Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical Values of Soil Physical Quality Indicators Based on Vegetative Growth Characteristics of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine critical values of soil physical quality indicators according to vegetative growth of spring wheat in a range of degrees of soil compactness. A non-saline loam soil was used to produce a range of degrees of soil compactness in 10 mini-lysimeters. The mini-lysimeters were put outdoors and received similar amounts of water after sowing of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L., cv. Pishtaz). Shoot dry weight (SDW) was measured, and relative SDW (RSDW) values of 0.9 and 0.8 were assumed to be the starting and end points of soil physical quality indicator limitation for wheat growth, respectively. Critical integral water capacity (IWC) values of 0.136 and 0.104 cm3 cm−3 were obtained for the start- and end-point limitations, respectively. This means that in the studied soil, the IWC values greater than 0.136 cm3 cm−3 represent good soil physical conditions for wheat growth. In the IWC range of 0.136–0.104 cm3 cm−3, there were slight physical limitations for wheat growth. In the IWC values smaller than 0.104 cm3 cm−3, unsuitable soil physical conditions (i.e., poor aeration and high mechanical impedance) strongly restricted the wheat growth. Start- and end-point limitations for Dexter’s index of soil physical quality (S) were found to be 0.051 and 0.038, respectively. Corresponding values for relative bulk density (RBD) were 0.805 and 0.846, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AFP:

Air-filled porosity (cm3 cm−3)

BD:

Bulk density (Mg m−3)

BDcritical :

Critical bulk density for root growth (Mg m−3)

BDref :

Reference bulk density (Mg m−3)

BDref-Proctor :

Maximum BD in the Proctor test (Mg m−3)

BDref-200 kPa :

BD under a confined axial stress of 200 kPa (Mg m−3)

C(h):

Absolute differential water capacity (hPa−1)

DS:

Diameter of stem (mm)

FC:

Field capacity (cm3 cm−3)

H :

Height after 50th day

h :

Absolute of matric potential (hPa)

IWC:

Integral water capacity (cm3 cm−3)

K r(h):

Relative hydraulic conductivity (dimensionless)

K s :

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm min−1)

LL:

Lower limit of least limiting water range (cm3 cm−3)

LLWR:

Least limiting water range (cm3 cm−3)

Q :

Soil penetration resistance (MPa)

Q wet and Q dry :

Q values corresponding to wettest and driest θ contents (MPa)

NS:

Number of spikelets

n :

Shape parameter of van Genuchten (1980) model (dimensionless)

n Qθ :

Empirical fitting parameter for the Q–θ function (dimensionless)

OM:

Organic matter content (kg 100 kg−1)

PAW:

Plant available water (cm3 cm−3)

PL:

Plastic limit (kg kg−1)

PWP:

Permanent wilting point (cm3 cm−3)

RBD:

Relative bulk density (dimensionless)

RBDProctor :

Ratio of natural BD to the BDref-Proctor (dimensionless)

RBD200 kPa :

Ratio of natural BD to the BDref-200 kPa (dimensionless)

RDS:

Relative diameter of stem (dimensionless)

RH:

Relative height after 50th day (dimensionless)

RNS:

Relative number of spikelets (dimensionless)

RSDW:

Relative shoot dry weight (dimensionless)

S :

Dexter’s index of soil physical quality (dimensionless)

SAW:

Soil available water (cm3 cm−3)

SPRC:

Soil penetration resistance curve

SWRC:

Soil water retention curve

SDW:

Shoot dry weight (g)

SPQ:

Soil physical quality

UL:

Upper limit of least limiting water range (cm3 cm−3)

w :

Gravimetric water content (kg kg−1)

w s and w r :

Saturated and residual water contents in gravimetric units (kg kg−1)

α :

Scaling parameter of van Genuchten (1980) model (hPa−1)

α Qθ :

Empirical fitting parameter for the Q–θ function (cm−3 cm3)

θ :

Volumetric water content (cm3 cm−3)

θ s and θ r :

Saturated and residual water contents (cm3 cm−3)

ω i(h):

Multiplicative weighting functions (dimensionless)

References

  • Asgarzadeh H, Mosaddeghi MR, Mahboubi AA, Nosrati A, Dexter AR (2010) Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant Soil 335:229–244

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Asgarzadeh H, Mosaddeghi MR, Mahboubi AA, Nosrati A, Dexter AR (2011) Integral energy of conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity for better characterization of water availability and soil physical quality. Geoderma 166:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Asgarzadeh H, Mosaddeghi MR, Dexter AR, Mahboubi AA, Neyshabouri MR (2014a) Determination of soil available water for plants: consistency between laboratory and field measurements. Geoderma 226–227:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Asgarzadeh H, Mosaddeghi MR, Nikbakht AM (2014b) SAWCal: a user-friendly program for calculating soil available water quantities and physical quality indices. Comput Electron Agric 109:86–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Beutler AN, Centurion JF, Roque CG, Ferraz MV (2005) Optimal relative bulk density for soybean yield in oxisols. Braz J Soil Sci 29:843–849 (in Portuguese with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake GR, Hartge KH (1986) Bulk density. In: Klute, a (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis: part l – physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd ed. ASA/SSSA, monograph 9, Madison, WI, pp. 374–380

  • Botula YD, Cornelis WM, Van Ranst E (2012) Evaluation of pedotransfer functions for predicting water retention of soils in lower Congo (D.R. Congo). Agric Water Manag 111:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyoucos GJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particles size analyses of soils. Agron J 56:464–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter MR (1990) Relative measures of soil bulk density to characterize compaction in tillage studies on fine sandy loams. Can J Soil Sci 70:425–433

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Kay BD (2004) Linking process capability analysis and least limiting water range for assessing soil physical quality. Soil Tillage Res 79:167–174

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Kay BD, Perfect E (1994) Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1775–1781

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Bruand A, Tormena CA, da Silva EM, Santos GG, Giarola NFB, Guimaraes RML, Marchao RL, Klein VA (2014) Indicators of soil physical quality: from simplicity to complexity. In: Teixeira WG, Ceddia MB, Ottoni MV, Kangussu Donnagema G (eds) Application of soil physics in environmental analyses: measuring, modelling and data integration. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Progress in Soil Science, pp 201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane JH, Hopmans JW (2002) Pressure plate extractor. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C., (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical methods, SSSA book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, pp. 688–690

  • de Lima RP, da Silva AR, da Silva AP, Leão TP, Mosaddeghi MR (2016) soilphysics: an R package for calculating soil water availability to plants by different soil physical indices. Comput Electron Agric 120:63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos B, Van Meirvenne M, Quataert P, Deckers J, Muys B (2005) Predictive quality of pedotransfer functions for estimating bulk density of forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:500–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Descalzi C, Balocchi O, López I, Kemp P, Dörner J (2018) Different soil structure and water conditions affect the growing response of Lolium perenne L. and Bromus valdivianus Phil. growing alone or in mixture. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 18(3):617–635

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004a) Soil physical quality; part I. theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004b) Soil physical quality; part II. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma 120:215–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004c) Soil physical quality; part III: unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S-theory. Geoderma 120:227–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR, Czyż EA (2007) Application of S-theory in the study of soil physical degradation and its consequences. Land Degrad Dev 18:369–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR, Czyż EA, Gaţe OP (2007) A method for prediction of soil penetration resistance. Soil Tillage Res 93:412–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner J, Zúñiga F, López I (2013) Short-term effects of different pasture improvement treatments on the physical quality of an andisol. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 13(2):381–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Semetsa S (2001) A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Aust J Soil Res 39:577–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Murray RS (2004) On water availability in saline soils. Aust J Soil Res 42:833–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson I (1990) A method for characterizing the state of compactness of the plough layer. Soil Tillage Res 16:105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson I (2005) Machinery-induced compaction of arable soils. Reports from the Division of Soil Management. Uppsala 109:153

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall DGM, Reeve MJ, Thomasson AJ, Wright VF (1977) Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil Survey Tech. Monog., vol. 9. Rothamsted, Harpenden, U.K.

  • Jones CA (1983) Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1208–1211

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelishadi H, Mosaddeghi MR, Hajabbasi MA, Ayoubi S (2014) Near-saturated soil hydraulic properties as influenced by land use management systems in Koohrang region of central Zagros, Iran. Geoderma 213:426–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller T, Håkansson I (2010) Estimation of reference bulk density from soil particle size distribution and soil organic matter content. Geoderma 154:398–406

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khodaverdiloo H, Khani Cheraghabdal H, Bagarello V, Iovino M, Asgarzadeh H, Ghorbani Dashtaki S (2017) Ring diameter effects on determination of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity of different loam soils. Geoderma 303:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham MB (2014) Principles of soil and plant water relations, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumari K, Prasad J, Solanki IS, Chaudhary R (2018) Long-term effect of crop residues incorporation on yield and soil physical properties under rice – wheat cropping system in calcareous soil. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 18(1):27–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lapen DR, Topp GC, Gregorich EG, Curnoe WE (2004) Least limiting water range indicators of soil quality and corn production, eastern Ontario. Can Soil Tillage Res 78:151–170

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride RA (1993) Soil consistency limits. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publication/CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 519–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosaddeghi MR, Morshedizad M, Mahboubi AA, Dexter AR, Schulin R (2009) Laboratory evaluation of a model for soil crumbling for prediction of the optimum soil water content for tillage. Soil Tillage Res 105:242–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nemenyi M, Mesterhazi PA, Milics G (2006) An application of tillage force mapping as a cropping management. Biosyst Eng 94(3):351–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Penfold CL (1999) Influence of soil air-filled porosity on primary root length and growth of radiate pine. MSc. Thesis. New Zealand School of Forestry, University of Canterbury

  • Reichert JM, Suzuki LEAS, Reinert DJ, Horn R, Håkansson I (2009) Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Res 102:242–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Bowman BT, Drury CF, Tan CS, Lu X (2002) Indicators of good soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma 110:131–146

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Yang XM, Drury CF, Zhang TQ, Tan CS (2003) Effects of selected conditioners and tillage on the physical quality of a clay loam soil. Can J Soil Sci 83:318–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM, Fox CA, Tan CS, Zhang TQ (2007) Land management effects on the near-surface physical quality of a clay loam soil. Soil Tillage Res 96:316–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM, Tan CS (2008) Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma 146:466–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Tan CS, Fox CA, Yang XM (2009) Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma 152:252–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades JD (1996) Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solid. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME (eds) Methods of soil analysis, Part 3 edn. Chemical Methods. ASA/SSSA Madison, Wisconsin, pp 417–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera M, Polanía J, Ricaurte J, Borrero G, Beebe S, Rao I (2019) Soil compaction induced changes in Morpho-physiological characteristics of common bean. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 19:217–227

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romano N, Hopmans JW, Dane JH (2002) Suction table. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. SSSA, Madison,pp. 692–698

  • SAS Institute (1996) SAS user’s guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirazi MA, Boersma L (1984) A unifying quantitative analysis of soil texture. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:142–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillers WS, Fredlund DG, Zakerzadeh N (2001) Mathematical attributes of some soil–water characteristic curve models. Geotech Geol Eng 19:243–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims JT (1996) Lime requirement. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME (eds) Methods of soil analysis: part 3 – chemical methods. SSSA/ASA, Madison, pp 491–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington

  • Stock O, Downes NK (2008) Effects of additions of organic matter on the penetration resistance of glacial till for the entire water tension range. Soil Tillage Res 99:191–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarawally MA, Medina H, Frómeta ME, Itza CA (2004) Field compaction at different soil-water status: effects on pore size distribution and soil water characteristics of a Rhodic Ferralsol in Western Cuba. Soil Tillage Res 76:95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas GW (1996) Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME (eds) Methods of soil analysis, Part, vol 3. Chemical Methods. ASA/SSSA Madison, Wisconsin, pp 475–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Topp GC, Reynolds WD, Cook FJ, Kirby JM, Carter MR (1997) Physical attributes of soil quality. In: Gregorich EG, Carter MR (Eds.), Soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health. Developments in soil science, vol. 25. Elsevier, New York. pp. 21–58

  • van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898

    Google Scholar 

  • van Genuchten, MTh, Leij FJ, Yates SR (1991) The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils. EPA/600/2–91/065, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK, pp. 93

  • Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1927) The relation of soil moisture to cultivation and plant growth. Proc 1st Intern Cong Soil Sci 3:498–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of digestion method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration. Soil Sci 37:29–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley GM, Dexter AR (1981) The dependence of soil penetrometer pressure on penetrometer size. J Agric Eng Res 26:467–476

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Urmia University for the financial support of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, 5756151818, Iran

    Hedieh Khalifezadeh Koureh, Hossein Asgarzadeh & Habib Khodaverdiloo

  2. Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran

    Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi

Authors
  1. Hedieh Khalifezadeh Koureh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Asgarzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Habib Khodaverdiloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Asgarzadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koureh, H.K., Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R. et al. Critical Values of Soil Physical Quality Indicators Based on Vegetative Growth Characteristics of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 20, 493–506 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00134-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00134-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation