Original Articles Open access

Development and evaluation of various types of manually operated soil crust breakers

Authors

Published
12 March 2026
Section
Original Articles
DOI
10.4081/jae.2026.1827

Abstract

Soil crusting is a major constraint in agricultural production, as it hinders seedling emergence and crop development. This problem is especially critical for small-seeded crops, such as vegetables, as well as larger seeds like soybeans and cotton. When a crust layer forms after seeding, a substantial proportion of seeds may fail to emerge, reducing potential yield. While preventive measures exist, mechanical intervention is necessary once the crust has developed. In this study, three manually operated prototype soil crust breakers were developed and evaluated for their effectiveness. Experiments were conducted on artificially formed crusts in two soil types: silty-clay soil at the Akdeniz University Aksu Research and Application Field and clay-loam soil at the Campus Research and Application Field, using cotton seeds, and testing three crust breaker designs: rolling-type blade, rolling-type finger, and sled-type. Measured parameters included penetration resistance, mean emergence time, emergence rate index, and percentage of emergence. Results indicated that all three crust breakers effectively disrupted the soil crust. In silty-clay soil, the rolling-type blade crust breaker achieved the highest emergence rate (82.3%), while no significant differences were observed between the rolling-type finger and sled-type designs. In clay-loam soil, performance differences among the three crust breakers were not statistically significant. Overall, the tested crust breakers improved cotton emergence by at least 23.8% in silty-clay soil and 8% in clay-loam soil, demonstrating their practical effectiveness in mechanical control of soil crusting.

Keywords

Supporting Agencies

Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Almajmaie A, Hardie M, Acuna T, Birch C, 2017. Can soil crusting be reduced through application of gypsum, organic waste, and phosphoric acid? J Soil Water Conserv 72:597–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.72.6.597
  2. Awadhwal NK, Thierstein GE, 1983. Development of rolling-type soil crust breaker. Ama-Agr Mech Asia Af 14:31-34.
  3. Bakhtiyar A, 2019. Optimization of parameters and modes of operation of the disk of the working organ to the cotton cultivator to destroy the soil crust. Int J Eng Adv Technol 9:6888–6889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.A2994.109119
  4. Bal L, Şeker C, Gümüş IE, 2011. [Kaymak tabakası oluşumuna fiziko-kimyasal faktörlerin] etkileri].[Article in Turkish with English abstract]. Selcuk J Agric Food Sci 25:96-103.
  5. Baumhardt RL, Unger PW, Dao TH, 2004. Seedbed surface geometry effects on soil crusting and seedling emergence. Agron J 96: 112-1117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1112
  6. Cassel DK, Raczkowski CW, Denton HP, 1995. Tillage effects on corn production and soil physical conditions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:1436–1443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900050033x
  7. Crucil G, Van Oost K, 2021. Towards mapping of soil crust using multispectral imaging. Sensors (Basel) 21:1850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21051850
  8. Cviklovič V, Mojžiš M, Majdan R, Kollárová K, Tkáč Z, Abrahám R, Masarovičová S, 2022. Data acquisition system for on-the-go soil resistance force sensor using soil cutting blades. Sensors (Basel) 22:5301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22145301
  9. Gicheru P, Mare E, Gachene C, Mbuvi J, 2004. Effects of soil management practices and tillage systems on surface soil water conservation and crust formation on a sandy loam in semi-arid Kenya. Soil Tillage Res 75:173–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00161-2
  10. Guan C, Fu J, Xu L, Jiang X, Wang S, Cui Z, 2022. Study on the reduction of soil adhesion and tillage force of bionic cutter teeth in secondary soil crushing. Biosyst Eng 213:133–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.11.018
  11. Hemmat A, Khashoei AA, Ranjbar I, 2003. Assessment of irrigated cotton seedling emergence in flatland mechanized planting systems. J Agric Sci Technol 5:87-98.
  12. Hou S, Zhu Y, Zhu X, Wang Y, Ji W, Chen H, 2022. Design and experiment of a straw clearing mulching no-tillage planter. Biosyst Eng 221:69–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2022.06.010
  13. Karayel D, Šarauskis E, 2024. Influence of tillage methods and soil crust breakers on cotton seedling emergence in silty-loam soil. Soil Tillage Res 239:106054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106054
  14. Karayel D, Jotautienè E, Šarauskis E, 2024. The effect of furrow opener and disc coulter configurations on seeding performance under different residue cover densities. AgriEngineering 6:1277-1288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6020073
  15. Laker MC, Nortjé GP, 2019. Review of existing knowledge on soil crusting in South Africa. Adv Agron 155:189-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2019.01.002
  16. Manyevere A, Munjonji L, Bangira C, Gotosa J, Chikwari E, 2015. Characteristics and management options of crusting soils in a smallholder farming area of the Zambezi metamorphic belt in northern Zimbabwe. S Afr J Plant Soil 32:157–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2015.1018355
  17. Öztürk E, Özdemir N, 2006. [Topraklarda kabuk tabakası oluşumu, çeşitleri ve önlenmesi].[Article in Turkish with English abstract]. Anadolu J Agric Sci 21:275-282.
  18. Peralta GE, Taboada MA, Kantolic A, Rubio G, 2020. Topsoil hardening: Effects on soybean root architecture and water extraction patterns. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 20:2182-2194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00286-y
  19. Sari M, Sonmez N, Altunbaş S 2009. [Aksu araştırma ve uygulama istasyonu topraklarının morfolojik, fiziksel ve kimyasal özellikleri].[Article in Turkish with English abstract]. Akdeniz Univ J Fac Agric 22:157–168.
  20. Sun J, Yang L, Zhang D, Hu J, Cui T, He X, Zhao H, 2023. Development of a prediction model to determine optimal sowing depth to improve maize seedling performance. Biosyst Eng 234:206–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.09.004
  21. Šimansky V, Pollakova N, Halmo S, 2014. Soil crust in agricultural land. Acta Fytotechn Zootechn 17:109–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2014.17.04.109-114
  22. Sjoblom KJ, 2014. Modelling soil crust formation by discrete element method. Geotech Spec Publ 234:1042-1051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.101
  23. Taboada-Castro MM, Rodríguez-Blanco ML, Palleiro L, Taboada-Castro MT, 2015. Soil crusting and surface runoff in agricultural land in Galicia (NW Spain). Span J Soil Sci 5:72–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3232/SJSS.2015.V5.N1.07
  24. Wang Z, Su W, Lai Q, Li J, Gao X, 2024. Boundary modelling of the effective suction domain of an air-suction seed-metering device for quasi-spherical seeds. Biosyst Eng 238:212–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2024.01.012
  25. Zhang X, You Y, Wang D, Wang Z, Liao Y, Li S, 2024. Soil failure characteristics and loosening effectivity of compacted grassland by subsoilers with different plough points. Biosyst Eng 237:170–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.12.008
  26. Zhu X, Liang Y, Qu L, Cao L, Tian Z, Gu Z, et al., 2022. Quantification of physical soil crust thickness and its effects on runoff and sediment yield. Soil Sci Soc Am J 86:630–642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20396

Author Biography

  • Davut Karayel, Department of Agricultural Machinery and Technologies Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, Konyaalti, Antalya

    Department of Agricultural Engineering and Safety, Agriculture Academy, Faculty of Engineering, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2026 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.