Visual examinations and soil physical and hydraulic properties for assessing soil structural quality of soils with contrasting textures and land uses

Moncada, Mansonia Alejandra Pulido; Penning, Letiane Helwig; Timm, Luís Carlos; Gabriëls, Donald; Cornelis, Wim

doi:10.1016/j.still.2014.02.009

Cited by 67 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mueller et al (2009) studied three different sites and soil types and concluded that the relation between bulk density and visual scores were site-specific. On a single field with sandy-loam Cambisol, Pulido Moncada et al (2014b) found a linear relation with R 2 = 0.53 (p < 0.01). In another single field of sandy-loam Eutric-Cambisol, Guimarães et al (2013) found a linear relationship with R 2 up to 0.62 (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Visual examination methods are often compared to different soil physical properties, such as resistance to penetration (Guimarães et al, 2013;Mueller et al, 2009;Newell-Price et al, 2013), flow measurements (Guimarães et al, 2013;Moncada et al, 2015;Pulido Moncada et al, 2014b), aggregate stability (Moncada et al, 2015;Pulido Moncada et al, 2014b), water or air content (Moncada et al, 2015;Mueller et al, 2009), S-index (Moncada et al, 2015) and least limiting water range (Guimarães et al, 2013). Bulk density however, is the most represented property in these comparisons (Table 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To what extent do physical measurements match with visual evaluation of soil structure?

Johannes

Weisskopf

Schulin

et al. 2017

Soil and Tillage Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To what extent do physical measurements match with visual evaluation of soil structure?

Johannes

Weisskopf

Schulin

et al. 2017

Soil and Tillage Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It was only in recent years that temporal changes of soil erodibility, soil hydrological and erosive response, and soil surface drainage characteristics have been the subject of several studies in an attempt to evaluate the effect of aspect and vegetation on hydrogeomorphic processes between seasons or years (Cerdà, 1998a;Gabarrón-Galeote et al, 2013;Monsieurs et al, 2015;Rodrigo-Comino et al, 2015Nunes et al, 2016). Because many soil properties are strongly dependent on soil structure dynamics (Pulido Moncada et al, 2014b), management systems are important agents for changing soil environmental conditions (van Es et al, 1999;Alletto & Coquet, 2009). Cassel (1983) noted that soil parameters such as particle density and particle size distribution usually indicate a small temporal variation because they are more dependent on natural factors, for instance soil formation processes and parent material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Variation of Hydro‐Physical Properties of Paddy Clay Soil under Different Rice‐Based Cropping Systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial variability of hydro‐physical properties has long been observed, whereas temporal variation is much less documented and considered in studies and applications, particularly of paddy clay soils under different cropping systems. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the seasonal‐ and inter‐seasonal variation of selected hydro‐physical properties of a paddy clay soil under different rice‐based cropping systems with contrasting tillage. In a long‐term experiment, plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four treatments and four replications: (i) rice–rice–rice; (ii) rice–maize–rice; (iii) rice–mung bean–rice; and (iv) rice–mung bean–maize. Soil samples were collected at three depths (0–10, 10–20 and 20–30 cm) at three times during two cropping seasons, i.e., 15 days after soil preparation (DASP), 45 DASP and 90 DASP during the winter–spring and spring–summer seasons. Results show that temporal variability of soil bulk density, macro‐porosity (MacP) and matrix‐porosity within both seasons and between seasons was limited for cropping systems with upland crop rotations, whereas within season variation was significant for rice monoculture system. Observed variation in bulk density, matrix‐porosity and MacP was mainly associated with cropping system and soil depth. Field saturated hydraulic conductivity of topsoil showed great temporal variability, both seasonal and inter‐seasonal, in correspondence with MacP (r = 0·58). These results highlight the need of depth differentiated soil sampling and time consideration when evaluating management practices on soil physical properties and modeling the hydrological behavior of paddy soil. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…To compare the suitability of S in identifying SPQ, its designation was compared against 12 SPQ indicators, including water-release-related indicators, physical properties, and visual Publisher: AGRONOMY; Journal: SOILSCI:Soil Science; Copyright: Will notify... Volume: Will notify...; Issue: Will notify...; Manuscript: S14-06-0259(1); DOI: 10.2136/sssaj201; PII: <txtPII> TOC Head: S-1; Section Head: ; Article Type: ARTICLE examinations. Previous studies (Pulido Moncada et al, 2014a, 2014b demonstrated the usefulness of the selected indicators of SPQ as part of a minimum data set of indicators.…”

Section: Soil Physical Quality Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Soil Physical Quality Index S for Some Tropical and Temperate Medium-Textured Soils

Pulido-Moncada

Ball

Gabriëls

et al. 2014

Soil Science Society of America Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The soil physical quality (SPQ) index S can provide inconsistent designations of SPQ and has a lack of consistency with other physical indicators for some soils. The aim of this study was to compare the suitability of S in identifying SPQ against 12 SPQ indicators, including water-release-related indicators, physical properties, and visual examinations. This study was conducted on medium-textured soil samples taken from tropical and temperate soils. Comparisons of SPQ class and relationships between indicators were used to judge the S SPQ designation. For the studied soils, S classified SPQ in the same way as other indicators when the condition of the soil was optimal or degraded but not when it was intermediate. This demonstrates that the proposed critical limits for S are not generally valid and do not apply for all soil conditions. Porosity parameters from the water release curve were more consistent indicators of SPQ than S. Our work also demonstrates that scores from visual examinations have at least similar resolution (P > 0.05) to the other indicators of SPQ evaluated. The use of S as an indicator to be considered as part of a minimum data set of indicators of SPQ assessment is less viable when other indicators such as bulk density, porosity, and visual examination are much more easily determined and more consistent than S. Therefore, it is too ambitious to consider that a unique indicator such as the S index could be used to evaluate SPQ as such.

show abstract

Visual examinations and soil physical and hydraulic properties for assessing soil structural quality of soils with contrasting textures and land uses

Cited by 67 publications

References 35 publications

To what extent do physical measurements match with visual evaluation of soil structure?

To what extent do physical measurements match with visual evaluation of soil structure?

Temporal Variation of Hydro‐Physical Properties of Paddy Clay Soil under Different Rice‐Based Cropping Systems

Evaluation of Soil Physical Quality Index S for Some Tropical and Temperate Medium-Textured Soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About