## 3 Results
### Results from BEST Procedure
#### 3.3.2 Soil Hydraulic and Porosity Parameters  
The hydraulic and porosity parameters obtained for the soils subjected to the different LTAE NewSmoca treatments were analysed with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (Table 2).  
For all hydraulic parameters (\(\mathrm{K_{S}}\), \(\mathrm{S}\), \(\mathrm{h_{g}}\), \(\mathrm{\lambda_{m}}\), \(\mathrm{N_{0}}\)), we found significant effects due to the soil management treatment with \(p\)-values of 1.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\), 1.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\), 1.6 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\), 4.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) and 8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\), respectively. For \(\mathrm{K_{S}}\) and \(\mathrm{S}\), the differences are attributable to the ORG treatment, which, for both parameters, shows significantly higher values compared to INT and INT+, which do not present significant differences. Considering scale parameter h\({}_{\mathrm{g}}\), the significant differences are attributable to the INT+ treatment, which has a decidedly lower value than that found for INT and ORG. The same consideration holds for \(\mathrm{\lambda_{m}}\) and \(\mathrm{N_{0}}\), which are significantly different (lower and higher, respectively) in the INT+ treatment compared to the other two treatments.  
In the case of the LTAE Rotation, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to analyse the effect of Rotation Type and Residual Management factors and their interaction on the estimated porosity and hydraulic parameters. The analysis revealed a moderate significance  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LTAE**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{K_{S}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{S}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{h_{g}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\boldsymbol{\lambda_{m}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{N_{0}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{P_{MAC}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{A_{C}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathrm{\mathbf{R_{FC}}}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**AWC**} \\  & & **(mm/s)** & **(mm/s\({}^{\mathrm{\mathbf{0.5}}}\))** & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **N\({}_{\mathrm{0}}\)** & **P\({}_{\mathrm{MAC}}\)** & **A\({}_{\mathrm{C}}\)** & **R\({}_{\mathrm{FC}}\)** & **AWC** \\ \hline NewSmoca & INT+ & 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.93 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(-138.6\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 4.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{\mathrm{5}}\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2\% \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13\% \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 69\% \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 17\% \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ NewSmoca & INT & 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.31 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(-57.7\)\({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 4.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{\mathrm{4}}\)\({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 5\% \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 17\% \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 64\% \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 17\% \({}^of the RT factor on K\({}_{\rm S}\), S, h\({}_{\rm g}\) and N\({}_{\rm 0}\) with \(p\)-values of 0.02 for all variables. Beyond these statistical differences, the actual differences are often negligible (Table 2). To deepen the analysis, considering the layout of the plots in the LTAE Rotations (Figure 1), an additional element of variability was considered by dividing the plots into Block 1 and Block 2 (Figure 1). In this case, the ANOVA indicated a significant effect of the \"Block\" factor on all the hydraulic parameters, with \(p\)-values ranging between 10\({}^{-4}\) and 10\({}^{-16}\). In particular, the mean values of S, K\({}_{\rm s}\), h\({}_{\rm g}\), \(\lambda_{\rm m}\) and N\({}_{\rm 0}\) for Block 1 are, respectively, 0.07 mm/s, 1.9 mm/s\({}^{0.5}\), \(-\)73 mm, 0.10 mm and 187,325, while for Block 2 they are 0.035 mm/s, 1.2 mm/s\({}^{0.5}\), \(-\)56 mm, 0.14 mm, and 33,983.