Optimal soil structure for plant growth:

field evaluations and management

guidelines for improved soil quality

Bruce C Ball,
SAC Edinburgh, Scotland

1
Talk structure

• Soil quality and soil structure

• Soil compaction
• Visual evaluation of soil structure
• Optimum soil structure
• Remediation of compacted soils

2
Soil quality

• Soil quality involves the ability of the soil to maintain an

appropriate productivity, while simultaneously reducing the
effect on the environment and contributing to human health
Schjonning et al. 2004
• Most important quality: soil structure (?)
• Main agronomic threats to soil structure are compaction,
loss of organic matter and waterlogging
• Agronomic control of threats is by soil management

3
Soil and water management challenges:

•Increased food production

•Soil protection
•Lower input production
•Alternative fuels
•Climate change
•Flood and pollution control
•Decreasing water resources
•Decreasing labour resources,
especially soils specialists

4
 Soil Structure

Structure is the arrangement of

particles and pores that allows:
• roots to anchor the plant
• water to drain through
pores and cracks
• water retention
• air to roots for favourable
gas exchange
• mineralisation of nutrients
and release to crop roots
• biodiversity of microbes
5
 Soil compaction

• Compaction: increased soil

bulk density (compactness)
and decreased porosity due
to application of loads over
short times

• Occurs under loading by

wheels or animal hooves
where soil is wet, loose,
weakly structured

6
Excessive compaction and crop
growth

Reduced porosity: reduces drainage and increases

the chances of waterlogging and losses of N as
nitrous oxide, reduces water storage

Increased strength: restricts root growth and uptake

of nutrients

7
Soil structure: the importance of macropores

• Macropores and cracks allow water infiltration and drainage

• Macropores keep the soil aerated reducing nitrous oxide loss
by denitrification
• Macropores increase water uptake and crop yield

8
 Visual evaluation of soil structure

• Soil structure affects

root penetration and
water, oxygen and
nutrient availability
for the crop
• Good, uniform soil
structure helps
ensure sustainable
crop growth with
minimum
environmental
problems

9
10
Visual scoring (VS) of
production costs

from G. Shepherd, 2000

11
 Visual soil structural quality assessment
Spade test – quick and cheap and gives a measure
of field variability

1. Extract a spadeful of soil

2. Break up the spadeful

3. Assign a score between 1 (good) and 5 (poor)

– compare with pictures in a key

12
 Visual soil structure quality
analysis: equipment required

• Spade – flat and square ended preferred

• Knife to cut vegetation
• Tray to contain the soil
• VSSQA test card
• Optional extras:
camera
stool or table to raise the soil blocks off the ground
scoring sheet and scoring spreadsheet

13
Properties used in the assessment

• Ease of break up of the soil

• Size and appearance of aggregates
• Porosity
• Root appearance and location

14
15
 Aggregates in Sq2, Sq3
and Sq4
Sq2

Sq3 Sq4

16
Soil structures at SCRI tillage
experiment

Sq 2 Sq 2 Sq 3-4 Sq 3-4
No-till Normal Normal Minimum
ploughing Ploughing + tillage
compaction
17
Visual evaluation can detect layers
of contrasting structure

• Can guide further

diagnostic soil
measurements
• Can indicate suitability
for minimum tillage or
need for subsoiling

18
Soil structure, soil strength and wheat yields
(Danish data)

8
Sq soil
7 structure
6
5 Penetration
4 resistance
3 (Mpa)
2 Wheat yield
1 (t/ha)

0
Normal Min No-
plough tillage tillage
19
Peerlkamp structure vs grain yields

1.0
yrel = - 0.79 + 0.225 Peerlkamp E 417 D 6
r2 = 0.63*, SE = 0.25 D 51
0.8
D 87
Relative yield

D 141
0.6
Yield increased
0.4 300-350 kg/ha per
D 177 unit of original
0.2 E 418 E 219
Peerlkamp score
D 132
E 220 D 42
0.0
3 4 5 6 7 8
M1 (Peerlkamp note of topsoil 0-25 cm)
D site and plot number
Winter wheat and corn dominated rotation Mueller et al., 2009
Mean 2002-2006
E site and plot number
Permanent corn, Mean 2002-2005 20
Visual structure and crop yield

• Soil properties most closely associated with

visual soil structure and with grain yield were
soil density (compactness)and
macroporosity BUT correlations were site
specific
• Aggregate characteristics are more reliable
indicators of soil structure than biological
characteristics

21
Optimum soil structure for crop growth is
related to soil compactness and wetness

Soils can be too loose

From: Hakansson, 2005 Compaction of arable soils 22

 Soil structure influences the soil water contents for
best crop growth – the Least Limiting Water Range

• root growth optimal between the

horizontal lines
• width between lines can be altered by
management

0.4
Volumetric water content

0.35
mechanical impedance hypoxia
0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
19-Mar 08-Apr 28-Apr 18-May 07-Jun 27-Jun 17-Jul 06-Aug
Date 2008
Image: B. McKenzie 23
Optimum soil structure?

• Crumb and rounded, porous aggregates, weak enough to allow roots to

grow and adsorb water and nutrients, strong enough to resist
compaction (Sq 1-3)

• Surface important. Seedbed demands fine aggregates firmed together

BUT some larger aggregates are needed to prevent surface collapse
during heavy rainfall

• Local compact layers at the base of the topsoil can protect the subsoil
from compaction but need enough cracks and pores to allow water and
root movement through them

• Structural requirements vary with crop and location

24
Remediation of soil structure

• Scores 1-3 are satisfactory

• Scores 3-5 need changes in tillage or

cropping to sustain productivity e.g. loosen
a compact zone

• Aim to reduce structural variability to

increase crop consistency

25
Importance of roots

• A well-aggregated
soil increases root
proliferation and
structural stability

• Perennial crops
may penetrate
compact layers,
but main effect of
rooting is to dry
the soil

Image: B McKenzie
26
 Compaction remediation
• Surface layer compaction: need to re-open the macropores between structural
units. Soil aggregates should be displaced enough not to return to their original
position after subsequent traffic

• Subsurface compacted layers (pans): these can protect the subsoil from surface
loads. Make fissures through the layer with minimal break up and soil re-
arrangement. This keeps the support capacity of the compacted layer while
creating pathways for drainage and root movement through to the layer below

27
Images: I Dickson, B McKenzie
Compaction remediation

Severe wheel rutting after harvest: make fissures across the ruts (e.g.
with tines to 30-35 cm depth) to allow water to drain into the
adjacent uncompacted soil

Image: I Dickson
28
Conclusions

• Compaction status is important for crop growth

• Visual soil evaluation can help identify:
1) the ‘right’ structure for the crop and how to
achieve it – reduce variability in crop growth
2) if minimum tillage is possible and if subsoiling is
required
3) Need for further diagnostic soil measurements
(e.g. LLWR) and their depths

29
Acknowledgements:

• Tom Batey, University of

Aberdeen
• Lars Munkholm, Arhus
University, Denmark
• Mandy Liesch, University of
River Falls, Wisconsin
• Paul Hallett and Blair
McKenzie, Scottish Crop
Research Institute, Dundee

30
31