Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Penetration resistance: An effective indicator for monitoring soil compaction T

in pastures
Pedro A.N. Benevenutea, Everton G. de Moraisa, André A. Souzaa, Isabela C.F. Vasquesb,
Dione P. Cardosoa, Flávia R. Salesa, Eduardo C. Severianoc, Bruno G.C. Homemd,
⁎
Daniel R. Casagranded, Bruno M. Silvaa,
a
Soil Science Department, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais 37200-000, Brazil
b
Soils Department, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
c
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Goiás, Rio Verde, Campus Rio Verde, Goiás 75.901-970, Brazil
d
Animal Science Department, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais 37200-000, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Compaction, often promoted by animal trampling and loss of forage plants, is a main cause of soil degradation in
Compaction pastures. Our objectives were to evaluate various pasture management strategies for maintaining soil physical
Least limiting water range quality and to evaluate penetration resistance as an indicator of soil compaction in pastures. For each strategy,
Pedotransfer functions the goal was to maintain or extend least limiting water range (LLWR) and soil compressive behavior. Three
Preconsolidation pressure
treatments [Brachiaria (Br); Br intercropped with forage peanut (Arachis pintoi) (Br + L); and Br fertilized with
150 kg N ha−1 (Br + N) were compared to a native forest reference (Ref) in four pasture areas in Brazil. Pasture
management strategy did not significantly influence LLWR, but the Br + N treatment resulted in greater soil
degradation evidenced by a lower LLWR. These results are useful for improving pedotransfer functions and
decision aides that predict physical–mechanical soil quality, impact on vegetative cover, and the appropriate
animal carrying capacity for specific pasture areas. They also confirm that soil moisture and penetration re-
sistance are effective for calculating load carrying capacity, factors that help with decision making regarding
implementation of new management practices in pasture areas.

1. Introduction
One of the main causes of soil degradation is compaction induced by
machine and animal trampling (Kunz et al., 2013). Soil compaction is
characterized by increased soil density, which results in higher soil
penetration resistance (PR), greater water retention, decreased porosity
and the nutrient (Freddi et al., 2009) and water uptake by roots (Silva
et al., 2015). The conversion of native forest in different soil manage-
ment systems can affect soil compressibility (Iori et al., 2012) and,
therefore, studies comparing and evaluating soil managements, espe-
cially the conservationists, are relevant to predict the effects on soil
compaction. According to Luz et al. (2019) constant monitoring of soil
physical quality is important in order to adopt preventive and effective
management strategies to minimize soil compaction in no-tillage area.
The least limiting water range (LLWR) completes the attributes of
soil physical quality, allowing inferences closer to field conditions.
Plants are known to be more likely to grow unrestricted when the water
content is within the LLWR (Reichert et al., 2011), and the LLWR will
depend on soil structure and texture, positively influencing soil struc-
tures more strongly developed and soils with higher clay contents, up to
certain bulk density limits (Severiano et al., 2011). Studies indicate that
LLWR determination can help avoiding productivity losses caused by
soil compaction by evidencing root growth restriction (Romero et al.,
2014). Soil compaction is already evaluated by different indexes (Bulk
density, degree of compactness) and the appropriate use of them is
associated with sustainable soil management decisions (Xu et al.,
2017).
Colombi et al. (2018) reported that increased soil penetration re-
sistance (PR) may cause a restriction in water uptake, which has de-
creased plant growth and productivity and has been the most frequently
reducing LLWR factor (Silva et al., 2015). Therefore, productivity
limited by drought stress may be a result of lack of access to water,
probably not caused by low soil moisture, but by high PR. Thus, the
reduction in LLWR amplitude and bulk density increase were also re-
ported to be responsible for a reduction in biomass production and root
development by Bécel et al. (2012). Consequently, given the close

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: brunom.silva@ufla.br (B.M. Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106647
Received 4 February 2020; Received in revised form 16 June 2020; Accepted 21 June 2020
1470-160X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
association between soil attributes that predict compaction and pro-
ductivity, obtaining accurate values for PR should be reinforced.
Thus, pedotransfer functions (PTF) arise to evaluate soil physical-
hydraulic properties and even as a way of predicting compaction, as
they were already applied for soil penetration resistance (Fritton,
2008). Pedotransfer functions can characterize the physical relation-
ships between soil variables such as texture (sand, silt and clay), bulk
density, particle density and organic matter contents with hydraulic
properties such as the soil water retention and unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity (Haghverdi et al., 2012). According to Lebert et al. (2007),
PR may be considered the most common parameter for detecting soil
compaction, but it is highly dependent on soil moisture, texture and
pedological effects, highlighting the importance of reliable pedotransfer
functions to estimate soil physical quality.
In this study, LLWR, PR and soil compressibility were evaluated in
three different pasture managements cultivated with Brachiaria bri-
zantha Stapf. A. Rich. cv. Marandu under continuous animal stocking
with variable stocking rate. The hypothesis is that the higher rate of
animals at the Br + N management area was sufficient to limit the
LLWR and increase the PR, approaching its physical attributes to the
other managements studied. Therefore, the objective was to infer soil
compaction using the load bearing capacity model and LLWR models
and to propose a pedotransfer function to evaluate the compaction
degree and the soil preconsolidation pressure (σp) from PR and soil
moisture.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experiment conditions
The experimental area was located in Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil
(21°14′09.90″ S and 44°58′13.28″ W) at a climate defined as Cwa ac-
cording to the Köppen classification (Kottek et al., 2006). The soil
classification based on the Soil Taxonomy system (Soil Survey Staff,
2010) is Rhodic Acrudox, or Latossolo Vermelho distrófico, according to
the Brazilian Soil Classification System (SBCS, 2018), a representative
soil class in Brazil.
Soil analysis after installing the experiment is shown in Table 1.
Liming was performed in the area based on soil analysis done before the
experiment was implemented (Table 2), and 30 days after P2O5 was
added. In order to cultivate Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu,
12 kg ha−1 of pure live seeds were sown in December 2015. Twelve
months later, Arachis pintoi (legume) BRS Mandobi was sown with
10 kg ha−1 of pure live seeds. Other maintenance practices were per-
formed in the area such as maintenance fertilization made in December
2016 with P205 and K2O.
2.2. Experiment design and treatments
The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with
three replicates, twelve experimental units for each analysis of PR, soil
compression curve (SCC) and LLWR. Four treatments were evaluated: I)
an area of 1.2 ha with single Brachiaria without nitrogen fertilization
Table 1
Soil physical attributes (0 – 0.10 m) at the experimental area after experiment has been installed (table before shown at Vasques et al., 2019).
Area Clay Silt Sand
g kg−1
Br 562 ± 1 175 ± 8 263
Br + L 535 ± 1 191 ± 13 274
Br + N 534 ± 1 187 ± 11 279
Ref 599 ± 4 131 ± 1 271
Clay, silt, sand: determined by the pipette method; Pd: particle density determined by the Picnometer method (Teixeira et al., 2017); WDC: Water dispersive clay; CFI:
Clay flocculation index.
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
(Br); II) an area of 1.0 ha with Brachiaria intercropped with a species of
leguminous plant (Br + L): forage peanut (Arachis pintoi); III) an area of
0.75 ha with Brachiaria fertilized with 150 kg ha-1N (urea – 45% N)
(Br + N), divided into three applications of 50 kg ha−1 carried out in
December, February and April; IV) and an area at the South of the
experimental area in an intermediate stage of regeneration with
minimal anthropic influence, which is under native forest given as a
reference (Ref).
All treatments with Brachiaria were managed continuously stocked
with variable stocking rate. The stocking rate was managed according
to the canopy height: from 0.20 to 0.25 m during summer, spring and
fall and 0.15 m during winter. Nellore heifers with initial weight of 214
( ± 17) kg and 12 ( ± 1.3) months of age with varied stocking rate were
used, as shown in Table 3. Thus, the Br + N treatment paddock pre-
sented the highest biomass production (Table 3) and was the one with
the highest stocking rate, followed by the Br + L and Br.
2.3. Penetration resistance determined in laboratory at dry and rainy
season
Soil sampling was made in the rainy and dry season approaching the
real situation of the area, regardless of seasons. In the rainy season,
undisturbed samples were collected in metal rings with 2.5 cm height
and a 6.3 cm diameter using an Uhland sampler for the analysis of PR in
the laboratory. After six months, during the dry period, an impact pe-
netrometer was used to evaluate the PR in the field, and undisturbed
samples were also taken from the same site to determine the PR in
laboratory. The studied areas were sampled at the soil surface depth
(0.10 m).
2.4. Least limiting water range and penetration resistance determined in
laboratory at rainy season
Undisturbed samples were saturated and then submitted to matric
potential: −4; −6 and −10 kPa on the ECOTECH automatic tension
table and −100 matric potentials; −500 and −1500 kPa in Richards’
Chamber (Klute, 1986). After reaching equilibrium at each potential,
each sample was weighed and subsequently its PR was determined by
the bench penetrometer (Tormena et al., 1998), and in the same sam-
ples uniaxial compression test was performed by automatic con-
solidometer (Dias Júnior, 1994). Then all samples were oven dried at
105 °C for 48 h and weighed.
Bulk density was determined by the volumetric ring method ac-
cording to the following equation: BD (g cm−3) = W / V, where: W is
the dry soil weight at 105 °C (g) and the ring volume (cm3) (Teixeira
et al., 2017).
The penetrometer used was made by Marconi, model MA 933,
having a tapered end with a penetration angle equivalent to 45° and
diameter of 0.00384 m, at a constant velocity of 0.01 m min−1. Applied
force (kgf) were converted to PR in (MPa) by the following adapted
equation from Serafim et al. (2013): PR = Mg / (πr2 / cos45°) × 1/106;
where: PR is the soil penetration resistance in MPa; M is the mass of the
apparatus (kg); g is the gravitational acceleration (9.806648 m s−2); π
Pd WDC CFI
g cm−3 g kg−1
± 3 2.63 ± 0.02 382.2 ± 8.2 288.3 ± 13.7
± 24 2.49 ± 0.08 388.0 ± 1.5 269.4 ± 1.9
± 16 2.56 ± 0.02 366.0 ± 1.5 264.3 ± 18.4
± 5 2.55 ± 0.03 404.0 ± 6.2 306.9 ± 18.5
2
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al. Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647

Table 2
Soil analysis before experiment has been installed (0 – 0,20 m) (table before shown at Vasques et al., 2019).
Area pH O.M. P K Ca Mg H + Al BS CEC V%

−1 −3 −3
H2O dg kg mg dm cmolc dm

Br 5.7 2.36 6.85 36.0 1.80 0.50 3.24 2.39 5.36 42.49
Br + L 5.6 2.11 3.53 40.0 1.40 0.40 3.24 1.9 5.14 37.01
Br + N 5.5 2.61 7.94 52.0 1.70 0.50 5.05 2.33 7.38 31.62

pH in water: 1:2.5 (relation soil:water); O.M.- Organic Matter – Oxidation with Na2Cr2O7 4 N + H2SO4 10 N; P and K: Extractor Mehlich 1; Ca and Mg: Extractor: KCl
– 1 mol/L; H + Al: Extractor: SMP; BS – Base saturation; CEC – Cation Exchange Capacity at pH 7.0; V%: Base saturation index.

Table 3
Animal stocking rate and shoot biomass per ha under different treatments (table
adapted from Vasques et al., 2019).
Treatments Stocking rate Shoot biomass
Animal unit ha−1 kg ha−1
Br 1.60 ± 0.20 8498.52 ± 709.11
Br + L 2.26 ± 0.47 9455.06 ± 483.82
Br + N 3.47 ± 0.56 11977.90 ± 1847.55
The data represent averages of four different stocking rates and the shoot
biomass production in the period of one year.
is 3.1415926 (dimensionless); r is the the straight circular cone radius
(0.00192 m); and the 45° cosine of the cone surface angle, which is
0.7071.
The PR in field was assessed by the IAA / Planalsucar Stolf impact
penetrometer. This conventional penetrometer consists of an impact
weight, a rod and a ground penetrating cone. The PR is obtained by the
impact of a mass of 4 kg in free fall at a height of 0.40 m. For each
impact promoted by the weight, the penetration cone displacement
value is also recorded in meters and these values are later converted to
penetration resistance (MPa) through the equation proposed by Stolf
(1991) PR = (Mgh / Ax) M / (M + m) + ((M + m) / A) g, where: M /
(M + m) is the fraction of energy remaining minus impact losses; M
(kg) is the mass of 4 kg; m (kg) is the mass of the penetrometer; A (m2)
is the cone base area; and g (m s−2) the gravitational acceleration.
Undisturbed samples were also used for soil moisture determina-
tion. For both laboratory penetration resistance and penetration re-
sistance at the field, twenty points distributed in the experimental area
were sampled at the soil surface depth (0.10 m).
Regarding the PR curves, the relationship between PR and θ in as-
sociation with BD to the nonlinear model was adjusted according to the
procedure described by Silva et al. (1994) by the equation: PR = d θe
BDf. Where: PR is the soil penetration resistance (MPa); θ is the volu-
metric soil water content (cm3 cm−3); d, e and f are the coefficients
obtained with data fitting to the equations; and BD is the bulk density (g
cm−3).
was calculated by the equation: θAP = [1 − (BD / PD)] − 0.10. Where:
θAP is the volumetric soil water content when air-filled porosity is 0.10
cm3 cm−3; BD refers to the bulk density (g cm−3); PD is particle density
(g cm−3) and 0.10 cm3 cm−3 is pore space occupied by air.
Therefore, for each area, the LLWR was determined based on the
values of θFC, θPWP, θAP e θPR, using the criteria proposed by Silva et al.
(1994), where if θAP ≥ θFC and θPR ≤ θPWP, interpretation:
LLWR = θFC − θPWP; if θAP ≥ θFC and θPR ≥ θPWP, interpretation:
LLWR = θFC − θPR; if θAP ≤ θFC and θPR ≤ θPWP, interpretation:
LLWR = θAP − θPWP; if θAP ≤ θFC and θPR ≥ θPWP, interpretation:
LLWR = θAP − θPR.
Critical bulk density is associated with the impediment of plant root
growth and corresponds to the bulk density value when the LLWR is
zero (Kaiser et al., 2009). Beneficial bulk density is associated with a
compaction that changes the structure of the soil and promotes im-
provements associated with the absorption of water and nutrients
(Resende et al., 2007), as well as improvements to plant development
and transformation of part of the macropores into micropores, resulting
in increased crop productivity, especially in the driest years (Freddi
et al., 2009). In summary, beneficial bulk density refers to the beneficial
effect caused by increased bulk density.
2.6. Preconsolidation pressure
The uniaxial compression test performed was based on the metho-
dology proposed by Bowles (1986). The consolidometer was Durham
GeoSlope®, model S-450 Terraload. Samples from dry and rainy seasons
were submitted to the following pressures: 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
and 1600 kPa on the consolidometer (Dias Júnior, 1994) and each
pressure was applied up to 90% of the pressure corresponding to the
maximum deformation.
The σp was obtained at the compression curve as proposed by Dias
Júnior and Pierce (1995) as a function of the gravimetric soil moisture,
using the equation: σp = 10(a + bGW) to generate the soil load bearing
capacity model, where: σp is the preconsolidation pressure; a and b are
the parameters estimated by the model; GW is the gravimetric water
content.

2.7. Statistical analysis

2.5. Least limiting water range (LLWR)
The interaction between BD, PR, soil moisture (θ) and matric po-
tential (Ψm) determined the LLWR. For water retention curves, the
relationship between θ and Ψm, associated with BD, was adjusted by
the model proposed by Leão et al. (2006): θ = Exp (a + b BD) Ψmc,
where: θ is the volumetric soil water content (cm3 cm−3); a, b and c are
the coefficients obtained by data fitting to the equations and Ψm is the
matric potential (MPa); and BD is the bulk density (g cm−3).
The LLWR was determined by the methodology proposed by Silva
et al. (1994) and Tormena et al. (1998). A limiting value of 2.0 MPa was
adopted for the determination of PR (Taylor et al., 1966). Volumetric
soil water content at field capacity (θFC) and volumetric soil water
content at permanent wilting point (θPWP) were estimated in −6 and
−1500 kPa respectively (Teixeira et al., 2017). The air-filled porosity
All statistical analyzes were performed using R software (R Core
Team, 2019). To observe the effect of matric potential on soil pene-
tration resistance according to each management studied, exponential
models (PR = a * Ψmb) were adjusted as proposed by Vaz et al. (2011).
The parameters of the LLWR curves [water content in aeration per-
centage (AP), water content at FC, water content at PWP and water
content at PR of 2 MPa as a function of BD] were determined by the nls
function of the stats package (R Core Team, 2019). The load carrying
capacity model, which predicted the σp as a function of the gravimetric
soil moisture and the matric potential, were individually generated by
the nls function of the stats package (R Core Team, 2019), while the
confidence intervals of each model was generated using the bootstrap
technique using the nlsBoot function of the nlstools package (Baty et al.,
2015).

3
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
The PR at the rainy season was compared between treatments as a
function of different matric potentials using the confidence interval
overlap (p < 0.05), while the PR of the dry period was compared
between treatments and determination methods by Tukey test
(p < 0.05). This last comparison was performed according to the
presence or absence of interaction between the factors studied, in-
dicated by the F test in the variance analysis (p < 0.05). Bulk density
was only compared between treatments using the Tukey test
(p < 0.05). The anova function of the statistics package was used to
perform the variance analysis and to perform the Tukey test for mul-
tiple comparisons, using the Tukey test function of the agricolae
package (Mendiburu, 2019). A simple correlation study of pearson was
also performed between field and laboratory PR using the correl func-
tion of the agricolae package (Mendiburu, 2019).
Multiple regression was performed to predict σp as a function of soil
moisture and PR, 72 samples from the initial sampling were used, using
the lm function of the stats package (R Core Team, 2019). Multiple
regression validation was performed with the Faraway package vif
function (Faraway, 2016) and for the regression validation after six
months, 20 samples (corresponding to 30% of the 72 samples used to
create the model) were analyzed by comparing the observed values and
those predicted by the model, and their variance homogeneity was
assessed by the Levene test using the car package levene Test function
(Fox and Weisberg, 2011). According to homoscedasticity or hetero-
scedasticity, the observed and predicted values were compared by the t
test by the t test function of the stats package (R Core Team, 2019) and
Pearson's simple correlation analysis was also performed using the
observed and predicted values by the model through the correl function
of the agricultural package (Mendiburu, 2019).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. LLWR on the soil compaction diagnosis
Fig. 1A shows that all studied treatments, except the reference area,
have their LLWR’s limited by the penetration resistance, showing the
importance of this factor regarding water availability for plants in
highly weathered soils. The reference area showed a LLWR that has not
yet reached its maximum, being limited only by the PWP and FC. A
slight compaction in this area would increase the LLWR due to structure
modification, this is, particles rearrangement and porosity modifica-
tion. According to Zangiabadi et al. (2017), in general, soils with
smaller pore sizes as well as greater size diversity can generally lead to
an increase in LLWR limits. However, in our study it is observed a
Fig. 1. Prediction indicators of soil compaction by volumetric water content (θ cm3 cm−3) (A) and least limiting water range (LLWR cm3 cm−3) (B) as a function of
bulk density; Volumetric water content in aeration porosity (θ AP), in field capacity (θ FC), in permanent wilting point (θ PWP) and in soil PR of 2 MPa (θ PR); AWC:
available water content (cm cm−3). Br, Br + L, Br + N, Ref: confidence interval (95%) respectively to Brachiaria, Brachiaria with leguminous, Brachiaria with
nitrogen fertilization (150 kg ha−1) and reference area. BD-Benef: Beneficial bulk density; BD-Crit: Bulk density where LLWR is zero.
4
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
restriction of LLWR limits with animal trampling (Table 3), which could
be a consequence of the rearrangement of soil particles promoted by the
load carrying.
The beneficial bulk density in these areas is close to 1.27 g cm−3
and the confidence interval of Br + L and Br + N treatments exceeds
this value. This indicates a possible degradation with animal trampling
and also no increase in LLWR that could be promoted by the increment
of biomass from nitrogen treatment or legumes intercropped, possibly
due to the greater animals trampling (Table 3). Thus, LLWR is a tool
that can help mitigate the harmful effects of soil compaction (Romero
et al., 2014).
In agreement with the results obtained in our study, Chen et al.
(2014) concluded that, mainly in soils with higher clay content, the
effects of compaction reduce the LLWR in soils, with the restriction
given at the upper limit by AP and the lower limit by PR. In sandy soils,
LLWR reduction is mainly associated with PR, which is the lower limit
of LLWR. For our study, this statement is valid for all Brachiaria man-
agements (Fig. 1A), all of them have LLWR limited by AP and PR.
It is noteworthy that the compacting effect of the animals was more
decisive than the biological decompressing effect of the vegetation
cover, either by the root system of the plants or by the soil fauna, an
effect on the soil structure that has already been reported by Flávio
Neto et al. (2015). According to Carvalho et al. (2018), the increase in
the number of animals in each pasture management, that is, intensive
pastures, may lead to the emergence of larger uncovered areas due to
increased grazing pressure. However, managements that increase bio-
mass production, allow the increase in the stocking rate, which agrees
with the direct relationship between biomass production and higher
number of animals in the Br + N area. According to Oliveira et al.
(2007), considering phytotechnical, zootechnical and edaphic factors in
the stocking rate decision can guarantee the sustainability of the
system.
The available water capacity data (Fig. 1B) corroborate the pre-
viously mentioned results, since it shows that the reference area can
still have this variable increased with its bulk density increase. Al-
though confidence intervals of the management areas have overlapped,
only the Br treatment reached the beneficial bulk density, indicating
that the structuring action of the vegetation cover at an adequate
stocking rate contributed to reach a beneficial compaction degree
(Flávio Neto et al., 2015).
3.2. PR at different matric potentials on the soil compaction diagnosis
Fig. 2 shows that the management with nitrogen fertilization, as
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
Fig. 2. Prediction indicators of soil compaction by penetration resistance (PR)
as a function of matric potential. Br, Br + L, Br + N, Ref: confidence interval
(95%) respectively to Brachiaria, Brachiaria with leguminous, Brachiaria with
nitrogen fertilization (150 kg ha−1) and reference area.
well as the intercropping with legumes, are not sufficient to approx-
imate the PR determined in the laboratory to the conditions under
native forest (Ref), at different matric potentials. All treatments are
statistically similar in terms of PR and differ from the conditions found
at the Ref. This result can be explained because the efficiency of in-
tercropped legume management depends on several factors (Paulino
and Paulino, 2003) and this management alone can not be sufficient to
supply all the nitrogen required. In this case, in addition to the inter-
cropping with legumes, the physical attributes would be enhanced with
additional mineral fertilization. According to Kermah et al. (2018), the
beneficial effect of intercropping with legumes is less observed in
poorly fertile soils, while in fertile soils, the benefit of legumes can
expand to physical attributes such as improved soil structure. It was
then expected that nitrogen fertilization management would most clo-
sely resemble the conditions of the reference area, but in this case, the
more intense animal trampling eliminated the effect of Brachiaria’s
higher biomass production on Br + N treatment (Table 3).
As there is a controversy in soil compaction diagnosis regarding the
evaluation of penetration resistance under wetter or drier conditions
(Peixoto et al., 2019), it is necessary to study and adopt new tools for
soil compaction prediction. Vaz et al. (2011) stated that the increase in
PR by moisture decrease can be explained by the greater contribution of
adhesion forces between the soil and the penetrometer, and at lower
water content this force becomes more determinant. This is in line with
the greater soil fragility when compacted under greater water contents,
while under drier conditions, the limit at which PR begins to be limiting
is much higher. Penetration resistance is so influenced by water content
that PTF are proposed in the literature to estimate the former mea-
surement as a function of the latter, with high prediction coefficients
(Almeida et al., 2008).
To then suggest new tools associated with soil compaction predic-
tion, in order to make easier to obtain PR data, comparative measure-
ments with the field impact penetrometer and bench penetrometer were
performed 6 months after the first sampling, showing a significant
difference between these two methods presented (Fig. 3A). Laboratory
measurements may be underestimated due to the possibility of frag-
mentation of soil structure during the sampling with metal rings, a fact
5
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
that is difficult to estimate and avoid. Even so, the correlation between
the methods showed a coefficient of 0.79 (Fig. 3B), with PR at field
presenting constant increases in relation to bench penetration re-
sistance.
Impact penetrometers (or field dynamic hammer penetrometers)
generally have higher PR values compared to bench electronic penet-
rometers, but with a high correlation between them (Beutler et al.,
2006), thus making it possible to create mathematical functions to
predict one measurement by having another. This enables farmers with
lack access to laboratories to make use of the impact penetrometer,
which is easier to acquire, build and handle. This development is very
important especially for small farmers and may increase productivity
and encourages adequate decision making on soil management.
It was observed that the Br + L treatment presented the lowest PR
for both conservative methods (Br + L and Br + N) and, therefore,
would be the most indicated between the two managements to avoid
soil compaction caused by animal trampling (Fig. 3A). Even with this
lower PR value, the management with Br + L was not different from
the Br treatment and Br did not differ from the Br + N. Therefore, there
were no benefits with the installation of different soil managements
regarding PR in pastures.
According to Bayat et al. (2017), little vegetative cover may in-
crease PR values, and free grazing is the method that would most da-
mage soil physical condition, followed by controlled grazing and ab-
sence of grazing. Bayat et al. (2017) reinforced that animal trampling,
especially in wetter conditions, can significantly increase soil penetra-
tion resistance, since high plasticity index values indicate more plastic
soils and greater susceptibility to compaction (Keller and Dexter, 2012).
Then, a small increase in PR could increase the water storage and plants
support capacity.
3.3. Preconsolidation pressure and its prediction by penetration resistance
on the soil compaction diagnosis
Another tool proposed to be used on the prediction of soil com-
paction is a PTF seeking to infer the σp from the PR and soil moisture.
Thus, from Fig. 4A it is observed that the correlations performed were
highly significant, indicating that the increase in the predicted σp in-
creases the observed σp. However, for the PR measured in the field, the
values predicted by the model are higher than the observed PR. The PR
determined in the laboratory showed similar values for the ones pre-
dicted by the model and the observed ones, regardless the soil moisture
determination method. However, when the field PR was adjusted by the
equation proposed by Fig. 3B, the predicted σp maintained a high
correlation with the observed σp and there was no difference between
the model predicted values and the observed values, either using
gravimetric or volumetric water content (4B).
Other papers have been published aiming to simplify the determi-
nation of σp by using PTF (Horn and Fleige, 2003; Fritton 2008) with
other soil properties such as texture, bulk density and organic matter
content. Since PR is an easily measurement performed in the field, the
use of PTF based on it not only simplifies the method, but also saves
time in determining σp compared to determining soil load bearing ca-
pacity, and can be used as an auxiliary decision criteria concerning
mechanized operations (Dias Júnior et al., 2004). Then, as shown in our
study, σp can be used for other purposes such as the compaction di-
agnosis in pasture areas.
Fig. 5 presents the same representation of the data previously
shown, but only with the PR data determined in laboratory and in the
field with the transformation to laboratory PR, since these were sta-
tistically similar to the observed data. There are different evaluations
regarding soil moisture at Fig. 5, which is expressed as weight (g g−1)
(5A) and volume (cm3 cm−3) (5B) as a function of σp (kPa) predicted
by the proposed PTF.
When performing an accurate analysis of Fig. 5, it is generally ob-
served that regardless of whether water content is based on weight or
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al. Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647

Fig. 3. Soil penetration resistance (PR) as a function of different treatments and determination methods (A) and correlation between soil penetration resistance in
field (PR-Fie) and laboratory (PR-Lab) (B). Br: cultive of brachiaria; Br + L: cultive of brachiaria with leguminous; Br + N: cultive of brachiaria with nitrogen
fertilization (150 kg ha−1). Ref: reference area. MP: matricial potential (kPa). Lab: PR in Laboratory; Fie: PR in Field. Bars followed by the same capital letter or
minuscule letter not differ the determination methods or different treatments respectively, by Tukey test (p < 0.05).

volume, statistically equal values of σp are obtained. Another inter-
pretation that can be taken from Fig. 5 is that for each water content
range found in the graph, a σp value can be associated. This would
make easier to obtain preconsolidation pressure, since it is considered a
complex measurement from the practical point of view and data in-
terpretation by many farmers. Thus, for the management with Br + N,
higher values of σp were observed, followed by the management Br and
Br + L, respectively.
This analysis based on nomograms is very practical and can be
widely explored and used by producers in their agricultural areas. From
the application of the PTF proposed in this work, the decision making
regarding the measurement of the pressure applied to the soil and the
additional compaction identification will have greater applicability and
may be of great help for decision-making, such as the optimal stocking
rate. According to Carmo et al. (2011), different management systems
practiced in agriculture over the years with the adoption of techniques
that mitigate soil compaction are of great interest, which is possible,
based on the use of load-bearing capacity models (Dias Júnior, 1994).
In fact, it was seen that, when converting the area given as a re-
ference to the pasture area, soil structural alteration occurred, which
promoted significant improvements to the pasture establishment. Thus,
assuming a certain compaction degree in agricultural systems is an al-
ternative associated to the use of the pasture area. This fact leads to the
use of new tools in predicting soil compaction such as σp as a function
of moisture.
The soil load bearing capacity model (Fig. 6) shows that the ob-
servations at the studied managements are within the confidence in-
terval, unlike the reference area, which is located in the area below the
confidence interval. This implies that there was no additional com-
paction in the soil under different managements, but they show an
additional compaction tendency, whereas Ref behavior indicates no
compaction at all. This compaction tendency could be promoted by
intense animal trampling, as according to Dias Júnior and Pierce
(1995). Keller et al. (2004) stated that in order to not promote addi-
tional compaction and to not compromise the soil structure, the pres-
sure exerted by machinery, agricultural implement or even the animal

Fig. 4. Correlation between observed (σp– Ob) and predicted (σp– Pr) preconsolidation pressure (A) and preconsolidation pressure (σp) as a function of different
determination methods (B). Ob: σp observed; PGL: σp predicted by gravimetric soil moisture (GSM) and soil penetration resistance (PR) in laboratory (L); PVL: σp
predicted by volumetric soil moisture (VSM) and PR in L; PGF: σp predicted by GSM and PR in field (F); PVL: σp predicted by VSM and PR in F. PGL: σp predicted by
GSM and PR in F corrected by equation in Fig. 2 (FC); PVL: σp predicted by VSM and PR in FC. **: correlation significative (p < 0.01). predicted values not differ
(NS) or differ (S) from observed values by t-test (p < 0.05).

6
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
Fig. 5. Preconsolidation pressure (σp) in function of gravimetric soil moisture x soil penetration resistance (PR) (A) and volumetric soil moisture x PR (B). Each
different value of preconsolidation pressure has a standard error.
trampling should not exceed the σp.
It is also suggested that as the soil becomes drier, the confidence
interval of the load bearing capacity increases, inferring that in drier
conditions the workability range is larger, that is, there is a smaller
tendency of the area to suffer compaction (Fig. 6). At lower water
contents, it is noticed that the σp values are higher, agreeing with the
lower compaction susceptibility and higher capacity to support higher
animal load and machine traffic.
There are, therefore, several properties capable of identifying soil
compaction, but only σp can estimate the pressure levels that can be
applied to the soil and prevent further compaction from occurring
(Martins et al., 2012). The work proposed by Iori et al. (2012) discusses
the effects of native forest conversion to pasture, revealing an increase
in load carrying capacity in soils, which is similar to our study, since the
soil in our study increased its carrying capacity during the conversion of
an area taken as a reference to pasture (Fig. 6).
It is noteworthy that the effect of animal trampling on soil com-
paction will vary with other factors, for example, soil particle size,
7
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
pasture height, pasture management and soil moisture (Kunz et al.,
2013). Therefore, studies can be found where compaction was not ob-
served in soils with the presence of animals and their trampling, as in
the case of Kunz et al. (2013), where animal trampling did not change
bulk density and porosity, which shows that animal trampling will not
always cause compaction.
4. Conclusions
The determination of the penetration resistance using the impact
penetrometer or field penetrometer has proved to be an important and
practical tool in predicting compaction by using a mathematical func-
tion, which means that soil compaction can be monitored more con-
stantly and with less costs. In addition, the proposed PTF showed no
differences between predicted and observed values of σp, using both
penetration resistance and water content data, showing to be an effi-
cient tool in the soil compaction prediction.
The compression curve demonstrates that the studied managements
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
Fig. 6. Prediction indicators of soil compaction by load support capacity of soil
as a function of gravimetric soil moisture (D). σp: preconsolidation pressure
(MPa). The area above the confidence interval shows additional compaction,
the region between the limits of confidence interval shows compaction ten-
dency, region below the confidence interval do not show additional compac-
tion.
have similar behavior, showing a slight tendency to soil compaction
and water restriction compared to the reference area which could be
associated to the animal trampling. The least limiting water range
shows a compaction diagnosis at the pasture areas when compared to
the reference area, however, the load bearing capacity shows only a
slight trend to soil compaction without it effectively occurring, in-
dicating that nitrogen fertilization on Brachiaria improves the animal
stocking rate.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Department of Soil Science of
the Federal University of Lavras in particular Professor Geraldo César
de Oliveira, the PhD student Devison Souza Peixoto, for their support in
conducting the experiment, and the Department of Animal Science, in
particular Professor Thiago Fernandes Bernardes. The authors would
also like to thank the National Council of Technological and Scientific
Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel (CAPES), and the Foundation for Research Support
of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for financial support. Bruno
Montoani Silva also thank CNPq for grant number 312799/2018-7.
References
Almeida, C.X.de., Centurion, J.F., Freddi, O.da.S., Jorge, R.F., Barbosa, J.C., 2008.
Funções de pedotransferência para a curva de resistência do solo à penetração. Rev.
Bras. Ciência do Solo 32, 2235–2243. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
06832008000600003.
Baty, F., Ritz, C., Charles, S., Brutsche, M., Flandrois, J.-P., Delignette-Muller, M.-L., et al.,
2015. A toolbox for nonlinear regression in R: the package nlstools. J. Stat. Softw. 66,
1–21.
8
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
Bayat, H., Sheklabadi, M., Moradhaseli, M., Ebrahimi, E., 2017. Effects of slope aspect,
grazing, and sampling position on the soil penetration resistance curve. Geoderma
303, 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.003.
Bécel, C., Vercambre, G., Pagès, L., 2012. Soil penetration resistance, a suitable soil
property to account for variations in root elongation and branching. Plant Soil 353,
169–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1020-7.
Beutler, A.N., Centurion, J.F., Da Silva, A.P., Barbosa, J.C., 2006. Intervalo hídrico ótimo
e produtividade de cultivares de soja. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 639–645.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662006000300015.
Bowles, J.A., 1986. Engineering Properties of Soils and their Measurements, third ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Carmo, D.L.do., Nannetti, D.C., Júnior, D., de Souza, M., Santo, E., Nannetti, A.N.,
Lacerda, T.M., et al., 2011. Propriedades físicas de um Latossolo Vermelho-Amarelo
cultivado com cafeeiro em três sistemas de manejo no sul de Minas Gerais. Rev. Bras.
Ciênc. Solo. 35, 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832011000300033.
Carvalho, P.C.F., Barro, R., Neto, A., Nunes, P.A.A., de Moraes, A., Anghinoni, I., et al.,
2018. Integrating the pastoral component in agricultural systems. R. Bras. Zootec. 47.
https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4720170001.
Chen, G., Weil, R.R., Hill, R.L., 2014. Effects of compaction and cover crops on soil least
limiting water range and air permeability. Soil Till. Res. 136, 61–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.still.2013.09.004.
Colombi, T., Torres, L.C., Walter, A., Keller, T., 2018. Feedbacks between soil penetration
resistance, root architecture and water uptake limit water accessibility and crop
growth – a vicious circle. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.129.
Dias Júnior, M.de.S., 1994. Compression of Three Soils under Long-Term Tillage and
Wheel Traffic. Michigan State University. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences.
Dias Júnior, M.S., Pierce, F.J., 1995. A simple procedure for estimating preconsolidation
pressure from soil compression curves. Soil Technol. 8, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0933-3630(95)00015-8.
Dias Júnior, M.S., Silva, A.R., Fonseca, S., Leite, F.P., 2004. Método alternativo de
avaliação da pressão de preconsolidação por meio de um penetrômetro. R. Bras.
Cienc. Solo 28, 805–810. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832004000500002.
Faraway, J., 2016. faraway: Functions and Datasets for Books by Julian Faraway. URL
https//CRAN.
Flávio Neto, J., Severiano, E.da.C., Costa, K.A.de.P., Junnyor, W.S.G., Gonçalves, W.G.,
Andrade, R., 2015. Biological soil loosening by grasses from genus Brachiaria in crop-
livestock integration. Acta Sci. Agron. 37, 375–383. https://doi.org/10.4025/
actasciagron.v37i3.19392.
Fox, J., Weisberg, S., 2011. Multivariate linear models in R. An R Companion to Appl.
Regression. Los Angeles Thousand Oaks.
Freddi, O.da.S., Centurion, J.F., Duarte, A.P., Peres, F.S.C., 2009. Compactação do solo e
produção de cultivares de milho em Latossolo Vermelho: II-Intervalo hídrico ótimo e
sistema radicular. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 33, 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-06832009000400006.
Fritton, D.D., 2008. Evaluation of pedotransfer and measurement approaches to avoid soil
compaction. Soil Till. Res. 99, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.03.004.
Haghverdi, A., Cornelis, W.M., Ghahraman, B., 2012. A pseudo-continuous neural net-
work approach for developing water retention pedotransfer functions with limited
data. J. Hydrol. 442, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.036.
Horn, R., Fleige, H., 2003. A method for assessing the impact of load on mechanical
stability and on physical properties of soils. Soil Till. Res. 73, 89–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00102-8.
Iori, P., Júnior, D., de Souza, M., da Silva, R.B., 2012. Resistência do solo à penetração e
ao cisalhamento em diversos usos do solo em áreas de preservação permanente.
Biosci. J. 185–195.
Kaiser, D.R., Reinert, D.J., Reichert, J.M., Collares, G.L., Kunz, M., 2009. Intervalo hídrico
ótimo no perfil explorado pelas raízes de feijoeiro em um Latossolo sob diferentes
níveis de compactação. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 33, 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0100-06832009000400009.
Keller, T., Dexter, A.R., 2012. Plastic limits of agricultural soils as functions of soil texture
and organic matter content. Soil Res. 50, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR11174.
Keller, T., Arvidsson, J., Dawidowski, J.B., Koolen, A.J., 2004. Soil precompression stress:
II. A comparison of different compaction tests and stress–displacement behaviour of
the soil during wheeling. Soil Tillage Res. 77, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2003.11.003.
Kermah, M., Franke, A.C., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Ahiabor, B.D.K., Abaidoo, R.C., Giller, K.E.,
2018. N2-fixation and N contribution by grain legumes under different soil fertility
status and cropping systems in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 261, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.08.028.
Klute, A., 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. Methods soil Anal. part 1—physical
Mineral. methods 635–662.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F., 2006. World map of the Köppen-
Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15, 259–263. https://doi.org/10.
1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.
Kunz, M., Gonçalves, A.D.M.de.A., Reichert, J.M., Guimarães, R.M.L., Reinert, D.J.,
Rodrigues, M.F., 2013. Compactação do solo na integração soja-pecuária de leite em
Latossolo argiloso com semeadura direta e escarificação. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 37,
1699–1708. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832013000600026.
Leão, T.P., Silva, A.P., Macedo, M.C.M., Imhoff, S., Euclides, V.P.B., 2006. Least limiting
water range: a potential indicator of changes in near-surface soil physical quality
after the conversion of Brazilian Savanna into pasture. Soil Till. Res. 88, 279–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.06.014.
Lebert, M., Böken, H., Glante, F., 2007. Soil compaction-indicators for the assessment of
harmful changes to the soil in the context of the German Federal Soil Protection Act.
J. Environ. Manage. 82, 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.022.
P.A.N. Benevenute, et al.
Luz, F.B., Silva, V.R., Mallmann, F.J.K., Pires, C.A.B., Debiasi, H., Franchini, J.C.,
Cherubin, M.R., 2019. Monitoring soil quality changes in diversified agricultural
cropping systems by the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) in
southern Brazil. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 281, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2019.05.006.
Martins, P.C.C., Dias Junior, M.de.S., Andrade, M.L.de.C., Guimarães, P.T.G., 2012.
Compaction caused by mechanized operations in a Red-Yellow Latosol cultivated
with coffee over time. Ciênc. e Agrotec. 36, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S1413-70542012000400002.
Mendiburu, F., 2019. Package ‘agricolae.’ R Packag. version 1–2.
Oliveira, G.C., Severiano, E.C., Mello, C.R., 2007. Dinâmica da resistência à penetração de
um Latossolo Vermelho da Microrregião de Goiânia, GO. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc.
Ambient. 11, 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662007000300004.
Paulino, V.T., Paulino, T.S., 2003. Avanços no manejo de pastagens consorciadas. Rev.
Científica Eletrônica Agron. ano II, 1–27.
Peixoto, D.S., Silva, B.M., de Oliveira, G.C., Moreira, S.G., da Silva, F., Curi, N., 2019. A
soil compaction diagnosis method for occasional tillage recommendation under
continuous no tillage system in Brazil. Soil Till. Res. 194, 104307. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.still.2019.104307.
R Core Team, 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. URL
https://www.r-project.org/.
Reichert, J.M., Albuquerque, J.A., Gubiani, P.I., Kaiser, D.R., Minella, J.P.G., Reinert,
D.J., 2011. Hidrologia do solo, disponibilidade de água ás plantas e zoneamento
agroclimático. Tópicos Especiais em Ciência do Solo.
Resende, M., Curi, N., Rezende, S.B. de, Corrêa, G.F., 2007. Pedologia: base para distinção
de ambientes. Lavras Ed. UFLA.
Romero, E.M., Ruiz, H.A., Fernandes, R.B.A., da Costa, L.M., 2014. Condutividade
hidráulica, porosidade, resistência mecânica e intervalo hídrico ótimo em Latossolos
artificialmente compactados. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 18, 1003–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v18n10p1003-1009.
SBCS, 2018. Brazilian Soil Classification System. Embrapa Solos-Livro técnico
(INFOTECA-E).
Serafim, M.E., Oliveira, G.C., Vitorino, A.C.T., Silva, B.M., Carducci, C.E., 2013.
Qualidade física e intervalo hídrico ótimo em Latossolo e Cambissolo, cultivados com
cafeeiro, sob manejo conservacionista do solo. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo. 37 (3),
733–742.
Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106647
Severiano, E.da.C., Oliveira, G.C.de, Dias Júnior, M.de.S., Costa, K.A.de.P., Silva, F.G.,
Ferreira Filho, S.M., 2011. Structural changes in latosols of the cerrado region: I -
relationships between soil physical properties and least limiting water range. Rev.
Bras. Ciênc. Solo 35, 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
06832011000300013.
Silva, B.M., dos Santos, W.J.R., de Oliveira, G.C., de Lima, J.M., Curi, N., Marques, J.J.,
2015. Soil Moisture space-time analysis to support improved crop management.
Ciênc. Agrotec. 39, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542015000100005.
Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., Perfect, E., 1994. Characterization of the Least Limiting Water
Range of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. 58, 1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.
03615995005800060028x.
Soil Survey Staff, 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. United States Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv.
Serv. Washington, DC.
Stolf, R., 1991. Teoria e teste experimental de fórmulas de transformação dos dados de
penetrômetro de impacto em resistência de solo. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 15, 229–235.
Taylor, H.M., Roberson, G.M., Parker Jr, J.J., 1966. Soil strength-root penetration rela-
tions for medium-to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Sci. 102, 18–22.
Teixeira, P.C., Donagemma, G.K., Fontana, A., Teixeira, W.G., 2017. Manual de métodos
de análise de solo. Embrapa Solos, Brasília.
Tormena, C.A., da Silva, A.P., Libardi, P.L., 1998. Caracterização do intervalo hídrico
ótimo de um Latossolo Roxo sob plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 22, 573–581.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06831998000400002.
Vasques, I.C.F., Souza, A.A., Morais, E.G., Benevenute, P.A.N., de Silva, L.C.M.d., Homem,
B.G.C., Casagrande, D.R., Silva, B.M., 2019. Improved management increases car-
rying capacity of Brazilian pastures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 282, 30–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.017.
Vaz, C.M.P., Manieri, J.M., Maria, I.C., Tuller, M., 2011. Modeling and correction of soil
penetration resistance for varying soil water content. Geoderma 166 (1), 92–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.016.
Xu, Y., Jimenez, M.A., Parent, S.-É., Leblanc, M., Ziadi, N., Parent, L.E., 2017. Compaction
of coarse-textured soils: balance models across mineral and organic compositions.
Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00083.
Zangiabadi, M., Gorji, M., Shorafa, M., Khorasani, S.K., Saadat, S., 2017. Effects of soil
pore size distribution on plant available water and least limiting water range as soil
physical quality indicators. Pedosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(17)
60473-9.