyze the relationship between different variables. Soil properties include properties
derived from reference methods and b. From the relationship based upon the TG experiment
(Siewert, 2004).
Different SOM quality and quantity indicators include parameters from long-term residue
supply, short-term residue supply, Mass Loss on Ignition (MLI) indicators, and others.
3.3.5 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
About 300 unbiased models were developed to determine WSC based upon SEM. The
assumption of the model was based upon various factor analysis and the multiple linear
 Page | 24

regression. This factor analysis included the correlation of WSC with different TML over the
wide temperature range, soil properties derived by reference methods and TG, and indicators
of SOM quality and quantity. Figure_ shows the network diagram of the variables as
mentioned above and their structural relationship with WSC. The significant observations
were recorded. The model reflects the CD at a significant level of 99% probability.
The statistical analyses and evaluations are calculated in Microsoft Excel® 2013.
 Page | 25

Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics (WSC) of soil samples
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for WSC of soil samples

Bl Gb Mü Overall soil samples

Mean 33.74 22.75 15.72 22.92

Standard Error 0.43 0.62 00.23 00.43
Median 33.88 24.71 15.23 20.08
Mode 37.25 16.33 13.92 12.50
Standard Deviation 04.42 8.60 02.84 9.150
Sample Variance 19.55 74.03 8.04 83.77
Kurtosis -0.24 -1.72 -0.13 -1.42
Skewness -0.27 -0.01 0.61 00.31
Range 21.04 25.64 12.84 35.09
Minimum 24.29 11.02 10.24 10.24
Maximum 45.33 36.67 23.08 45.33

Table 4 shows the result of descriptive statics for the soil samples of Bad Lauchstadt,
Grossbeeren, and Münchenberg. Mü soil samples had the lowest standard deviation and
standard error, whereas the GB soil samples had the highest standard deviation and standard
error. The overall standard deviation is 9.15, and the standard error is 0.43. The mode in BL
soil samples is higher than the median and mean. For Gb soil samples, the median is higher
than mode and mean whereas for Mü soil samples. The mean is higher than the median and
mode. As a result of these obtained values of mean, median, and mode, we have negative
skewness for BL and Gb soil samples and positive skewness for Mü soil samples. However,
the skewness for the overall sample set is 0.31. The range in Grossbeeren is the highest
among all three soil samples, and accordingly, this justifies Table 2.
 Page | 26

4.2 WSC based upon fertilization amendments

4.2.1 Classification of soil samples based upon general fertilization techniques

Figure 6 Measured WSC (arithmetic mean) of soil with applied fertilization treatment
and number of soil.

Figure 6 classifies WSC of soil samples based upon the fertilization techniques used at
individual locations. The soil samples from Bad Lauchstädt and Grossbeeren showed a
significant difference among each other, whereas the WSC from Münchenberg did not
show a drastic change in the WSC respective of the fertilization techniques.

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of fertilization

techniques on WSC in no fertilization, FYM, NPK, and full fertilizers. As a result, there was
a significant effect of different fertilization methods on WSC at the p<0.01 level for the three
conditions.
 Page | 27

4.2.2 Classification of soil samples based upon specific field experiment

Figure 7 additionally classifies and compares the obtained arithmetic mean values of WSC
from individual locations based upon the fertilization/ (LMP), agricultural experiment, type of
soil, and the number of samples, respectively. An example from the Münchenberg soil sample
can help understand the order.

Mü, no fertilization, V140, loamy sand, 40

First-order: location of soil sample.

Second-order: type of fertilization applied in the agricultural field

Third-order: followed by the type of agricultural experiment,

Fourth-order: type of soil

Fifth order: number of soil samples

Münchenberg:

Münchenberg contains three sets of soil samples that had a different application of fertilizers
and several soil samples. The type of fertilization includes no fertilization (LMP), NPK fertilizer
(mineral) and, NPK and FYM (mineral and organic fertilizers, respectively). The soil samples
having mineral fertilizers (36 soil samples) recorded the highest number of WSC experiment.
The average WSC of soil samples with no fertilization was 15.4 %, for mineral fertilizers was
16.1%, and for mixed fertilizers was 15.8 %.

Grossbeeren:

Grossbeeren contains fifteen soil sample sets that had different LMP, type of LTAE, type of
soil, and number of soil samples. These soil samples were classified base upon four different
LTAE groups.
 Page | 28

Figure 7 Measured WSC (arithmetic mean) of soil from LTAE with

applied fertilization treatment and number of soil samples
 Page | 29

First group- KP Sand:

This group included 4set of soil samples that had the same LTAE (KP Sand) and type of soil
(silty sand). However, the type of LMP and number of soil samples differed from an individual
set.

The type of LMP includes no fertilization, NPK fertilizer (mineral), FYM (organic), NPK and
FYM (mixed; mineral and organic fertilizers respectively). The soil samples having FYM (24
soil samples) recorded the highest number of WSC experiment. The result reflected that the
WSC of eight soil samples based upon mixed fertilizers was significantly higher compared to
other samples. Interestingly, the average WSC from this group was the highest from
Grossbeeren.

Fourth group- DV2c:

This group included three sets of soil samples that had the same LTAE (DV2c) and type of
soil (silty sand). However, the type of LMP and number of soil samples differed from an
individual set.

The type of LMP includes no fertilization, NPK fertilizer (mineral), NPK, and FYM (mixed;
mineral and organic fertilizers, respectively). The soil samples having mixed fertilizers (24
soil samples) recorded the highest number of WSC experiment. The result reflected that the
average WSC of eight soil samples based upon no fertilizers and 24 soil samples based upon
mixed fertilizers were the same.

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of LMP on WSC
of Grossbeeren soils. As a result, there was a significant effect of different fertilization
methods on WSC at the p<0.01 level for the three conditions [F (3,186) =4.607 Fcrit=3.9].

Bad Lauchstädt:

Bad Lauchstädt contains three sets of soil samples that had different LMP, type of LTAE, and
the number of soil samples. The type of LMP includes no fertilization, fertilizer (organic), and
bare fallow (mechanical fallow, chemical fallow, chemical-mechanical fallow, and self-
greening). The soil samples having FYM (52 soil samples) recorded the highest number of
 Page | 30

WSC experiment. The type of soil was the same for every sample. The average WSC of soil
samples with no fertilization was 31.5 %, for organic fertilizers was 36.6%, and for mixed
fertilizers was 29.6 %. The result reflected that the WSC of soil sample based upon organic
fertilizers was significantly higher compared to other LMP.

As a result, there was a significant effect of different fertilization methods on WSC at the
p<0.01 level for the three conditions [F(2,98)=37 Fcri =4.8].

Based on the above results, soil texture, clay content, and fertilization techniques do reflect
the changes in WSC of soil samples. It is still a question to quantify the amount of changes
in WSC and to predict the WSC based upon the applied fertilization and LMP. As a result, an
investigation was carried out to carefully observe the relationship of WSC with the result of
TG.

4.3 Characteristics of TG
4.3.1 General characteristic of DTG curve (including all three agricultural sites)

Figure 8 Dynamics of average thermal mass losses from all three locations

Figure 8 represents the calculated average values of derived TG profiles of soil samples from
three locations. The absicca shows the temperature range between 0° C and 1000°C
whereas the ordinate represents the TML( derived and recorded from TG experiment). Note
that the value of TMLx-y represents the TML that takes place between temperature x and y.
Here x denotes the lower temperature, and y denotes the higher temperature. For example,
 Page | 31

TML90-100 indicates the TML that takes place in the temperature interval from 90 °C to 100
°C (interval of 10°C).
From Figure 8, there is a significant amount of deviation on the curves. Bad Lauchstädt has
the highest amount of average TML, whereas Münchenberg recorded the least amount of
average TML. The difference in TML supports the variation in the characteristics of collected
soil samples. There are five peaks on the graph. The first peak at a temperature between
100°C and 120°C, second peak between 300°C and 310°C, third peak at 420°C, followed by
490°C and 670°C, respectively. It was necessary to have a proper understanding of the
significant temperature areas of derived TG curves to make further analysis of the data.
The temperature range up to 100°C corresponds to the evaporation of loosely bound water
from micro capillaries and residual SOM. The temperature between 70°C and 200°C had
mass losses due to degradation of organic complexes, which tend to bind to the clay surfaces.
The temperature range between 200°C and 450°C have recorded for the process of
volatilization and oxidation of unsteady organic matter. The temperature range between
450°C and 550°C is assumed for the degradation of humic substances and clay complexes.
The breakdown of carbonate compounds is expected to take place above 550°C (Siewert &
Kučerík, 2015)(Kucerik et al., 2016).
 Page | 32

4.4 Interrelation between WSC and dynamics of TML

4.4.1 Common correlation of WSC and DTG curve.

Figure 9 Correlation curve (overall sample set) of TML with WSC of soil samples.

Figure 9 reflects a correlation curve (overall sample set) of TML with WSC of soil samples The x-axis
represents the temperature range between 0°C and 650° C, and the y-axis represents the calculated
coefficient of determination (CD). The TML after 700° C has negligible mass losses (Figure 8), and as a
result, the induced mass losses until 650° C were considered. It can be observed from the figure
that the WSC strongly correlates with TML.The highest correaltion was at TML 470-480 and the
lowest correlation was at TML290-300.It was observed that the interrelationship between WSC
and TML changes over the temperature scale.

4.4.2 Site-specific correlation of WSC and DTG curve.

Figure 10 Correlation between the dynamics of average thermal mass losses and water
storing capacity. The TML is classified based upon sample locations (Bad Lauchstädt,
Grossbeeren, and Münchenberg). Remained unstable over various temperature ranges. To
observe this instability,
 Page | 33

Figure 10 Correlation curve of TML with WSC from all three sites

Figure 10 compares the correlation curve of TML with WSC from all three sites. Among all
three locations, Grossbeeren had the highest correlations, and Münchenberg had the lowest
correlations of WSC with TML. However, the correlation curve did not seem to be stable
throughout the temperature scale for any locations.

The small letters explain the reflected behavior of WSC and TML from the individual location
at five critical temperature zones:

a. Temperature zone between 90°C and 120°C

Bad Lauchstädt: The correlation increased sharply in this temperature zone.

Grossbeeren: The correlation curve dipped considerably in this temperature zone.

Münchenberg: The correlation reached a peak at 90°C. The curve dropped gradually after
the peak.

b. Temperature zone between 290°C and 320°C

Bad Lauchstädt: The correlation rose gradually in this temperature zone.

 Page | 34

Grossbeeren: The correlation curve declined considerably in this temperature zone.

Münchenberg: The correlation remained stable between 290°C and 300°C, and it plunged
slightly.

c. Temperature zone between 400°C and 420°C

Bad Lauchstädt: The correlation remained steady in this temperature zone.

Grossbeeren: The correlation curve reached the highest observable peak at 400C, and it
remained steady until 420°C

Münchenberg: The correlation curve formed a plateau.

d. Temperature zone between 460°C and 500°C

Bad Lauchstädt: The correlation dipped slightly at 500°C

Grossbeeren: The correlation curve fell significantly in this temperature zone.

Münchenberg: The correlation rose sharply.

e. Temperature zone between 550°C and 650°C

Bad Lauchstädt: The correlation increased sharply in this temperature zone.

Grossbeeren: The correlation curve declined considerably in this temperature zone.

Münchenberg: The correlation reached a peak at 90°C. The curve dropped gradually after
the peak.

4.4.3 Correlation of TG with WSC based upon the influence of fertilization at an individual site
Figure 10 compared the trends of correlation from different locations. However, it was still a
challenge to interpret the parameters responsible for the fluctuations in the correlation curve.
As a result, the average linear regression curve for the lowest and the highest point of
correlation is shown in
 Page | 35

Figure 12 Interrelation between WSC and TML between

290°C and 300°C for all three locations

Figure 11 Interrelation between WSC and TML between

470°C and 480°C for all three locations

Figure 12represents the average linear regression curve with R2 =0.653 for the correlation of
 Page | 36

TML290-300and WSC of soil samples. All three locations have their respective symbols. The
TML ranges between 0.5 mg g-1soil and 5.5 mg g-1soil approximately. Münchenberg forms a
cluster around mass losses of 0.50 mg g-1soil. A large group of soil samples from
Münchenberg having WSC 10%-13% and more than 20% does not fit well with an average
linear regression curve. Bad Lauchstädt soil samples recorded a cluster between the range
of mass losses 1.00 mg g-1soil and 5.50 mg g-1soil. A significantly large number of soil samples
from Bad Lauchstädt having TML 4.5-6.0 mg g-1soil deviates from the average linear
regression curve. Grossbeeren soil samples recorded a cluster between the range of mass
losses 0.50 mg g-1soil and 2.50 mg g-1soil. Grossbeeren soil samples do not fit well with an
average linear regression curve, as well.

Figure 12 represents the average linear regression curve with R2=0.87 for the correlation of
TML470-480 and WSC of soil samples. The TML ranges from 0.20 mg g-1soil to 2.25 mg g-1soil
approximately. As shown in Table 3, a separate class of soil samples can be seen.
Münchenberg, which recorded to have the lowest clay content, can be seen to form a cluster
between mass losses 0.25 mg g-1soil -0.50 mg g-1soil.

On the contrary, soil samples from Bad Lauchstädt, which recorded the highest WSC formed
a cluster between the range of mass losses 1.25 mg g-1soil and 2.00 mg g-1soil. Very few soil
samples from Bad Lauchstädt deviates from the average linear regression curve. There is a
significant variation in the lower cluster of Grossbeeren having WSC 10-12% and mass
losses between 0.25 -0.50 mg g-1soil. There are certain disturbances observed too in the upper
cluster having WSC 20-25% and mass losses between 1.25 -1.50 mg g-1soil.

4.5 Relationship between soil properties, SOM indicators, and WSC

Kucerik et al., (2016) formulated the relationship between OC, clay, and organic matter
contents using Mass Loss on Ignition(MLI). MLI was expressed as the sum of SOM and the
water bounded to clay. They developed variables to detect MLI and to establish the relation
between soil properties and SOM. These variables are the indicators of SOM.

Based on their successful results, an approach was developed in this research to evaluate
and analyze dependencies between WSC and indicators of SOM. The statistical analyses
include specific temperature ranges from TML, clay (reference clay content and derived clay
 Page | 37

content), SOC, Nt, and other essential variables used for determining organic matter quantity
and quality.

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 13 Correlation between organic carbon ( reference OC and TG OC) and

Figure 13 represents the correlation between OC and WSC of soil samples. The reference
OC indicates the values obtained by the elemental analyzer and TG OC represent the
values derived by the TG experiment. The CD for reference OC was 0.69, whereas, for TG
OC, the calculated correlation was 0.71.The R2 between reference OC and TG OC
was 0.95.
 Page | 38

Table 5 Comparison of WSC with different calculated parameters

(Linear and Non-linear function)

Table 5 compares CD of linear and non-linear functions for a single independent variable.
This establishes a bilateral relationship between WSC and other variables such as a) soil
properties: 1. ref soil properties ,2. variable with long term dynamics of OM, 3.short term
supply of OM 4. stability of OM and other useful variables. For an example,the CD for
reference organic carbon is 0.69 for the linear regression model, whereas, for the non-linear
model, it is 0.76. A raise in CD was observed with the help of the non-linear model.

Various other variables such as were correlated and observed. However, it was assumed
that incorporating numerous independent variables for a non-linear model could be
 Page | 39

ambiguous, complex, and misleading. Furthermore, the highest CD was observed based
upon the linear relation of TML with WSC. As a result, the linear function model was selected
to carry out multiple regression models independent of the number of variables

4.6 Multiplecorrelation based upon regression models

The obtained result (refer section 4.3 to 4.5) reflects the significant correlation of WSC with
TML, Soil properties, and SOM indicators. Based on obtained correlations, it was possible to
predict the WSC for a given set of soil samples. The maxima R2 is at TML470 (R2=0.87). Thus,
up to 87% of the variations in WSC can be interpreted by TML 470. This CD signifies a strong
relation between WSC and TML.

Moreover, one of the main focuses of the research was to come up with a better model that
can help predict the WSC with minimum residuals. One approach was to carry out multiple
linear regression. The research performed by (Kucerik et al., 2016)verifies that multiple
regression can be helpful to increase CD and may even help to design a better model to
establish a relation between different properties of soil (Saxton & Rawls, 2006).

About 300 unbiased models were developed to determine WSC based upon the concept of
Structural Equation Modeling(Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). The assumption of the
model was based upon various factor analysis and the multiple linear regression. This factor
analysis included the correlation of WSC with different TML over the wide temperature range,
soil properties derived by EA and TG, and indicators of SOM quality and quantity. Figure_
shows the network diagram of the above-mentioned variables and their structural relationship
with WSC. The significant observations were recorded. The enumerated equation reflects
the CD greater than 0.8 at a significant level of 99% probability. The thermal mass losses are
in the mg g-1soil unit for all soil samples.

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = −𝟏. 𝟏𝟑 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟏𝟎𝟎 + 𝟏𝟗. 𝟎𝟗 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟖𝟎 + 𝟏𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 …. 1

Where WSC is the water storing capacity obtained from the thermal mass losses between
90°C and 100 °C(TML100) and thermal mass losses between 470°C and 480°C, the obtained
R2 for the equation 1 was 0.88

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = −𝟓𝟒. 𝟎𝟏𝟓 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟕𝟎 + 𝟏𝟔𝟎. 𝟗𝟒 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟖𝟎 − 𝟗𝟏. 𝟎𝟒 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟗𝟎 + 𝟗. 𝟏𝟑 … 2

 Page | 40

Where the WSC can be derived from the three variables from the thermal mass losses
between 460°C and 470°C, 470°C and 480°C, 480°C and 490°C respectively. The obtained
R2 for the equation was 0.89.

Equation 3 reflects the R2 of 0.84, where the WSC can be derived from the critical
temperature zones. The TML120 is used to detect the clay content from the given soil
sample.TML290 is the potential indicator of biodegradable compounds.TML 360 is the total
carbon content indicator, whereas TML530 is a useful variable for the determination of clay
content on humified components.

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = 𝟐. 𝟗𝟓 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟏𝟐𝟎 − 𝟒. 𝟕𝟔 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟐𝟗𝟎 − 𝟏𝟏. 𝟑𝟔 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟑𝟔𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟕𝟎 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟓𝟑𝟎 + 𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 …

3

The equation 4 shows that the WSC can be obtained from the combination of different soil
properties as well

Where refoc is the amount of organic carbon and refclay is the overall clay content present in a
soil sample obtained by the EA method. The individual correlation between WSC and ref oc
was 0.69, and between WSC and refclay was 0.76. There was comparatively a higher R2
obtained by the combination of different soil characteristics (refer section 4.5).

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟑 × 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐎𝐂 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓 × 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐲 + 𝟏𝟎. 𝟑𝟒 (R2=0.83)…4

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟑 × 𝐓𝐆𝐍𝐭 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕 × 𝐓𝐆𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐲 + 𝟕. 𝟏𝟓 (R2=0.82)…5

Where TG Nt is the overall amount of nitrogen, and TGclay is the overall amount of clay
determined by the TG. The individual interrelation between WSC with TG_ N and with TG
clay was __ and __ respectively (refer section)

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟑 × 𝐓𝐆𝐎𝐂 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓 × 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐲 + 𝟏𝟎. 𝟖𝟔 (R2=0.84) …6

Where TGOC is the amount of organic carbon derived by TG. The CD for the equation was
0.84 there was a comparatively higher CD by the combination of different soil characteristics.

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = −𝟑. 𝟖𝟗 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟗𝟎 + 𝟐𝟑. 𝟔𝟒 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟐𝟒𝟎 − 𝟒𝟏. 𝟒𝟏 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟖𝟎 + 𝟓𝟗. 𝟓𝟔 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟓𝟐𝟎 +

𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟏𝟒𝟎 𝐅𝟒(𝐓𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐲)
𝟐𝟑. 𝟓𝟕 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟓𝟗𝟎 − 𝟎. 𝟖𝟐 × 𝐌𝐋𝐈 ( ) + 𝟎. 𝟔𝟒 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝐎𝐂 + 𝟐𝟗. 𝟖𝟏 𝐅𝟑(𝐎𝐌 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥) − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏 ×
𝟒𝟏𝟎

𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐩𝐨𝐬. 𝐅𝟔 (𝐒𝐎𝐌) − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟗 × 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐅𝟐 …7

 Page | 41

The equation 7 shows that the numerous independent variables are useful to predict WSC
with a CD of 0.92.The equation 7 is stated as Model_1. Interestingly, some of the
temperatures hold significance in determining other Soil properties as well. For instance, TML
90 associates with the determination of clay content (bound water).TML 520 corresponds to
the. Determination of humified components. MLI (TML 140/410) indicates the amount of mass
loss on ignition based upon the TML140 (an indicator of bounded water on clay components)
and TML 410(an indicator of organic Nt ). The model. Also includes OC derived by TG. Other
developed. Variables such as the ratio of F4/F3, Peakpos.F6 (SOM), and Anstieg F2
contributed significantly to the development of the model. F4 and F3 are the indicators of the
TML between 400C and 500 C, between 300°C and 400C, respectively.Peakpos.F6 (SOM)
indicates the position of the highest mass losses of OM decomposition between
temperature130°C and 530°C. Anstieg F2 indicates the mass losses between the
temperature of 200 C and 300°C. As shown in figure_, i the average mass loss increase
between this temperature ranges. As a result, the fraction F2 is an indicator of readily
biodegradable OM.

Even though there is a high correlation, the number of independent variables is quite higher.
This may possibly lead to the complexity in the model for a large number of the sample set.
As a result, an attempt was made to make the equation simple.

𝐖𝐒𝐂 = 𝟑. 𝟒𝟒 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟗𝟎 + 𝟑𝟏. 𝟕𝟕 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟒𝟖𝟎 + 𝟐𝟕. 𝟕𝟕 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟓𝟐𝟎 + 𝟓𝟎. 𝟔𝟗 × 𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟓𝟗𝟎 +

𝐅𝟒(𝐓𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐲)
𝟏𝟎. 𝟓𝟓 𝐅𝟑(𝐎𝐌 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥) + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗 × 𝐌𝐋𝐈 (𝐓𝐌𝐋𝟏𝟒𝟎/𝟒𝟏𝟎) (R2=0.91)… 8

The equation shows that WSC is a function of TML between 80°C and 90°C, 470°C and
480°C, 510°C and 520°C and the ratio of fraction F4 and F3 (refer equation 7).
 Page | 42

4.7 Summary of results

(a)

(b)

Figure 14 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for BL. (b) mean absolute percent
error of the residuals.

Figure 14(a) compares the average measured and calculated WSC of soil samples from
Bad Lauchstädt the Measured WSC values are derived from Figure 6.
 Page | 43

Whereas the values of Calculated_WSC_ Model 1 and Calculated_WSC_Model 2 are

derived from equation 7 and equation 8 (refer Section 4.6) respectively. The data table
under the x-axis shows the average amount of WSC for an individual group. There are
three groups of soil samples. The soil samples are classified based upon fertilization and
the number of soil samples*and the other (mentioned in figure 14 b). Units are measured in
percentages.

Model_1 predicts the highest WSC for bare fallow, whereas Model_2 has predicted the
highest WSC for no fertilization and FYM soil groups. The least significant difference between
WSC was from no fertilization and FYM plots.

Figure 14(b) reflects the percent error from Model_1 and Model_2.Model_1 records the lower
percent error for the soil group from no fertilization (0.37%) and FYM plots (0.34%) compared
to Model_2.The highest percent error recorded is from bare fallow.

Grossbeeren, Grossbeeren,NP
FYM, 76 K and FYM,47

Figure 15 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for Gb, (b) mean absolute Percent
error of the residuals
 Page | 44

Figure 15(b) compares the average measured and calculated WSC of soil samples from
Grossbeeren.The values of Calculated_WSC_ Model 1 and Calculated_WSC_Model 2 are
derived from equation 7 and equation 8 respectively. The data table under the x-axis shows
the average amount of WSC for an individual group. Figure 15(b) compares the percent error
derived from Figure 15 (a). There are three groups of soil samples. The soil samples are
classified based upon fertilization and the number of soil samples (mentioned Figure 15 b).

Figure 16(a) compares the average measured and calculated WSC of soil samples from
Münchenberg. The Measured WSC values are derived from Tabel_1, whereas the values of
Calculated_WSC_ Model 1 and Calculated_WSC_Model 2 are derived from equation 7 and
equation 8 respectively. The data table under the x-axis shows the average amount of WSC
for an individual group. Figure 16 (b) compares the mean absolute percent error derived from
Figure 16(a). There are three groups of soil samples. The soil samples are classified based
upon fertilization and the number of soil samples (mentioned in Figure Figure 16 b). Units are
measured in percentages.

Figure 16(a) shows that the average measured WSC is higher in group 2 and group 3
compared to Model_1 and Model_2. The lowest value of calculated WSC is in no fertilization
plot.Model_1 predicted the highest WSC for no fertilization plot and the lowest for a plot
having NPK and FYM fertilization. The WSC predicted by Model_2 is lower than the Model_1
for no fertilization and NPK plots. The WSC from NPK and FYM based fertilization plots
showed the highest significant differences compared to other groups.

Figure 16(b) depicts the highest percent error for NPK and FYM based plots from both the
models.Model_1 shows a higher percent error for group1 (no fertilization) and group 3(NPK
and FYM).
 Page | 45

Figure 16 (a) Measured and calculated WSC for Mü (b) mean absolute Percent error
of the residuals
 Page | 46

Chapter 5 Discussion
The research aimed to investigate whether there is 1) a correlation between indicators of soil
organic matter composition and water storing capacity of soil samples prepared under
laboratory conditions 2 )a potential to generate a model which can help to predict water
storing capacity based upon thermal mass losses(obtained from Thermogravimetry). The
research confirmed that there is a correlation between indicators of SOM composition and
WSC. The research coheres with the philosophy of (Kucerik et al., 2016) who reported the
determination of various soil properties(Siewert, 2004), estimation of accumulated soil
organic matter, and it is quality(Tokarski et al., 2018)(Tokarski et al., 2019). The observation
from various correlation and regression models showed that it is possible to generate a
multiple regression model from the TG data, which can be independent of soil texture,
fertilization techniques, and land use management. However, there are certain limitations
and recommendations from the output of this model.

5.1 Soil characteristics based upon laboratory experiment

The research was conducted on a limited number of sites and amount of soil samples. It
could be seen from the texture triangle (refer figure 3) that a large number of soil samples
with different texture is missing. Along with soil texture, there are also slight deviations
observed in the characteristics of soil samples. However, the research includes a limited
amount of soil characteristics.

Throughout the development of soil science, researchers strongly support that the soil
texture, homogeneity in soil distribution, and soil depth plays a significant role in the WSC of
soil (Veihmeyer, 1949)(Fayos, 1997) (Filho et al., 2014)Moreover, results from(Saxton &
Rawls, 2006) showed that along with soil texture, WSC depends upon another parameter
such as Soil density, soil salinity, and SOM. The findings of this research thus support
previous studies showing that the soil texture does affect the water retention capacity of the
soil. However, it does not take into account the uniformity of soil from agricultural plots and
soil depth for calculation due to constrained aim timeline of the research and limited amount
of soil characteristics.

5.2 WSC based upon fertilization amendments

It is interesting to note that the rise in clay content, Nitrogen content, organic carbon content,
and WSC in the soils that had the various application of different fertilizers over the long term
 Page | 47

compared to no fertilized and fallow plots. Yu et al., (2020);Haynes & Naidu, (1998),Kätterer
et al., (2014) affirms that the long-term application of organic and NPK fertilizers increase the
SOC and N pool along with significant enhancement in overall microbial activity and soil
fertility. From the comparison of results, I firmly believe that there was a rise in microbial
activity of the soil, which led to the mineralization of soil,followed by the increase in WSC.

The results cohere with both the factors (soil texture and application of various fertilizers) for
the increase in WSC. It remains unclear about the factor that contributes to increasing WSC
and it's determination.

The WSC of some soil samples from Bad Lauchstadt and Münchenberg did not fit well to the
average line regression curve. On further analysis of the given data, the samples having the
highest fertilization, recorded the highest amount of clay, Nt, and OC on average. The
possible reason for higher WSC for above-mentioned soils could be 1)higher adsorption of
water on the clay particles and stabilized minerals(Kučerík et al., 2013)(Kučerík & Siewert,
2014) 2)adsorption of water on plant residues3)hysteresis retention curve and 4)soil pore
space distribution(Tuller & Or, 2004). The above-mentioned points further justify that clay, N,
and OC is essential parameters for WSC and designing agricultural practices.

5.3 Characteristics of TG and interrelation with WSC

Figure 11 represented a general overview of the dynamics of thermal mass losses. However,
a precise interpretation (interrelation between TML and WSC) seemed to be complicated. As
a result, the dynamics of TML were classified further based upon individual experimental site
and fertilization techniques/LMP.

5.3.1 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (BL)

Figure 17 classifies the calculated average values of derived TG profiles from Bad
Lauchstädt. The temperature range from 0°C to 1000°C is shown in the x-axis, and the TML
calculated per 10 °C step is shown on the y-axis. There was a variation between TML at four
temperature zones. The first zone of deviation was between the temperature range of 100°C
and 140°C. This zone corresponds to the evaporation of loosely bound water. The second
zone of deviation was between 230°C and 500°C. The highest deviation between the TML
from different LMP was from 270°C to 340°C. Interestingly, The temperature between this
zone represented the degradation of unsteady SOM and remaining residues(Kucerik et al.,
 Page | 48

2016). As a hypothesis, the range from 270°C to 340°C might be a challenge to obtain a
better correlation. The observation can explain the base of this hypothesis in the significant
difference between different LMP and OM content for the same soil (silt loam).On the other
hand, there was a minor difference observed between TML in the range of 440°C to 500°C.
The range(440°C to 500°C) corresponds to the presence (assumed)of residual decomposed
SOM (Siewert & Kučerík, 2015).

FYM showed the highest TML among 3 LMP. Furthermore, there was no significant
difference in TML observed for no fertilization and bare fallow.

Figure 17 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon

fertilization and LMP from BL. Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019)

5.3.2 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (Gb)

Figure 18 classifies the calculated average values of derived TG profiles from Grossbeeren.
There was a variation between TML at two temperature zones. The first zone of deviation
was between the temperature range of 80°C and 170°C. This zone corresponds to the
evaporation of loosely bound water and decomposition of labile SOM. The second zone of
deviation was between 260°C and 500°C.
 Page | 49

The highest deviation between the TML from different LMP was between 100°C to 120°C.
Interestingly, the temperature between this zone is considered as the loss of bound water
and clay-related compounds. It was observed that out of four different LMP, FYM showed the
highest amount of TML.NPK and FYM (mixed fertilizers) based soil samples had the lowest
induced mass losses between 100°C and 120°C whereas, they recorded higher TML
compared to no fertilization and mineral(NPK) based LMP between the temperature range
270°C and 450°C. A higher amount of degradable SOM is expected in mixed fertilizers based
soil samples.

On the other hand, there was a minor difference observed between TML in the range of
440°C to 500°C. The range(440°C to 500°C) corresponds to the presence (assumed)of
residual decomposed SOM (Siewert & Kučerík, 2015).

Figure 18 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon

fertilization and LMP from Gb Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019)

5.3.3 Classification of soil samples based upon LMP (Mü)

Figure 19 classifies the calculated average values of derived TG profiles (3 LMP) from
Münchenberg. The variation between TML can be seen at one temperature zone (enlarged
area). The zone of deviation was observed between the temperature range of 270°C and
 Page | 50

450°C. However, the difference is not significantly high. The mixed fertilizers showed the
highest TML.

Figure 19 Dynamics of average TML of classified soil samples based upon fertilization and
LMP from Mü Data derived from (Tokarski et al., 2019)

5.4 Interrelation between WSC and dynamics of TML

Section 4.4.3 reflects the soil samples responsible for the deviation between correlation of
TML470-480 and WSC. However, it is still a challenge to justify the conclusion as to which LMP
could be responsible for the variation. To address the challenge, Figure 20 to Figure 25
further classifies the individual location-based upon LMP. Figure 19 shows the classification
of LMP from Bad Lauchstädt for the lowest R2 (refer to Figure 11). It can be seen that the
very few soil samples from all LMP of BL fits the average linear regression curve. The soil
samples are dispersed over a wide range of TML at this specific temperature zone. A large
number of soil samples from FYM deviate sharply, whereas some of the soil samples from
bare fallow and no fertilization plots deviate significantly from the regression curve. The
temperature range 290°C and 310°C lies next to
 Page | 51

Figure 20 Correlation between WSC and TML290-300 for classified

soil samples from Bad Lauchstädt

the TML310-320 which indicates the amount of OC present in the soil and TML 320-330 which is
an indicator of N content. Yu et al., (2020); Haynes & Naidu, (1998),Kätterer et al., (2014)
affirms the increase in SOC due long-term application of organic and NPK fertilizers. As a
result, one can observe the difference in TML between no fertilization plots and plots having
FYM. The no fertilization plots reflects a lower TML and deviates from the average regression
line due to comparatively higher WSC. Whereas, the plots having FYM deviates from the
average regression due to higher amount of TML (higher SOC and N content) and
comparatively lower WSC. The bare fallow includes different experimental fallow such as
chemical fallow, mechanical fallow, and mechanical-chemical (mixed) fallow and hence due
to no fertilization in those plots once can observe the lower amount of TML.

Figure 21 shows the classification of LMP from Bad Lauchstädt for the highest R2 (refer to
Figure 11 b). It can be seen that the very few soil samples from all LMP deviate from the
average linear regression curve. A small number of soil samples deviate substantially from
the regression curve. However, soil samples from FYM practices showed the highest
deviation. The temperature zone 470°C-480°C lies in the assumed range of thermally stable
 Page | 52

organic compounds in context to humified clay components (Kucerik et al., 2016). As a result,
one can observe that the large number of soil samples fits the average regression line
irrespective of the LMP. This strong interrelation further gives a significant hint about

R²R²
= 0.87
= 0.87

Figure 21 Correlation between WSC and TML480 for classified of soil samples from
Bad Lauchstädt.

interrelation between thermally stable organic compounds and WSC.

Figure 22 shows the classification of LMP from Grossbeeren for the lowest R 2 (refer Figure
11). It can be seen that the soil sample forms two cluster above and below the average
regression curve. A considerable amount of soil samples from FYM correlates with the
average linear regression curve. A large number of soil samples (from all LMP) having WSC
between 10-15% deviate sharply from the regression curve. The mixed fertilization based soil
samples are collected from KP Sand and DV2c experimental plots and these experimental
sites contain silty sand.The overall WSC in silty sand has recorded the lowest from
Grossbeeren region. Thus, the lower cluster of soil samples that deviates from the average
regression line can be understood by this perspective. The cluster above the average linear
 Page | 53

regression does not include soil samples from mixed fertilization The soil samples having
FYM contains large amount of soil samples from clayey silt and silty loam .As a result , one
can clearly observe the higher TML and WSC.The soil samples (FYM fertilization) in the lower
cluster are collected from KP Sand and hence ,it clearly justifies the difference of having lower
WSC and TML.

Figure 23 shows the classification of LMP from Grossbeeren for the highest R2 (refer to Figure
11). It can be seen that the soil samples from two clusters. The clusters are separated from
each other clearly stating the difference in the TML between various agricultural experiments.
The lower cluster contains the soil samples having silty sand (lower WSC compared to CS

R² = 0.65

Figure 22 Correlation between WSC and TML290-300 for classified soil samples from
Grossbeeren.
 Page | 54

nd SL)whereas the upper cluster contains the soil samples having clayey silt and silty
loam(Higher WSC compared to SS) A considerable amount of soil samples from FYM
correlates with the average linear regression curve. A large number of soil samples from the

R² = 087

Figure 23 Correlation between water storing capacity and thermal mass

losses WSC and TML480 for classified of soil samples from Grossbeeren.

right cluster does not include soil samples from mixed fertilization. The soil samples having
WSC between 20-25% include a moderate amount of soil samples from FYM and no
fertilization plots.

Figure 24 and Figure 25 shows the classification of LMP for the lowest and the highest CD
 Page | 55

from Münchenberg (refer Figure 11 and Figure 12), respectively.There is a positive

R² = 0.65

Figure 24 Correlation betwe en Water storing capacity and thermal mass

losses at 480°C of soil samples from Grossbeeren.

correlation between the WSC and TML from soil samples for both curves. However, a large
number of deviation can be observed between the soil samples. For Figure 24 we can
observe that the higher number of soil samples from mixed fertilization and no fertilization
plots deviates from the average linear regression curve. In Figure 25, higher number of soil
samples from NPK and mixed fertilization, plots deviate from the curve comparatively. The
overall TML in Münchenberg is comparatively less than Bad Lauchstädt and Grossbeeren The
derived relation (Figure 20- Figure 25) coheres with the understanding of relation between
WSC, LMP, SOC,N and thermally stable SOM.
 Page | 56

R² = 0.87

Figure 25 Correlation between Water storing capacity and thermal

mass losses at 480°C for classified soil samples from
Münchenberg

5.5 Relationship between soil properties, SOM indicators, and WSC

Figure 26 further classifies soil samples from Bad Lauchstädt based upon soil texture and
fertilization. The amount of WSC of soil samples is plotted on the x-axis, and the amount of
organic carbon is plotted on the y-axis. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be
shown as follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,
 Page | 57

Ref - organic carbon content determined by Elemental analyzer

TG_OC- Organic carbon determined by Thermogravimetry

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 26 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified soil samples
from Bad Lauchstädt

X1- no fertilization, V494, silty loam, 36

X2- FYM V494, silty loam,52

X3- bare fallow, V505a, silty loam, 16

It is important to note the order of nomenclature. The first order indicates the type of
fertilization followed by the field experiment, type of soil, and the number of soil samples. The
number of soil samples indicated represents the soil sample for individual data set, i.e., 36
soil samples in X1 are the same for ref_OC and TG_OC.

After a close analysis of individual sample set, the result can be enumerated as such:
 Page | 58

1. X1(ref_OC and TG_OC): A tiny fraction of soil samples fit the regression curve,
whereas a large proportion of soil samples are influential points with comparatively
higher WSC.
2. X2(ref_OC and TG_OC): A very large proportion of soil samples deviate from the
regression curve, and a small fraction of soil samples with a higher amount of OC
recorded can be titled as outliers.
3. X3(ref_OC and TG_OC): The soil samples can be seen to form a linear cluster
between a specific range of OC. However, this sample set does influence the
regression curve.
4. The nature of distribution of points over the regression is almost same as Figure
20 which showed the correlation of WSC with TML290-300

KP Sand

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 27 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Sand
from Grossbeeren (KP Sand)
 Page | 59

The given Figure 27 further classifies(refer Figure 13)soil samples from Grossbeeren based
upon soil texture and fertilization. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be shown as
follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,

X1- KP Sand, silty sand, no fertilization,8

X2- KP Sand, silty sand, NPK,8

X3- KP Sand, silty sand, FYM,24

X4- KP Sand, silty sand, FYM,7

All group of soil samples deviates moderately from the regression line. Moreover, the soil
samples contains silty sand having lower WSC compared to other soil samples from
Grossbeeren. As a result , the samples deviats from the regression and forms a cluster below
the average linear regression line indicating low WSC.

KP Loam
 Page | 60

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 28 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Loam
from Grossbeeren (KP Loam)

The given Figure 28 further classifies(refer Figure 13) soil samples from Grossbeeren based
upon soil texture and fertilization. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be shown as
follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,

X1- KP Loam, sandy loam no fertilization,11

X2- KP Loam, sandy loam, NPK,8

X3- KP Loam, sandy loam, FYM,28

X4- KP Loam, sandy loam, NPK, and FYM,8

A large amount of soil samples influences the regression. However, for the sample set from
X3, a variation can be seen in ref_OC and TG_OC. The measured OC with the TG data
recorded a higher amount of OC quantity compared to the OC obtained by the reference
 Page | 61

method. One soil sample from ref_OC and around five soil sampled from TG_OC are outliers,
and hence they do not have any effect on the regression curve.

K P Loess

The given Figure 29 further classifies(refer Figure 13) soil samples from Grossbeeren based
upon soil texture and fertilization. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be shown as
follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,

X1- KP Loess, clayey silt, no fertilization

X2- KP Loess, clayey silt, NPK

X3- KP Loess, clayey silt, FYM

X4-KP Loess, clayey silt, NPK, and FYM

It can be seen that all soil samples have recoded a higher WSC and they follow the trendline
 Page | 62

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 29 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified KP Loess
from Grossbeeren (KP Loess)

DV2c

The given Figure 30 further classifies(refer Figure 13)soil samples from Grossbeeren based
upon soil texture and fertilization. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be shown as
follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,

X1- DV2c, silty sand, no fertilization

X2- DV2c, silty sand, NPK

X3- DV2c, silty sand, NPK and FYM

 Page | 63

It can be seen that all soil samples have recoded comparatively lower WSC, and they are
influential points under the average linear regression curve. A moderate amount of soil
samples from ref_OC can be seen to deviate from the curve.

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 30 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified Dv2c from
Grossbeeren (DV2c)

The given Figure 31 further classifies(refer Figure 13) soil samples from Münchenberg based
upon soil texture and fertilization. The nomenclature for the given scenario can be shown as
follows:

ref_OC,X1 or TG_OC,X1

where,

X1- V140, loamy sand, no fertilization,40

X2- V140, loamy sand, NPK,36

X3- V140, loamy sand, NPK, and FYM,76

 Page | 64

It can be observed that the sample set forms a non-uniform pattern and are scattered
unevenly. Nearly one-third amount of soil samples fits the regression curve. Furthermore,
there were no outliers observed from the regression analysis.

R² = 0.71

R² = 0.69

Figure 31 Correlation between WSC and OC (reference and TG) for classified from
Münchenberg

5.6 Multiple correlation based upon regression models

The capital letters explain the main findings that support the developed model 1(equation 7).

A. The model (equation 2) generated using TML increased CD from 0.87(TML 470°C and
WSC) to 0.89. Despite the better model, there was further iteration carried out. The
third approach (in continuation to section 4.5) was to include the indicators of SOM
obtained by reference methods and by TG methods. The main purpose of this
 Page | 65

approach was to investigate whether the already established correlation between

SOM indicators and WSC helps to develop a better regression model (>0.90) or not.

B. The R2 raised from 0.87 to 0.92 (equation 7). The value obtained for adjusted R2 was
equivalent to standard R2. The equivalent value explains that the variables used in the
model are not misleading, and they contribute to the regression model. F value was
more than Significance F, whereas the value of p was less than 0.01. Both of these
reject the null hypothesis.

C. Figure 14-Figure 16 shows the difference between measured and calculated WSC ,
and percent error with the help of equation 7 and equation 8. For Münchenberg, the
calculated WSC is slightly less than the measured WSC, whereas, for non-fertilized
soils in Münchenberg, the values obtained are a bit higher. For Grossbeeren soils, the
calculated WSC is precisely the same (rounded-off) as that of measured WSC for non-
fertilized plots, FYM, and the combination of NPK and FYM, respectively. There is a
slight overestimation of WSC for soils with the amendment of NPK fertilizers. For Bad
Lauchstädt soil samples, there has been observed a significant difference in calculated
and measured WSC of +2.3 %, whereas, for non-fertilized plots and FYM plots, it
almost remains the same. Hence, it can be generalized that the model 1 stands out to
be a better approach and independent of land use management practices. It would be
fascinating to know the behavior of the model for a large number of samples with
variation in LMP.

D. Interestingly, the soil samples from Münchenberg showed a higher amount of percent
error between calculated and measured WSC. The previous results show that the soil
samples from Münchenberg had the least correlation with TML (refer Figure10). Based
on the observation, the type of soil from Münchenberg was cross referenced and the
natural behoaviour and validated with other researches. It came to acknowledgement
that the phenomena of hydrophobation of sandy soils could be a possibility. (Doerr,
Shakesby, & Walsh, 2000) confirms that the sandy loam soils up to 22% is likely to
have hydrophobation.

The above-stated points reflect the interdependencies of clay, OC, readily biodegradable,
and thermally stable OM with WSC. If the result is compared only based upon the TG curve,
 Page | 66

then it can be seen that the WSC correlates maximum in the range of humic substances, i.e.,
thermally .stabilized OM. Table 6(below) compares the CD of soil properties and their
corresponding TML variables with WSC. Hence, the hypothesis can be proposed to examine
the correlation of WSC between 470°C and 600°C for new soil samples. The temperature
range from 450°C -600°C could be the possible range to determine WSC.

Figure 32 illustrates SEM based upon selected independent variables. The circles marked in
grey are the independent variables that can be selected arbitrarily. The enumerated number
describes the function for each of them.

1. Shows the overall R2 for WSC based upon selected variables.

2. The R2 based upon the correlation of selected TML and WSC.

3. The R2 based upon the correlation of selected reference soil properties and WSC.

4. The R2 based upon the correlation of selected TG based soil properties and WSC.

5. The R2 based upon the correlation of selected indicators of SOM content and WSC.
 Page | 67

Figure 32 Example of structural equation model based upon selected independent variables
 Page | 68

Table 6 Comparison between coefficients of determination of soil properties with the with
corresponding indicator based upon Thermal mass analysis

Soil property Temperaure at thermal CD of Soil property* CD of Soil

mass losses/ °C with WSC property** with
WSC

Clay content (bound water) 110-120 0.76 0.80

Organic carbon content 310-320 0.69 0.70

Nitrogen content 290-300 0.71 0.71

Humified clay components 520-530 0.76 0.79

Proposed WSC range and 470-600 Not applicable 0.91

variable

* - Soil property obtained from Elemental analysis

**- Soil property obtained from thermogravimetry analysis

CD- Correlation of determination

WSC- water storing capacity

 Page | 69

Chapter 6 Conclusion
The research establishes a strong relationship between water storing capacity of soil and soil
organic matter composition. Furthermore, it holds the potential to calculate the water storing
capacity indirectly. However, there are specific questions induced, which are concerned with
the behavior of the model on the soils having lower or higher organic matter composition and
different land use management practices.

The result coheres with the traditional approach of dependency of water storing capacity on
soil texture, fertilization techniques, and clay content. Moreover, the comparison of different
land use management practices with water storing capacity gives a better understanding of
various soil characteristics and their interrelations. The laboratory-based research showed a
significant result in water storing capacity from different regions, further setting an opportunity
to investigate more soil samples from long term agricultural experiments.

The generalized model may help to create a breakthrough in soil science for the quick and
cost-effective determination of water storing capacity from thermogravimetry experiments.
 Page | 70

Chapter 7 Outlook
The research has attempted to investigate Interrelation between indicators of soil organic
matter composition and water storing capacity measured under laboratory conditions.The
objective of the research was explicitly designed to understand the relevance of the topic, the
approach to conduct water-storing capacity experiments, verify obtained experimental
results, and quantify water storing capacity with the thermal mass losses, respectively.

The objective to demonstrate the relevance of the research was achieved by a

comprehensive literature review on the subject topic.

The objective of conducting a water-storing capacity experiment was achieved by gathering

complete data of every soil sample. The pilot experiment on limited soil samples further
helped to optimize the main experiment.

The objective of validating the result of water-storing experiments was achieved by

performing an analysis of variance. The outcome of the results was compared with the
assumed hypothesis (internal validation) and previous researches done in water storing
capacity.

Multiple statistical analyses accomplished the objective of quantifying the water storing
capacity and thermal mass losses. These analyses included the coefficient of determination
with Linear and non-linear regression models, autocorrelation analysis, variance analyses.
The structural equation model was developed based on a trial and error approach (multiple
linear regression). The result was validated by analyzing residuals obtained from multiple
linear regression models.

For any research, it is necessary to have sufficient knowledge about the challenges of the
research. These challenges may help to develop a better understanding and improvise
methods to optimize the outcomes. The challenges for this research and potential
improvements are enumerated in roman symbols as follows:

I. The most important limitation was the time. The research was time-bounded, and as
a result, only 446 soil samples experimented. The results of the research could have
been more clear and promising if the number of soil samples and time frames was
more.
 Page | 71

II. The research is limited to English works of literature only. Interestingly, it covers a
broad spectrum of cultural and geographical research based upon longitudinal and
latitudinal time horizons(refer. Chapter 3).

III. Table 2 shows a lesser selection of soil textures and land-use practices. As a result,
there is a gap in the linear regression curve. In order to understand the relation
between WSC and indicators of SOM.

IV. The result of the research depends on laboratory experiments (air-dried and sieved).
Hence, the condition of the soil in its natural state should be kept in mind while
designing land use management practices.

To my knowledge, the research is one of its kind and based upon the observations; further
work can be developed to improvise the results. These approaches are enumerated in capital
letters as follows

A) A more significant number of soil samples from different land-use practices, climatic
conditions, structure, and composition can be studied.

B) The induced mass losses from 460°C to 500°C (decay of stabilized organic matter and
humified clay complexes) showed less variation in the linear regression model. It would
be fascinating to know how the soil samples having the highest and the lowest organic
matter would correlate with the thermal mass losses at that range. A new set of variables
can also be incorporated along with different temperature ranges to get better
pedotransfer functions.

C) As per the modern genetic system, soil classification mainly depends upon vegetation,
climate, parent material, and topography. Hence, there can be a comparison of the
developed model with repetitive soil analysis over a longer time scale. The comparative
analysis may help us to observe the changes (if it occurs )* in the predicted SEM.
 Page | 72

Chapter 8 References
1. Araya, S. (2017). Hyper-temporal remote sensing for digital soil mapping View project.
https://doi.org/10.25909/5ba1a6ad145f1
2. Campbell, E. E., & Paustian, K. (2015). Current developments in soil organic matter
modeling and the expansion of model applications: A review. Environmental Research
Letters, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004
3. Doerr, S. H., Shakesby, R. A., & Walsh, R. P. D. (2000). Soil water repellency: Its
causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth Science
Reviews, 51(1–4), 33–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(00)00011-8
4. FAO. (2015). Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils. Status of the World’s Soil
Resources. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf
5. Fayos, C. B. (1997). The roles of texture and structure in the water retention capacity
of burnt Mediterranean soils with varying rainfall. Catena, 31(3), 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00041-6
6. Filho, T. B. O., Ottoni, M. V., De Oliveira, M. B., De Macedo, J. R., & Reichardt, K.
(2014). Revisiting field capacity (FC): Variation of definition of FC and its estimation
from pedotransfer functions. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Do Solo, 38(6), 1750–1764.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-06832014000600010
7. Florinsky, I. V. (2012). The Dokuchaev hypothesis as a basis for predictive digital soil
mapping (on the 125th anniversary of its publication). Eurasian Soil Science, 45(4),
445–451. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229312040047
8. Haynes, R. J., & Naidu, R. (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications
on soil organic matter. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 51(123), 123–137.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009738307837
9. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73
10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group III, & Edenhofer, O.
(n.d.). Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change : Working Group III
contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
11. Kätterer, T., Börjesson, G., & Kirchmann, H. (2014). Changes in organic carbon in
topsoil and subsoil and microbial community composition caused by repeated
 Page | 73

additions of organic amendments and N fertilisation in a long-term field experiment in

Sweden. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 189, 110–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.025
12. Kučerík, J., Čtvrtníčková, A., & Siewert, C. (2013). Practical application of
thermogravimetry in soil science: Part 1. Thermal and biological stability of soils from
contrasting regions. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 113(3), 1103–1111.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-012-2849-6
13. Kucerik, J., Demyan, M. S., & Siewert, C. (2016). Practical application of
thermogravimetry in soil science: Part 4. Relationship between clay, organic carbon
and organic matter contents. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 123(3),
2441–2450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-015-5141-8
14. Kučerík, J., & Siewert, C. (2014). Practical application of thermogravimetry in soil
science: Part 2. Modeling and prediction of soil respiration using thermal mass losses.
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 116(2), 563–570.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-013-3609-y
15. Mluv. (2009). Dauerfeldversuche in Brandenburg und Berlin.
16. Nielsen, P. J. G. Y. K. S. D. R. (1985). (1985) Spatial Variability of Field-measured
Soil-water Characteristics. 49(7), 215–260.
17. Pachepsky, Y. A., & van Genuchten, M. T. (2011). Pedotransfer functions. In
Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series: Vol. Part 4 (pp. 556–560).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3585-1_109
18. Pan, G., Smith, P., & Pan, W. (2009). The role of soil organic matter in maintaining the
productivity and yield stability of cereals in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 129(1–3), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.008
19. Plante, A. F., Fernández, J. M., & Leifeld, J. (2009). Application of thermal analysis
techniques in soil science. Geoderma, 153(1–2), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.016
20. Qiao, J., Zhu, Y., Jia, X., Huang, L., & Shao, M. (2019). Pedotransfer functions for
estimating the field capacity and permanent wilting point in the critical zone of the
Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 19(1), 140–147.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2036-x
21. Saxton, K. E., & Rawls, W. J. (2006, September). Soil water characteristic estimates
by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Vol. 70, pp. 1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0117
 Page | 74

22. Siewert, C. (2004). Rapid screening of soil properties using thermogravimetry. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 68(5), 1656–1661.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1656
23. Siewert, C., & Kučerík, J. (2015). Practical applications of thermogravimetry in soil
science: Part 3: I interrelations between soil components and unifying principles of
pedogenesis. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 120(1), 471–480.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-014-4256-7
24. Tokarski, D., Kučerík, J., Kalbitz, K., Demyan, M. S., Merbach, I., Barkusky, D., …
Siewert, C. (2018). Contribution of organic amendments to soil organic matter
detected by thermogravimetry. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 181(5),
664–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201700537
25. Tokarski, D., Šimečková, J., Kučerík, J., Kalbitz, K., Demyan, M. S., Merbach, I., …
Siewert, C. (2019). Detectability of degradable organic matter in agricultural soils by
thermogravimetry. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800516
26. UN. (2014). Human Developement Report. In Revue des Maladies Respiratoires (Vol.
27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmr.2010.03.023
27. Veihmeyer, F. J. (University of C., & Hendrickson, A. H. (University of C. (1931). The
moisture equivalent as the measure of the field capacity of soils.
28. Yu, Q., Hu, X., Ma, J., Ye, J., Sun, W., Wang, Q., & Lin, H. (2020). Effects of long-term
organic material applications on soil carbon and nitrogen fractions in paddy fields. Soil
and Tillage Research, 196(October 2019), 104483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104483
29. Yudina, A. (2019). Saving the face of soil aggregates. (July).
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14779
 Page | 75

Statement of authorship

I hereby confirm that the thesis titled

Interrelation between indicators of soil organic matter composition and water storing capacity
measured under laboratory conditions
has been written solely by me, none other than the stated sources and tools have been used.
Any use made of the works of other authors, in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, text, tables etc.),
have been properly cited and/or acknowledged.
I am aware that the University of Applied Sciences can undertake random spot checks of
theses using plagiarism software.

Dresden,17.01.2020 ____________________
Place, Date signature student
 Page | 76

Appendix

Raw data of provided soil samples

Fertilization_and_LMP
Order number

Soil_texture
Sample ID

Vegetation
Location

LTAE

1 T063 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical fallow Mechanical fallow

a
2 T064 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical fallow Mechanical fallow
a
3 T065 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical fallow Mechanical fallow
a
4 T066 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical fallow Mechanical fallow
a
5 T067 BL V505 Silty loam Herbicide fallow Herbicide fallow
a
6 T068 BL V505 Silty loam Herbicide fallow Herbicide fallow
a
7 T069 BL V505 Silty loam Herbicide fallow Herbicide fallow
a
8 T070 BL V505 Silty loam Herbicide fallow Herbicide fallow
a
9 T071 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical-chemical fallow Mechanical-
a chemicial fallow
10 T072 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical-chemical fallow Mechanical-
a chemicial fallow
11 T073 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical-chemical fallow Mechanical-
a chemicial fallow
 Page | 77

12 T074 BL V505 Silty loam Mechanical-chemical fallow Mechanical-

a chemicial fallow
13 T075 BL V505 Silty loam Self greening Self greening
a
14 T076 BL V505 Silty loam Self greening Self greening
a
15 T077 BL V505 Silty loam Self greening Self greening
a
16 T078 BL V505 Silty loam Self greening Self greening
a
17 T095 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
18 T096 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
19 T097 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
20 T098 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
21 T099 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
22 T100 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
23 T101 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
24 T102 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
25 T111 Gb KP Silty sand No fertilization Leek
Sand
26 T112 Gb KP Silty sand No fertilization Leek
Sand
27 T113 Gb KP Silty sand No fertilization Leek
Sand
28 T114 Gb KP Silty sand No fertilization Leek
Sand
29 T115 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Leek
Sand
30 T116 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Leek
Sand
31 T117 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Leek
Sand
 Page | 78

32 T118 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Leek

Sand
33 T119 Gb KP Silty sand ER Leek
Sand
34 T120 Gb KP Silty sand ER Leek
Sand
35 T121 Gb KP Silty sand ER Leek
Sand
36 T122 Gb KP Silty sand ER Leek
Sand
37 T123 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Leek
Sand
38 T124 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Leek
Sand
39 T125 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Leek
Sand
40 T126 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Leek
Sand
41 T127 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
42 T128 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
43 T129 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
44 T130 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
45 T131 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
46 T132 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
47 T133 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Sand
 Page | 79

48 T135 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek

Loam loam
49 T137 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
50 T138 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
51 T139 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
52 T140 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
53 T141 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
54 T142 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
55 T143 Gb KP Sandy ER Leek
Loam loam
56 T144 Gb KP Sandy ER Leek
Loam loam
57 T145 Gb KP Sandy ER Leek
Loam loam
58 T146 Gb KP Sandy ER Leek
Loam loam
59 T147 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Leek
Loam loam
60 T148 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Leek
Loam loam
61 T149 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Leek
Loam loam
62 T150 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Leek
Loam loam
63 T151 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
 Page | 80

64 T152 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Leek

Loam loam
65 T153 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
66 T154 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
67 T155 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
68 T156 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
69 T157 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
70 T158 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loam loam
71 T159 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
72 T160 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
73 T161 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
74 T162 Gb KP Sandy No fertilization Leek
Loam loam
75 T163 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
76 T164 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
77 T165 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
78 T166 Gb KP Sandy FYM Leek
Loam loam
79 T167 Gb KP Clayey No fertilization Leek
Loes silt
s
 Page | 81

80 T168 Gb KP Clayey No fertilization Leek

Loes silt
s
81 T169 Gb KP Clayey No fertilization Leek
Loes silt
s
82 T170 Gb KP Clayey No fertilization Leek
Loes silt
s
83 T171 Gb KP Clayey FYM Leek
Loes silt
s
84 T172 Gb KP Clayey FYM Leek
Loes silt
s
85 T173 Gb KP Clayey FYM Leek
Loes silt
s
86 T174 Gb KP Clayey FYM Leek
Loes silt
s
87 T175 Gb KP Clayey ER Leek
Loes silt
s
88 T176 Gb KP Clayey ER Leek
Loes silt
s
89 T177 Gb KP Clayey ER Leek
Loes silt
s
90 T178 Gb KP Clayey ER Leek
Loes silt
s
 Page | 82

91 T179 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Leek

Loes silt
s
92 T180 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Leek
Loes silt
s
93 T181 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Leek
Loes silt
s
94 T182 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Leek
Loes silt
s
95 T183 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
96 T184 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
97 T185 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
98 T186 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
99 T187 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
100 T188 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
101 T189 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Leek
Loes silt
s
 Page | 83

102 T190 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Leek

Loes silt
s
103 T191 Gb DV2c Silty sand No fertilization Pointed cabbage
104 T192 Gb DV2c Silty sand No fertilization Pointed cabbage
105 T193 Gb DV2c Silty sand No fertilization Pointed cabbage
106 T194 Gb DV2c Silty sand No fertilization Pointed cabbage
107 T195 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch Pointed cabbage
108 T196 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch Pointed cabbage
109 T197 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch Pointed cabbage
110 T198 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch Pointed cabbage
111 T199 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
112 T200 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
113 T201 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
114 T202 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
115 T203 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
116 T204 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
117 T205 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
118 T206 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
119 T207 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
120 T208 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
121 T209 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
122 T210 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM Pointed cabbage
123 T235 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
124 T236 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
125 T237 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
126 T238 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
127 T239 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
 Page | 84

128 T240 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes

sand
129 T241 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
130 T242 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
131 T243 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
132 T244 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
133 T245 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
134 T246 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
135 T247 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
136 T248 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
137 T249 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
138 T250 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
139 T251 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
140 T252 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
141 T253 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
142 T254 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
143 T255 Mü V140 Loamy No fertilization Potatoes
sand
 Page | 85

144 T256 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
145 T257 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
146 T258 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
147 T259 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
148 T260 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
149 T261 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
150 T262 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
151 T263 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
152 T264 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
153 T265 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
154 T266 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
155 T267 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
156 T268 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
157 T269 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
158 T270 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
159 T271 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
 Page | 86

160 T272 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes

sand
161 T273 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
162 T274 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
163 T275 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn; 0-plot
164 T276 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn; 0-plot
165 T277 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow; 0-plot
166 T278 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow; 0-plot
167 T279 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn; FYM
168 T280 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn; FYM
169 T281 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow; FYM
170 T282 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow; FYM
171 T672 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
172 T673 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
173 T674 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
174 T675 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
175 T676 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
176 T677 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
177 T678 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
178 T679 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
179 T680 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
180 T681 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
181 T682 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
182 T683 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
183 T684 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
 Page | 87

184 T685 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes

sand
185 T686 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
186 T687 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
187 T688 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
188 T689 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
189 T690 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
190 T691 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
191 T692 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Potatoes
sand
192 T693 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Potatoes
sand
193 T694 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Potatoes
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
194 T695 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Potatoes
sand dt/ha Straw TM
195 T720 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
196 T721 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
197 T722 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
198 T723 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
199 T724 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
200 T725 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
201 T726 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
202 T727 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
203 T736 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
 Page | 88

204 T737 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley

sand
205 T738 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
206 T739 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
207 T740 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
208 T741 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
209 T742 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
210 T743 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
211 T744 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
212 T745 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
213 T746 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
214 T747 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
215 T748 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
216 T749 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
217 T750 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
218 T751 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
219 T752 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
220 T753 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
221 T754 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
 Page | 89

222 T755 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow

223 T756 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
224 T757 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
225 T758 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
226 T759 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
227 T760 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
228 T761 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
229 T762 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
230 T763 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
231 T764 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
232 T765 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
233 T766 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
234 T767 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
235 T768 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
236 T769 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
237 T770 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
238 T771 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
239 T772 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
240 T773 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
 Page | 90

241 T774 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
242 T775 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
243 T808 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
244 T809 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
245 T810 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
246 T811 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
247 T812 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
248 T813 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
249 T814 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
250 T815 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
251 T816 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
252 T817 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
253 T818 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
254 T819 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
255 T820 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
256 T821 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
257 T822 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
258 T823 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
259 T824 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
260 T825 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
 Page | 91

261 T826 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
262 T827 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
263 T828 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
264 T829 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
265 T830 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
266 T831 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
267 T892 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
268 T893 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
269 T894 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
270 T895 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
271 T896 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
272 T897 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
273 T898 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
274 T899 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
275 T900 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
276 T901 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
277 T902 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
278 T903 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
279 T904 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
280 T905 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
 Page | 92

281 T906 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
282 T907 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
283 T908 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
284 T909 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
285 T910 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
286 T911 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
287 T912 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
288 T913 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
289 T914 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
290 T915 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
291 T916 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
292 T917 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
293 T918 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
294 T919 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
295 T920 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
296 T921 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
297 T922 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
298 T923 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
299 T924 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
300 T925 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
301 T926 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
302 T927 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
303 T928 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
 Page | 93

304 T929 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
305 T930 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
306 T931 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
307 T932 Gb KP Silty sand 0 Celery
Sand
308 T933 Gb KP Silty sand 0 Celery
Sand
309 T934 Gb KP Silty sand 0 Celery
Sand
310 T935 Gb KP Silty sand 0 Celery
Sand
311 T936 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Celery
Sand
312 T937 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Celery
Sand
313 T938 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Celery
Sand
314 T939 Gb KP Silty sand FYM Celery
Sand
315 T940 Gb KP Silty sand ER Celery
Sand
316 T941 Gb KP Silty sand ER Celery
Sand
317 T942 Gb KP Silty sand ER Celery
Sand
318 T943 Gb KP Silty sand ER Celery
Sand
319 T944 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Celery
Sand
320 T945 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Celery
Sand
321 T946 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Celery
Sand
 Page | 94

322 T947 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + ER Celery

Sand
323 T948 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
324 T949 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
325 T950 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
326 T951 Gb KP Silty sand 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
327 T952 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
328 T953 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
329 T954 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
330 T955 Gb KP Silty sand FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Sand
331 T956 Gb KP Sandy 0 Celery
Loam loam
332 T957 Gb KP Sandy 0 Celery
Loam loam
333 T958 Gb KP Sandy 0 Celery
Loam loam
334 T959 Gb KP Sandy 0 Celery
Loam loam
335 T960 Gb KP Sandy FYM Celery
Loam loam
336 T961 Gb KP Sandy FYM Celery
Loam loam
337 T962 Gb KP Sandy FYM Celery
Loam loam
 Page | 95

338 T963 Gb KP Sandy FYM Celery

Loam loam
339 T964 Gb KP Sandy ER Celery
Loam loam
340 T965 Gb KP Sandy ER Celery
Loam loam
341 T966 Gb KP Sandy ER Celery
Loam loam
342 T967 Gb KP Sandy ER Celery
Loam loam
343 T968 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Celery
Loam loam
344 T969 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Celery
Loam loam
345 T970 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Celery
Loam loam
346 T971 Gb KP Sandy FYM + ER Celery
Loam loam
347 T972 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
348 T973 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
349 T974 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
350 T975 Gb KP Sandy 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
351 T976 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
352 T977 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
353 T978 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loam loam
 Page | 96

354 T979 Gb KP Sandy FYM + 2. N-level Celery

Loam loam
355 T980 Gb KP Clayey 0 Celery
Loes silt
s
356 T981 Gb KP Clayey 0 Celery
Loes silt
s
357 T982 Gb KP Clayey 0 Celery
Loes silt
s
358 T983 Gb KP Clayey 0 Celery
Loes silt
s
359 T984 Gb KP Clayey FYM Celery
Loes silt
s
360 T985 Gb KP Clayey FYM Celery
Loes silt
s
361 T986 Gb KP Clayey FYM Celery
Loes silt
s
362 T987 Gb KP Clayey FYM Celery
Loes silt
s
363 T988 Gb KP Clayey ER Celery
Loes silt
s
364 T989 Gb KP Clayey ER Celery
Loes silt
s
 Page | 97

365 T990 Gb KP Clayey ER Celery

Loes silt
s
366 T991 Gb KP Clayey ER Celery
Loes silt
s
367 T992 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Celery
Loes silt
s
368 T993 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Celery
Loes silt
s
369 T994 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Celery
Loes silt
s
370 T995 Gb KP Clayey FYM + ER Celery
Loes silt
s
371 T996 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
372 T997 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
373 T998 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
374 T999 Gb KP Clayey 0 + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
375 T1000 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
 Page | 98

376 T1001 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Celery

Loes silt
s
377 T1002 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
378 T1003 Gb KP Clayey FYM + 2. N-level Celery
Loes silt
s
379 T1004 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 -
380 T1005 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 -
381 T1006 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 -
382 T1007 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 -
383 T1008 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch -
384 T1009 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch -
385 T1010 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch -
386 T1011 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch -
387 T1012 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM -
388 T1013 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM -
389 T1014 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM -
390 T1015 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 300 dt/ha FYM -
391 T1016 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM -
392 T1017 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM -
393 T1018 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM -
394 T1019 Gb DV2c Silty sand 0 N-level + 600 dt/ha FYM -
395 T1020 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM -
396 T1021 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM -
397 T1022 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM -
398 T1023 Gb DV2c Silty sand N-level hoch + 600 dt/ha FYM -
399 T1024 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
400 T1025 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
 Page | 99

401 T1026 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
402 T1027 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
403 T1028 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
404 T1029 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
405 T1030 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
406 T1031 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
407 T1032 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
408 T1033 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
409 T1034 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
410 T1035 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
411 T1036 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
412 T1037 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
413 T1038 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
414 T1039 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
415 T1040 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
416 T1041 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
 Page | 100

417 T1042 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley

sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
418 T1043 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
419 T1044 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
420 T1045 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
421 T1046 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
422 T1047 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
423 T1048 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
424 T1049 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
425 T1050 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
426 T1051 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
427 T1052 Mü V140 Loamy 0 Spring barley
sand
428 T1053 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha Spring barley
sand
429 T1054 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + Spring barley
sand 128 dt/ha FYM TM
430 T1055 Mü V140 Loamy N-fertilisation 160 kg/ha + 40 Spring barley
sand dt/ha Straw TM
431 T1056 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
432 T1057 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Corn
433 T1058 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
434 T1059 BL V494 Silty loam Without fertilisation Bare fallow
435 T1060 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
 Page | 101

436 T1061 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
437 T1062 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
438 T1063 BL V494 Silty loam 2000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
439 T1064 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
440 T1065 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
441 T1066 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
442 T1067 BL V494 Silty loam 500 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
443 T1068 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
444 T1069 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Corn
445 T1070 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow
446 T1071 BL V494 Silty loam 1000 dt/ha FYM every year Bare fallow