As a result, changes in the physical properties of different types of soils were found under intensive apple orchards in the Lipetsk and Tambov regions. During the 16-year operation of intensive apple orchards, the soil cover was differentiated into 2 technical zones: the aisle and the trunk strip. On average, over a layer of0-60 cm, the humus content in the row-to-row zone on leached chernozem was 5.0% and in the trunk band 6.0%; on typical chernozem in the row-to-row 5.5%, in the trunk band 6.1%; on gray forest soil in the row-to-row 3.4% and in the trunk band 4.6%. In the conditions of the Timiryazevskij agricultural processing supply and marketing consumer cooperative, the water resistance of units with a diameter larger than 0.25 mm in leached chernozem turned out to be significantlylower in row spacing compared to trunk strips (LSD05= 6.0%). These differences can be traced to a depth of 90 cm and are especially large in the upper layer of 0-20 cm (1.6 times) (Fig 1).
The water resistance of aggregates shows the amount of erosion resistance of the soil. Its reduction entails an increase in the erosion hazard in gardens with a slope of more than 30. In the case of a large bugle type, the first is chernozem, which is typical in the Dubovoye farm. The water collection unit is larger than 0.25 mm. It’s that simple. By the way, it was insignificant, something more than 40 per cent of the total (LSD 05= 3.0%) (Fig 2). The coefficient of structurality (the ratio of thenumber of agronomically valuable aggregates (0.25-10 mm in diameter) to the number of others) also differed significantly in row spacing and trunk strips at the time of uprooting. Leached chernozem under conditions of the Timiryazevskij agricultural processing supply and marketing consumer cooperative has the most significant differences down to a depth of 50 cm. In the row spacing, the soil structure coefficient was 2.8-4.4 times lower than in the trunk strips (LSD05= 0.5) (Fig 3). On typical chernozem in the Dubovoe joint-stock company, due to the appearance of a plow sole, the 20-40 cm layer of the row-by-row zone contained 3 times more agronomically valuable fractions of soil aggregates than in the trunk strip (Fig 4).
In the upper layer (0-20 cm) of this buffer soil type, the soil structurality of the row spacing did not differ significantly from this indicator in the trunk strips (LSD05 = 9.5%).
For a more objective assessment, the structurality of the untouched soil under the forest area (oak petiolate and linden cordate) was studied on gray forest soil in the advanced economy of the Lipetsk region. It is clearly seen that the structurality of the gray forest soil in the trunk strips of the garden was at the same high level as in the virgin form (Fig 5).
The content of agronomically valuable aggregates on gray forest soil in the aisles of an intensive garden at the time of its uprooting turned out to be 1.7-1.8 times lower than in the trunk strips (LSD05 = 6.0%). This could be traced to the depth of the root word-60 cm. The density of the solid phase of the soil depends on the amount of organic matter in the soil. As the density of the solid phase of the soil increases, its porosity inevitably decreases and its bulk mass increases. This indicator on leached chernozem in the aisles was 0.1-0.15 g/cubic cm higher than in the trunk strips, where the soil is richer in organic residues of apple trees (LSD05= 0.06 g/ cubic cm). These differences can be traced to a depth of 90 cm (Fig 6).
Changes in the density of the solid phase also affected the bulk of the soil. It was 0.1-0.2 g/ cubic cm higher in the aisles than in the trunk strips (LSD05= 0.05 g/cubic cm). The differences in leached chernozem disappeared only deeper than 90 cm (Fig 7).
However, the soil density in the 0-90 cm layer in both garden areas remains at a level quite favorable for he roots of the apple tree. The density of the solid phase and the bulk of the leached chernozem were reflected in the final indicator-the total porosity. It was 5.8% lower in the row-to-row zone in the 20-50 cm layer than in the trunk bands due to the formation of a dense layer in this layer (LSD05= 4.0%) (Fig 8).
It should be noted here that in the root layer (0-90 cm), the total porosity of the soil remains optimal for apple tree roots only in the trunk strip and in the row-to-row zone it goes beyond the optimum (less than 55.0%). The absence of organic residues in the aisles and frequent treatments to the same depth led to the fact that the hygroscopicity of leached chernozem in the aisle zone is 0.55-0.7% less than in the trunk strip to a depth of 90 cm (LSD05 = 0.4 %) (Fig 9).
For an apple tree, there are no gradations in the amount of hygroscopicity and moisture capacity of the soil relative to the optimum, minimum and maximum. However, these water-physical parameters of the soil should always be as high as possible. In the most fertile and buffered type of soil, typical chernozem, hygroscopicity in the row-to-row zone turned out to be lower than in the trunk zone only in the 30-60 cm layer (by 0.64%; LSD05 = 0.4%) (Fig 10).
These differences are explained by the over-compaction of the 30-60 cm layer in the aisles and the increased mineralization of the soil in this zone. The hygroscopicity of the gray forest soil has changed even more: In the 0-30 cm layer in the row-by-row zone of the garden, at the time of its uprooting, it turned out to be 2 times lower than in its virgin form and in the trunk strip it occupied an intermediate position (LSD05= 1.0%) (Fig 11).
A similar trend, but slightly weaker, was observed in the 30-60 cm soil layer. The maximum hygroscopic soil moisture is similar to hygroscopicity, but is determined at high humidity in the desiccator. This water-physical soil parameter was at the same level for chernozem leached in both technical areas of the garden at the time of uprooting (LSD05= 1.5%) (Fig 12).
The maximum hygroscopic humidity of typical chernozem in the 0-60 cm layer in the row-to-row zone turned out to be 2.0% lower at the time of garden uprooting than in the trunk strips (LSD05= 1.5%) (Fig 13).
The maximum hygroscopic humidity of gray forest soil in the row-to-row zone in the 0-30 cm layer was 4 times lower and in the 30-60 cm layer it was 5.6 times lower than in the virgin form (LSD05= 2.0%) (Fig 14).
This indicator in the soil of the trunk strip was higher than in the row spacing, but 2-2.7 times lower than the virgin soil. The lowest (marginal field) moisture capacity of the soil indicates the amount of water that is retained in the soil after the runoff of free gravity water. This water-physical parameter of leached hernozem in both technical zones of the garden was the same in all layers of the soil profile at the time of its uprooting (LSD05= 4.5%) (Fig 15).
However, in typical chernozem, this indicator in the 0-30 cm layer of the row-by-row zone was 2.5% lower than in the trunk strip and in the 30-60 cm layer the differences were completely within the experimental error (LSD05= 2.1%) (Fig 16).
The marginal field moisture capacity of gray forest soil in the 0-60 cm layer of the row-by-row zone of the garden before its uprooting was 9.0-15.0% lower than in the trunk strip. In the trunk lane, this indicator was at the level of its virgin counterpart (LSD05= 4.8%) (Fig 17).
The moisture content of the rupture of capillary bonds is approximately 50-60% of the lowest moisture capacity of the soil and characterizes the condition of the soil when the movement of water through the capillaries stop. We have shown this water-physical parameter using the example of gray forest soil. The graph shows that the movement of water through the capillaries stopped first in the soil of the row–by-row zone, then in the trunk strip and last of all in its virgin form (Fig 18).
The moisture content of the rupture of capillary bonds of gray forest soil in an intensive apple orchard in a layer of 0-60 cm at the time of uprooting was 2.2-2.3 times lower than in the row-to-row zone (LSD05= 4.0%). We were able to establish a relationship between the humus content in the soil and all the other indicators that we listed above: The coefficient of structurality (r= 0.55), the content of agronomically valuable aggregates (0.25-10 mm in diameter) (r= 0.55), water resistance of aggregates larger than 0.25 mm (r= 0.7), hygroscopicity (r= 0.59), maximum hygroscopic moisture (r= 0.58), lowest moisture capacity (r= 0.6), capillary bond rupture moisture (r= 0.6), solid phase density (r= 0.65), the volume mass of the soil (r= 0.63), the total porosity of the soil (r= 0.64).