## 4 Discussion  
A first consideration related to the LTAE NewSmoca concerns the higher K\({}_{\rm S}\) and S values obtained for the ORG treatment compared to INT and INT+ (Table 2). The first explanation has to be found in the fact that the ORG treatment involves a surface tillage (i.e., about 20 cm depth) in early spring for the incorporation into the soil of the faba bean biomass intercropped with wheat. The effect of such recent tillage would justify the relatively high values of both K\({}_{\rm S}\) and S, which agrees with previous studies [35; 36]. The lowest values of \(\rho_{\rm d}\) observed for ORG (Figure 3) further support this interpretation. In addition to this short-term factor, the ORG treatment could be affected by a long-term effect due to the use of cover crops and the progressive increase in SOC expected in this type of soil management [37]. As [PERSON] et al. [7] pointed out, some factors, such as conventional inversion soil tillage, could counteract this type of impact and the progressive accumulation of SOC. The SOC values detected in the AP1 horizon of the ORG plots indicate values only 0.1 percentage points higher than the INT plots, decidedly modest to affect the SHP significantly [11]. Concerning the capacity-based indicators, the ORG treatment showed similar or better values than the other two, particularly regarding AWC (Table 2). Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the extent to which these differences depend on the more recent tillage, the use of cover crops or even modest differences in texture (Figure 3). Other interesting observations arise from the comparison between INT and INT+. The most evident effect of the no-tillage treatment (i.e., INT+) is the significant increase in \(\rho_{\rm d}\), which causes a slight worsening of some parameters, particularly those related to air exchange such as P\({}_{\rm MAC}\), A\({}_{\rm C}\) and R\({}_{\rm FC}\) (Table 2). However, consistent with previous studies (e.g., [PERSON] et al. [8]), no-tillage does not appear to lead to relevant changes in most SHPs compared to conventionally tilted treatment INT. On the contrary, parameters \(\lambda_{\rm m}\) and N\({}_{0}\) (respectively lower and higher in INT+ than in INT) indicate for the INT+ treatment the presence of a more structured soil, with numerous relatively smaller pores but likely continuous and better interconnected. This result denotes improved structural stability, resulting from the synergetic action of no-tillage and progressive SOC accumulation in the shallow soil layer, typical of this soil management strategy [38; 39]. Indeed, SOC analyses in the AP1 horizon (Table 1) indicate 1.4 percentage point higher values in the INT+ treatment than in INT. The fact that similar AWC values were estimated for the INT and INT+ treatments (Table 2) is consistent with the previous interpretation. It appears even more relevant considering that the soil textural conditions of the INT+ plots (slightly more sandy and less clayey than the INT plots, Figure 3) would have led to lower AWC values. In conclusion, the INT+ soil, despite the deterioration of some physical parameters such as \(\rho_{\rm d}\), thanks to the enhanced microporosity, shows SHP comparable with those found for the conventional treatment (INT). With regard to the LTAE Rotation, some significant differences were found in the physical parameters. In particular, the bulk density \(\rho_{\rm d}\) in the first 5 cm in soils where residue burial is approximately 0.07 g/cm\({}^{3}\) lower than in soils with residue removal, consistent with what is expected from this practice. Although statistically significant, the difference appears to be of little relevance in influencing the hydraulic behaviour of the soil. Moreover, in the lower layers (5-10 cm), no significant differences in terms of \(\rho_{\rm d}\) can be detected. As far as water content is concerned, there are also no particularly marked differences in the different combinations of Rotation Type and Residual Management.