Journal of Agricultural Machinery
with the collaboration of Iranian Society of Mechanical Engineers (ISME)

Multivariate Optimization of Moldboard Plow Tillage Quality Using Response Surface Methodology

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

M. Akbari 1
I. Hazbawi 1
M. Jafarian 2

1 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

2 North Khorasan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Shirvan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2025.92680.1357
Abstract
Introduction
Tillage of rainfed lands is performed using moldboard plows to a depth of 30 cm. Due to the influence of soil surface roughness and crop residues on moisture absorption and erosion reduction, investigation of the relationship between tillage implements’ performance and the aforementioned factors is essential. Therefore, considering the importance of preserving precipitation and preventing soil erosion, this study was conducted to investigate and optimize the effects of forward speed and tillage depth on soil surface roughness and the percentage of buried crop residue using response surface methodology.
Materials and Methods
This research was conducted in the Khomeyn region, Iran during the 2023-2024 growing season, utilizing a moldboard plow and an MF399 tractor. The objective was to investigate the effects of plowing depth and speed on soil surface roughness and the burial of plant residues. Soil surface roughness was measured using a pin meter, while the percentage of burial of plant residues was determined using image processing techniques and ImageJ software. Wheat straw residue with an initial moisture content of 8-9% was uniformly distributed at a rate of 100 g m-2 along the designated paths. Images were captured before and after the tillage operation for subsequent processing and analysis.
To optimize the process, a central composite design (CCD) with three levels of speed (5, 7.5, and 10 km h-1) and three levels of tillage depth (17.5, 22.5, and 27.5 cm) was employed. The objective was to determine the optimal factor levels for maximizing surface roughness and minimizing residue burial. Data were analyzed using a second-order model and Design Expert V11 software. The best model was selected based on statistical criteria.
Results and Discussion
Modeling soil surface roughness and crop residue incorporation revealed that the second-order regression model, with high coefficients of determination (R2 = 0.983 and 0.96), was capable of accurately predicting these indices. The interaction effects of tillage speed and depth were significant (P < 0.01). In this study, the effect of tillage depth on soil surface roughness was greater than that of tractor speed. The regression model indicated that tillage depth plays a primary role in the amount of crop residue incorporation. Moldboard plowing demonstrated that increasing depth, particularly at high speeds, leads to increased roughness and residue incorporation, whereas increasing speed, especially at shallow depths, reduces roughness and increases incorporation. The maximum roughness was observed at the deepest tillage depth and lowest speed, while the shallowest depth and highest speed resulted in the minimum roughness.
Tillage depth and speed influence soil surface roughness and bulk density. Higher speeds decrease furrow depth and ridge height; thus, lower speeds are recommended for creating greater roughness. The highest residue incorporation (85%) was achieved at a depth of 27.5 cm and speeds of 5 and 10 km h-1, while the lowest (70%) occurred at a depth of 17.5 cm and a speed of 5 km h-1. Depth was more influential than speed, and nonlinear models are necessary for more accurate modeling. The developed model, with a desirability of 81%, provides the maximum roughness (10.96 cm) and minimum residue incorporation (69.34%) for a moldboard plow at a speed of 5 km h-1 and a tillage depth of 17.5 cm.
Conclusion
This study investigated the effects of conventional tillage methods in dry land areas on soil surface roughness and the extent of crop residue burial. The results indicate that increasing tillage depth leads to an increase in both indices, while reducing tractor speed increases roughness and decreases residue burial. The optimization model revealed that at a speed of 5 km h-1 and a depth of 17.5 cm, minimum roughness and maximum residue incorporation can be achieved. To improve regional tillage practices, it is advised to conduct further research into the long-term effects of different tillage systems. This effort will ensure a well-informed selection and implementation of the most effective methods.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the University of Lorestan.

Keywords

Burial of plant residues
Forward speed
Soil surface roughness
Tillage depth
Subjects

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

  1. Ahmadi Moghaddam, P., Eftekhari, L., Mardani, A., & Khodaverdilo, H. (2016). Determination of crop residues and the physical and mechanical properties of soil in different tillage systems. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 6(1), 102-113. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v6i1.32700
  2. Akbari, F., Dahmardeh, M., Morshedi, A., Ghanbari, A., & Khorramdel, S. (2019). Effect of tillage systems and crop residues on soil bulk density and chemical properties under corn (Zea mays)-bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping. Agroecology, 11(3), 1123-1138. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v11i3.72178
  3. Alcantara, V., Don, A., Vesterdal, L., Well, R., & Nieder, R. (2017). Stability of buried carbon in deep-ploughed forest and cropland soils-implications for carbon stocks. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 5511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05501-y
  4. Azimi-Nejadian, H., Karparvarfard, S. H., & Naderi-Boldaji, M. (2022). Weed seed burial as affected by mouldboard design parameters, ploughing depth and speed: DEM simulations and experimental validation. Biosystems Engineering, 216, 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2022.02.005
  5. Bahrpour, V., Rouhani, A., Abbaspour-Fard, M. H., Zarifneshat, S., & Aghkhani, M. H. (2018). Spatial Variability Analysis and Zoning of Soil Compaction Using Different Geostatistical Methods. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 49(3), 329-340. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/22059/ijbse.2018.227916.664911
  6. Celik, A., & Altikat, S. (2022). The effect of power harrow on the wheat residue cover and residue incorporation into the tilled soil layer. Soil and Tillage Research, 215, 105202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105202
  7. Chimi-Chiadjeu, O., Le Hegarat-Mascle, S., Vannier, E., Taconet, O., & Dusseaux, R. (2014). Automatic clod detection and boundary estimation from digital elevation model images using different approaches. Catena, 118, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.02.003
  8. Clay, D. E., Reicks, G., Carlson, C. G., Moriles‐Miller, J., Stone, J. J., & Clay, S. A. (2015). Tillage and corn residue harvesting impact surface and subsurface carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44(3), 803-809. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.07.0322
  9. Danbaba, N., Nkama, I., Badau, M. H., Ukwungwu, M. N., Maji, A. T., Abo, M. E., & Oko, A. O. (2014). Optimization of rice parboiling process for optimum head rice yield: a response surface methodology (RSM) approach. Focus, 18, 154-165. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijaf.20140403.02
  10. Fechete-Tutunaru, L. V., Gaspar, F., & Gyorgy, Z. (2019). Soil-tool interaction of a simple tillage tool in sand. E3S Web of Conferences, 85, 08007. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20198508007
  11. Feng, Z., Zheng, X., Li, X., Liu, H., Tao, Z., Wang, C., ..., & Song, J. (2024). Soil Surface Roughness Characteristics Under Different Agricultural Tillage Practices-A Case Study in the Black Soil Region of Northeast China. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstars.2024.3405952
  12. Guo, X., Wang, H., Yu, Q., Ahmad, N., Li, J., Wang, R., & Wang, X. (2022). Subsoiling and plowing rotation increase soil C and N storage and crop yield on a semiarid Loess Plateau. Soil and Tillage Research, 221, 105413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105413
  13. Hazbawi, I., & Safaeinezhad, M. (2023). Optimizing the Effect of Spike Density and Combine Speed for Reducing Wheat Loss Using Response Surface Methodology. Biomechanism and Bioenergy Research, 2(2), 19-27. https://org/10.22103/BBR.2023.22269.1055
  14. Herodowicz‐Mleczak, K., Piekarczyk, J., Kazmierowski, C., Nowosad, J., & Mleczak, M. (2022). Estimating soil surface roughness with models based on the information about tillage practises and soil parameters. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14(3), e2021MS002578. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002578
  15. Isaak, M., Azawi, A., & Turky, T. (2024). Influence of various tillage systems and tillage speed on some soil physical properties. Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences, 20(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1556/446.2024.00070
  16. Kouselou, M., Hashemi, S., Eskandari, I., McKenzie, B., Karimi, E., Rezaei, A., & Rahmati, M. (2018). Quantifying soil displacement and tillage erosion rate by different tillage systems in dryland northwestern Iran. Soil Use and Management, 34(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12395
  17. Langer, S. (2021). Improving irrigation management on hillslope pastures. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands, 83, 135-144. https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2021.83.3495
  18. Lekavicienė, K., Sarauskis, E., Naujokienė, V., & Kriauciunienė, Z. (2019). Effect of row cleaner operational settings on crop residue translocation in strip-tillage. Agronomy, 9(5), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9050247
  19. Li, H., Shen, H., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., & Gao, Q. (2021). Effects of ridge tillage and straw returning on runoff and soil loss under simulated rainfall in the mollisol region of northeast China. Sustainability, 13(19), 10614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910614
  20. Liu, J., Chen, Y., & Kushwaha, R. L. (2010). Effect of tillage speed and straw length on soil and straw movement by a sweep. Soil and Tillage Research, 109(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.03.014
  21. Liu, Z., Cao, S., Sun, Z., Wang, H., Qu, S., Lei, N., & Dong, Q. (2021). Tillage effects on soil properties and crop yield after land reclamation. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84191-z
  22. Luis-Perez, C. J. (2021). On the Application of a Design of Experiments along with an ANFIS and a Desirability Function to Model Response Variables. Symmetry, 13(5), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13050897
  23. Ma, Y., Li, Z., Deng, C., Yang, J., Tang, C., Duan, J., Zhang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2022). Effects of tillage-induced soil surface roughness on the generation of surface–subsurface flow and soil loss in the red soil sloping farmland of southern China. Catena, 213, 106230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106230
  24. Mahmoudi, A., Jalali, A., Valizadeh, M., & Skandari, I. (2015). The effects of forward speed and depth of conservation tillage on soil bulk density. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 5(2), 368-380. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v5i2.28533
  25. Mohammadi, F., Maleki, M. R., & Khodaei, J. (2022). Control of variable rate system of a rotary tiller based on real-time measurement of soil surface roughness. Soil and Tillage Research, 215, 105216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105216
  26. Mohammadi, M., Karparvarfard, S. H., Kamgar, S., & Rahmatian, M. (2020). Optimization and Evaluation of Working Conditions of New Tillage Blade for Use in Tillage Tools. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 10(2). 273-287. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v10i2.73914
  27. Muhsin, S. J. (2017). Performance study of moldboard plow with two types of disc harrows and their effect on some soil properties under different operating conditions. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2017.37
  28. Orzech, K., Wanic, M., & Załuski, D. (2021). The effects of soil compaction and different tillage systems on the bulk density and moisture content of soil and the yields of winter oilseed rape and cereals. Agriculture, 11(7), 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070666
  29. Panachuki, E., Bertol, I., Alves, T., Oliveira, P. T. S. D., & Rodrigues, D. B. B. (2015). Effect of soil tillage and plant residue on surface roughness of an oxisol under simulated rain. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia do Solo, 39(1), 268-278. https://doi.org/10.1590/01000683rbcs20150187
  30. Pereira, R. C., Hedley, M. J., Arbestain, M. C., Bishop, P., Enongene, K. E., & Otene, I. J. J. (2017). Evidence for soil carbon enhancement through deeper mouldboard ploughing at pasture renovation on a Typic Fragiaqualf. Soil Research, 56(2), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1071/sr17039
  31. Rahmatian, M., Nematollahi, M., Yeganeh, R., & Sharifi Malvajerdi, A. (2021). Modeling and predicting the relationship between cone index and soil shear strength with draft force of a symmetrical tillage. Agricultural Mechanization and Systems Research, 22(77), 101-118. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/erams.2020.342455.1346
  32. Ranaivoson, L., Naudin, K., Ripoche, A., Affholder, F., Rabeharisoa, L., & Corbeels, M. (2017). Agro-ecological functions of crop residues under conservation agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0432-z
  33. Sharafi, S., Mohammadi Ghaleni, M., & Dragovich, D. (2023). Simulated Runoff and Erosion on Soils from Wheat Agroecosystems with Different Water Management Systems, Iran. Land, 12(9), 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12091790
  34. Shevchenko, S., Derevenets-Shevchenko, K., Desyatnyk, L., Shevchenko, M., Sologub, I., & Shevchenko, O. (2024). Tillage effects on soil physical properties and maize phenology. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 81(1), 393-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2024.2320032
  35. Shirazi, M., Khademalrasoul, A., & Safieddin Ardebili, M. (2020). Evaluation of different supervised learning smart methods and response surface method to optimize factors affecting erosion (case study: Emamzadeh Watershed of Baghmalek). Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 51(7), 1653-1666. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijswr.2020.296715.668485.
  36. Thomsen, L. M., Baartman, J. E. M., Barneveld, R. J., Starkloff, T., & Stolte, J. (2015). Soil surface roughness: comparing old and new measuring methods and application in a soil erosion model. Soil, 1(1), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-399-2015
  37. Vidal-Vazquez, E., Miranda, J. G. V., & Paz Gonzalez, A. (2007). Describing soil surface microrelief by crossover length and fractal dimension. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 14(3), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-14-223-2007
  38. Zarifneshat, S., Saeidi Rad, M. H., & Safari, M. (2020). Effect of Conservation and Conventional Tillage on Some Machine and Soil Parameters in Cold Regions of Khorasan Razavi Province. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 50(4), 939-949. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/22059/ijbse.2019.268169.665106
  39. Zeinli, A., Mousavi, R., Jafarian, M., & Bayati, M. R. (2012). Investigation of the Effect of Plow Type, Plowing Speed and Working Depth on Soil Distribution Model on Land. 7th National Congress on Agricultural Machinery Engineering and Mechanization, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. (in Persian).
  40. Zeng, Z., Thoms, D., Chen, Y., & Ma, X. (2021). Comparison of soil and corn residue cutting performance of different discs used for vertical tillage. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2537. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82270-9
  41. Zhou, S., Ren, J., Chen, Q., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Dynamic change patterns of soil surface roughness and influencing factors under different tillage conditions in typical mollisol areas of Northeast China. Agronomy, 13(7), 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071817
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.

  • Receive Date 16 March 2025
  • Revise Date 19 May 2025
  • Accept Date 01 June 2025
  • First Publish Date 14 July 2025

Home

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Contact Us