I have around 45 acres of heavy clay, poor agricultural land, which would look very similar to that if we allowed heavy machinery, or even an ATV, on it when it is sodden.
Maybe they knew a thing or two (low earthquake zone, it has to be said)
Overall, the nodig plot harvest 10% more. but here's where it gets interesting. those yields were not uniformly spread across the vegetable types. if you dig into the data, you'll see, some did quite worse with dig and some did quite better. guess which ones did better on dig? Potatoes, Rutabagas, carrots and parsnips and cabbage all did better in Dig! roughly to the tune of about Potatoes 21%, carrots 21%, Rutabaga 14%, Cabbage, 11%, broad beans 10% better. it's all published in his books. Everything else did better with no dig. Shallots especially did 33% better with no-dig, ales 21% better, onions 22% better with no dig.
On the con side, no-till trades diesel for spray costs.
I mean even Karl Marx talked a ton about soil health and while he mostly talked about "metabolic rift" not tilling (that I know about) specifically it seems like a similar focus on short term output vs long term soil health.
I guess I'm just not clear on if there is actually a new serious problem being "revealed" as the title says or just being substantiated further.
Other arguments for tilling exist: aeration, mixing-in of new organic content/fertilizer (not really necessary: green waste can just be dumped at surface level in many cases, and this is already becoming more common in mass-agriculture with 'cover crops'), furrow-creation for seed planting, etc.
Fundamentally, leaving a field uncovered for any length of time is bad and destroys the soil more than if you'd just let it grow weeds or a temporary crop for awhile then culled that as in-place fertilizer for a next crop.
A few months ago some friends of mine visited Australia from overseas and I took them to one of the older wineries in the area. The winery manages something like 10-20 major fields. They brought in a new viticulturalist to manage the fields and the first thing he did was introduce cover crops. In the tasting, they brought out soil cores from before and after the changes, which had only been in place for two years. The difference was tremendous. The old methods, unquestioned for decades, left the soil dry, poor, and largely infertile. The new methods restored organic matter, moisture retention, and a significant sub-surface biome.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2026/03/19/earthquake-scient...
At the very least it adds a new vector to the position. I was also unaware of how receptive to disruption fiber optic cables were. So, at least I learned that.
For sure. In Dowdings method you put a quite thick layer of compost on top of the existing soil. You then top up the compost every year.
Source: was full time farmer until Grandpa died.
I'm guessing less developed countries still till the soil? I have no idea.
Also, just plowing is pointless, the point is to grew plants better, ignoring that and just looking at moisure at some level is pointless
Given the economic climate, few non-corporate farmers can afford that investment without the collapse of their farm, and few corporate farmers (none at nationwide scale, afaik) are willing to invest in cost centers that threaten to decrease, rather than increase, their rate of profit growth year-over-year. One could absolutely make a case that regulatory investment in such things be imposed upon megacorp farms first, with their processes and technology made available by subsidy to smaller farms; it would be enough to structure the subsidy as inversely proportional to the acreage reaped for value, with some language ensuring that the cost of investment into land farmed by contract to a megacorp is paid to the land operator. To prevent certain abuses, they’d also have to modify farming contract law to make maintaining long-term use of the land an inalienable right, so that unsustainable output-quota farming contracts are unenforceable.
This is an unlikely outcome in the U.S., but I still appreciate the researches providing more evidence in support of it.
Quick examples:
- Inversion tillage (ploughing) to bury green manure crops or bulky organic manure
- Subsoiling (deep tillage) can help break underground compaction, to allow better root penetration
- Working with soils prone to surface capping
There's also a spectrum: - Full inversion tillage
- Low/min-till
- No-till
With a wide range of operations you can perform from one end to the other. You might end up taking a mix-and-match approach as years/fields demand it.EDIT: This is a response to the question "why do it?" rather than anything in the context of the article itself.
It is also unclear if the paper is removing traffic compaction or it is part of their results. when an MF 8700 with 23,800 pounds rolls around it will compact things. A lot. I have a lunch box to prove it.
Would love to see no-till vs shallow till vs deep plowing. For this paper, they should have introduce and have primary conclusion around the technical data gathering as a novel idea, not draw conclusion from the collected data.
The physics and sensing seems rigorous. Understanding of agricultural taxonomy, farming, is coarse at best. 40 hours of total data during rain is a wee bit short. 2cm depth for the fiber is only going to sense near- or surface. Most crops go deeper than that. Single-site experiment on a single type of soil is very narrow.
To me, plowing (like a chisel plow or moldboard) is to break up soil, and 'folds' old crop like corn stalks back in. It is also the first step for never-used land prep for growing stuff. Usually, beginning of season, compacting, or new site. 8 to 20 inches deep. can flip the soil upside down.
Tilling gets the soil ready for seed, aeration, crumble large lumps and fill larger gaps on the surface, or mix fertilizer/compost into soil. 4 to 12 inches deep.
Discing aka harrowing (disc harrow) usually will cut the remaining roots a few inches deep, often done post plowing. good for putting last years leftovers just a few inches under. 4 to 6 inches.
Note that it seems that as the field size gets smaller, the tilling vs harrowing seems to flip? At least how people consider using them.
(edit: I am all over with this one, but I think the gist comes through.)
There are a lot of different combinations of variables done for both tilling and not tilling depending on many factors.
No-Till is one of those ideas like permaculture or Modern Monetary Theory that attracts emphatic advocates while going against conventional practice. It isn’t clear why it would just be being adopted now if it actually worked. Do you have any actual experience farming?
Even the old testament talks about letting the land sit fallow for a whole year, so thousands not just hundreds of years.
And tillage can work well by bringing up nutrients. Some crops will do this themselves to an extent, or you can plant forage crops for a time that will bring up nutrients. But subsoiling to break deep compaction or simply bring up phosphorus or potassium from lower levels can breathe new life into a field.
What evidently does NOT work is the quite new practice of industrial tilling and fertilizer, which is causing rapid breakdown of our natural environment and future potential for food production.
The industrial practices that have enable us to feed a population of 8 billion, with surplus - a lot of food is thrown out as waste because we have so much of it we really don’t have to be super strict with it.
The industrial practices that have allowed the majority of the population to do something other than be directly involved in agriculture.
What part of that isn’t working?
The sky is falling, co2 will cook the planet, industrial agriculture is poisoning the land, over fishing will collapse fish stocks.
We’ve been told these things for, what, at least sixty years now.
Now we can add A.I. will de-employment everyone.
I don’t believe any of it.
The evidence is there. Read something. Watch a video. The resources are readily available and abundant.
Make a garden patch and experiment for yourself if you refuse to accept any outside information.
This video is 15 years old. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aR5OLgcc0
> Tillage had been applied at three depths commonly used in farming—no tillage, 10 cm, and 25 cm—while compaction had been imposed using two tire pressure levels—70 kPa for both front and rear tires, and 120 kPa for front and 150 kPa for rear tires.
> There is also grass cover that is planted after the main crop season, that is later grazed
Grazing compacts the soil, making it impossible to plant in without tilling. So no, this isn't workable.
Plowing vs tilling is also very much about soil erosion and depends very much of the location you are in.

A plot of experimental land at Joe Collins’ Field near Harper Adams University, where University of Washington researchers travelled to collaborate on an agroseismology experiment examining the impact of tilling on soil moisture. Photo: Marine Denolle/University of Washington

Researchers (from left to right) Ethan Williams, Joe Collins, Simon Jeffrey lay the fiber optic cable just below the surface of a test near Harper Adams University. Photo: Marine Denolle/University of Washington

Senior author Marine Denolle, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences, poses in front of the test field with her daughter, Catherine, on a rainy field day. Photo: Marine Denolle/University of Washington

Ethan Williams, a former UW postdoctoral researcher in Earth and space sciences, now an assistant professor at UC Santa Cruz, uses the highly portable DAS data collection system at the experimental farm. Photo: Marine Denolle/University of Washington
Plowing, or tilling, is an age-old agricultural practice that readies the soil for planting by turning over the top layer to expose fresh earth. The method — intended to improve water and nutrient circulation — remains popular today, but concerns about soil degradation have prompted some to return to regenerative methods that disturb the soil less.
In a new study, a team led by University of Washington researchers examined the impact of tilling on soil moisture and water retention using methods originally designed for monitoring earthquakes. Researchers placed fiber optic cables alongside fields at an experimental farm in the United Kingdom and recorded ground motion from plots receiving different amounts of tillage and compaction from tractor tires pulling farm equipment.
The study, published March 19 in Science, shows that tilling and compaction disrupt intricate capillary networks within the soil that give it a natural sponge-like quality.
“This study offers a clear explanation for why the process of tillage, one of humanity’s oldest agricultural activities, changes the structure of soil in ways that affect how it soaks up water,” said co-author David Montgomery, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences.
The link between tilling and soil degradation has been established for quite some time, but the rationale is less robust.
“It’s counterintuitive,” Montgomery said.
Tilling is supposed to create holes for water to reach the roots of plants, but it breaks these small channels in the soil instead, causing rain to pool on the surface and form a muddy crust. Over time, this can increase erosion and flood risk. The researchers observed this phenomenon in detail using seismological methods.
For the past decade or so, physical scientists have been exploring ways to harness the fiber optic cable network to make remote observations. They use a technique called distributed acoustic sensing, or DAS, that records ground motion based on cable strain. Because the technology is so sensitive, it can also capture the speed at which sound waves pass through a substance, which is called seismic velocity.
When soil gets wet, seismic velocity changes. Sound moves slower through mud than dry dirt.
“We wanted to find out whether seismic tools could be used to understand how soil — under different treatment regimens — would respond to environmental variability,” said senior author Marine Denolle, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences.
An experimental farm near Newport in the United Kingdom, affiliated with Harper Adams University, turned out to be an ideal testing ground for their experiment.
The farm is split into rows that have received consistent cultivation for more than two decades.
There are no-till rows, rows tilled 10 centimeters deep and rows tilled 25 centimeters. Compaction is a byproduct of tilling caused by tractors. Different levels of compaction were tested by modulating tractor tire pressure.
“We took advantage of a natural experiment that had already been done, but just not yet measured,” Montgomery said.
The researchers lined their experimental plots with a fiber optic cable. They collected continuous ground motion data for 40 hours and combined it with weather data over the same period, which featured light to moderate rainfall and mild temperatures.
“We observed the natural vibration of the ground and found that it is really sensitive to environmental factors, including precipitation,” said Qibin Shi, lead author and former UW postdoctoral researcher of Earth and space sciences, now at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
They determined how each cultivation strategy impacted the soil’s response to rainfall by comparing trends in seismic velocity across study sites. Shi developed various models to process the data and help the researchers understand seismic velocity in terms of soil moisture.
The method is straightforward, inexpensive and offers far better spatial and temporal resolution than previous monitoring tools.
The researchers believe it could help farmers understand how to manage their land, provide real time flooding alerts, improve earth systems models by refining estimates of atmospheric water content and better inform seismic hazard maps with data on liquefaction risk.
Additional co-authors include Abigail Swann, a UW professor of atmospheric and climate science, Nicoleta C. Cristea, a UW research assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering, Ethan Williams from the University of California Santa Cruz, Nan You formerly at Purdue University, Simon Jeffery, Joe Collins, Ana Prada Barrio and Paula A. Misiewicz from Harper Adams University, Tarje Nissen-Meyer from the University of Exeter
This study was funded by The Pan Family Fund, the Murdock Charitable Trust, the UW College of the Environment Seed Fund, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and a National Environmental Research Council cross-disciplinary research capability grant.
For more information, contact Denolle at mdenolle@uw.edu.
the above is also why tires are better than tracks in many cases. The tire has more compaction, but when you turn it touches less land and so overall is better than a track.
of course every soil is different. For details of you particular land you need an expert who knows your soil.