See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229663757

Soil compaction and soil management - A review

Article  in  Soil Use and Management · September 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00236.x

CITATIONS READS

336 2,012

1 author:

T. Batey
University of Aberdeen
39 PUBLICATIONS   954 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil Nitrogen Status View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. Batey on 10 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SoilUse
and Management
Soil Use and Management, December 2009, 25, 335–345 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00236.x

Soil compaction and soil management – a review

T. Batey
Formerly University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract
Soil compaction is an important component of the land degradation syndrome which is an issue for
soil management throughout the world. It is a long standing phenomenon not only associated with
agriculture but also with forest harvesting, amenity land use, pipeline installation, land restoration and
wildlife trampling. This review concentrates on the impact of soil compaction on practical soil man-
agement issues, an area not previously reviewed. It discusses in the context of the current situation,
the causes, identification, effects and alleviation of compaction. The principal causes are when com-
pressive forces derived from wheels, tillage machinery and from the trampling of animals, act on com-
pressible soil. Compact soils can also be found under natural conditions without human or animal
involvement. Compaction alters many soil properties and adverse effects are mostly linked to a reduc-
tion in permeability to air, water and roots. Many methods can be used to measure the changes. In
practical situations, the use of visual and tactile methods directly in the field is recommended. The
worst problems tend to occur when root crops and vegetables are harvested from soils at or wetter
than field capacity. As discussed by a farmer, the effects on crop uniformity and quality (as well as a
reduction in yield) can be marked. By contrast, rendzinas and other calcareous soils growing mainly
cereals are comparatively free of compaction problems. The effect of a given level of compaction is
related to both weather and climate; where soil moisture deficits are large, a restriction in root depth
may have severe effects but the same level of compaction may have a negligible effect where moisture
deficits are small. Topsoil compaction in sloping landscapes enhances runoff and may induce erosion
particularly along wheeltracks, with consequent off-farm environmental impacts. Indirect effects of
compaction include denitrification which is likely to lead to nitrogen deficiency in crops. The effects of
heavy tractors and harvesters can to some extent be compensated for by a reduction in tyre pressures
although there is concern that deep-seated compaction may occur. Techniques for loosening compac-
tion up to depths of 45 cm are well established but to correct deeper problems presents difficulties.
Several authors recommend that monitoring of soil physical conditions, including compaction, should
be part of routine soil management.

Keywords: soil compaction, soil management

(2009) along with soil erosion and organic matter decline

Introduction
Soil compaction is a particularly important issue in the
broad field of soil management. It is one component of the
land degradation ‘syndrome’; others include loss of organic
matter, crusting, slaking, hard-setting and anaerobism. Soil
compaction can also be one of the causal agents of soil ero-
sion, nutrient depletion and pollution which are key issues
brought up in many recent reports by the UN and other
international organisations (Hartemink, 2008). In England it
has been identified as one of the three key threats to the agri-
cultural and environmental productivity of soils by DEFRA
Correspondence: T. Batey. E-mail: 2033@tombatey.f2.com
Received July 2009; accepted after revision July 2009
which ‘we are required to address’. It is also important to be
aware that soil compaction is a phenomenon associated not
only with agriculture, but also with forest harvesting, amen-
ity land use (e.g. localised trampling), pipeline installation,
land restoration and wildlife pathways.
Soil compaction is not a recent phenomenon. It was
encountered in the form of plough-pans long before the
advent of mechanised agriculture. Current farming tech-
niques, however, exacerbate the risks. For example, since
1990, Stalham et al. (2005) point out that there has been a
major change in the methods of cultivation for potatoes
which has increased rather than decreased the risk of creat-
ing poor soil conditions, including compaction. Increase in
field size can contribute to compaction too, Kok et al.

ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science 335
336 T. Batey

(1996). The axle weight of tractors, harvesters and trailers

Causes of compaction
has increased and the impact assessed (Anonymous, 1994;
Hakansson, 1994; Van den Akker et al., 2003; Godwin et al., The principal causes of compaction are compressive forces
2008). This increased weight, although mitigated by control- applied to compressible soil from wheels under tractors, trail-
ling tyre pressures, is a matter of major concern. ers and harvesters, during the passage of tillage implements
Concern over the extent of land affected by soil com- through the soil (particularly powered rotary equipment) and
paction is widespread; it was recorded as affecting some from pressure under the hooves of livestock or other animals
33 million hectares in Europe (Oldeman et al. 1991, cited (Mulholland & Fullen, 1991; Davies et al., 1992; Milne &
by Birkas, 2008). The latter also produced figures from Haynes, 2004). The shear ⁄ sliding forces caused by wheelslip
several sources which showed that 37.5% of the 54 M under driven wheels is a particularly potent source of
hectares of total agricultural land in seven countries in compaction (Davies et al., 1973) (Figure 1).
Eastern Europe were affected by human-induced soil com- Severe compaction is often associated with timber harvest-
paction. Preliminary estimates have suggested that in ing (Hutchings et al., 2002; Schack-Kirchner et al., 2007)
Africa the area of degradation attributable to compaction and industrial activities such as the extraction of minerals
may be more than 18 Mha. A survey of 602 commercial (Sinnett et al., 2006), the installation of underground pipe-
potato fields in the UK between 1992 and 2004 revealed lines (Spoor, 2006) and on remodelled landscapes where
that in two-thirds of fields, a soil resistance sufficient to heavy machinery has been used (Batey & McKenzie, 2006).
limit root growth was present in some part of the poten- Hakansson (1985) found in his situation that an axle load
tial rooting profile, (Stalham et al., 2005). Concern about of 10 tonnes increased soil bulk density and soil strength to
the depth and persistence of subsoil compaction, particu- a depth of 50 cm. Furthermore, compaction may be very
larly in Sweden, was expressed by Etana & Hakansson persistent in the subsoil, even permanent (Hakansson et al.,
(1994), Hakansson & Reeder (1994). In Scotland, however, 1988). Harvest of timber can create deep ruts (Schack-Kirch-
investigations into soil resilience (Debeljak et al., 2009) ner et al., 2007) which may persist for many years (Hutch-
produced maps of stability to compression and found that ings et al., 2002). In situations of industrial compaction, the
lowland arable soils were predominantly highly stable with depth of compaction may extend to depths of 1 m or more
regard to compression; Towers et al. (2006) concluded that (Spoor, 2006) and may persist for up to 30 years (Batey,
although compaction and structural degradation does occur 2009).
on cultivated soils in Scotland the incidence is localised Much depends on the water content and bearing capacity
and there is no clear evidence that these pose serious of the soil at the time, the pressure is applied, as well as the
threats to soil quality nationally. In most circumstances
the problem can be readily reversed. However, they went
on to recommend that consideration should be given to
the establishment of protocols to determine structure and
compaction as part of the assessment procedures for farm
monitoring and that such protocols would help fill
the gaps in knowledge on the extent and impact of
compaction.
Considerable information is available on a wide range of
aspects of soil compaction, much of which has been brought
together in reviews such as those of Soane (1983), Soane &
van Ouwerkerk (1994), Alakukku et al. (2003), Van den
Akker et al. (2003), Hamza & Anderson (2005). There is,
however, an area which has not been specifically addressed
in review form and this is related to how compaction impacts
on practical soil management issues. This review discusses in
the context of the current situation, the causes, identification
and effects of compaction and also its alleviation. All refer-
ences to compaction should strictly be ‘over-compaction’,
since the compactness of soil covers a range of conditions
from loose or under-consolidated, through an optimal state
to an adverse condition. Over-compaction can be regarded
as a universal phenomenon found in all systems of mechan-
ised land use and also where land is trampled by people, Figure 1 Plough pan in the furrow bottom of a silt loam caused by
livestock or wildlife. slipping tractor wheels and worn plough shares.

ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345

magnitude of the force applied. For some operations such as
seedbed preparation there is an opportunity to time the work
when the soil is firm and supportive. For others, such as the
harvest of root and vegetable crops the work has of neces-
sity, to be undertaken when the land is at field capacity or
wetter, thus increasing the risks of compaction. Although the
compressive forces are mostly applied direct to the surface,
the depth to which they are transmitted also depends on the
moisture profile. If the soil is dry and firm throughout the
profile, there may be no significant effect. If the surface
layers are moist and soft lying over dry soil (typical of late
summer), the upper layers may be strongly compressed. If
the surface layers are dry and firm with moist soil below,
the compression may be transmitted some way downwards
to compress the moister more vulnerable soil.
Compaction may also be found at considerable depth in
situations unrelated to the application of mechanical forces.
Field observations in Vertisols in Australia indicate that a
possible cause can be the movement to depths of over 1.5 m,
of finely aggregated topsoil, tumbling down from the surface
when cracks are open and wide. The deep incorporation of
topsoil may take place during tillage or during flood irriga-
tion or heavy rain, when the initial application of water
would wash the fine soil into the open crack (Smart, 1998;
Batey & McKenzie, 1999). When the soil rewets and
expands, the extra soil present in the subsoil will induce
compaction. Clay translocation is another possible cause of
compaction as discussed by Sullivan & Montgomery (1998).
Restrictions to root penetration, giving symptoms similar
to compaction, can also be caused by differences in clay min-
eralogy and by acid sulphate conditions. During investiga-
tions to account for persistent low yields of cereals in one
field on a farm in Lincolnshire, UK, the pattern of cracks in
the subsoil indicated a marked difference in clay minerals.
The soils were all Hanslope series (Hodge et al., 1984) with a
clay texture. Most fields showed typical intense development
of prismatic structure in the subsoil with wide cracks in sum-
mer and roots reaching depths of over 1.5 m. The cracks in
the low-yielding field were few and narrow with roots limited
to a depth of 70 cm; field evidence gave an indication that
the proportion of smectitic clay was less, an inherent differ-
ence and unrelated to mechanical compression. In soils
developed in Marine Alluvium in The Fens of eastern Eng-
land and also in north Lincolnshire, low yields of many
crops can be attributed to the restriction in root depth
because of severe acidity in the subsoil generated by acid
sulphate conditions.
Compact soil may also be created by natural processes.
For example the hard and dense indurated layers formed
during periglacial conditions (Fitzpatrick, 1956) and other
naturally occurring pans, Needham et al. (2004). Hard-set-
ting soils may form dense and impenetrable layers, unrelated
to the application of compressive forces, Mullins et al.
(1987).
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
Soil compaction and soil management 337
Identification of compaction
Many methods have been used to assess the degree of com-
paction; some have been reviewed by Hatley et al. (2005),
who also made a comparison of the expertise required by
each method. These included visual assessments based on
descriptions of soil profiles by soil survey methods (Hodgson,
1976); visual assessment of porosity and strength on a
numeric scale such as Peerlkamp (1967); semi-quantitative
visual and tactile methods Ball & Douglas, 2003 (Scotland),
Shepherd, 2000 (New Zealand), McKenzie, 2001, Daniells &
Larsen, 1991 (Australia) and that of Spoor et al. (2003) which
included an examination of the root system of an established
crop. Those of Peerlkamp, Shepherd and Spoor were consid-
ered to require no more than basic training before use.
Predictive methods based on computer modelling can be
used (DLO Smith, 1987; Tranter et al., 2007). Measurements
of bulk density, soil strength and cone penetration resistance
are commonly used as also are sensors (Sharifi et al., 2007).
However, measurements which provide point-source data
such as a penetrometer can give a misleading picture. For
example, in soils with a coarse prismatic structure, shrinkage
fissures (low resistance) provide effective pathways for water
and roots, but the soil blocks lying between would indicate
high resistance. Several authors consider it to be essential
that soil profile examination should be made to support any
measurements of bulk density and cone penetration resis-
tance (Soane et al., 1987; Hatley et al., 2005). Specific tests
for the identification of structural quality and compaction in
Figure 2 Compacted layer between 10 and 40 cm under dryland
canola (oilseed rape) in New South Wales, with better structured soil
above and below. Roots were restricted to shrinkage cracks; topsoil
waterlogging and denitrification featured during and just after major
rainfall events. SOILpak score of compact layer 0.3 contrasting with
scores of 1.6 above and below (Daniells & Larsen, 1991; McKenzie,
1998).
338 T. Batey

the field have been developed, for example by Daniells & information on soil texture, soil moisture and permeability,
Larsen (1991), McKenzie (1998) (Figure 2). the former Soil Survey of England and Wales used the
A unique comparison of 12 methods to assess structure concept of ‘machinery work days’ for each soil series to
quality was made on the same soil in northern France in provide a measure of the period when the land can be
2005; the techniques and results are described by Boizard worked without an unacceptable degree of damage (for
et al. (2007). example, for Eastern England see Hodge et al., 1984). The
In practical situations, there are advantages in using meth- concept of work days, whilst it can be useful for planning
ods which can be used directly in the field (Ball & Douglas, overall power and machinery requirements on farms, tends
2003; Spoor et al., 2003; Batey & McKenzie, 2006; Ball to fall down in practise because field tasks often have to be
et al., 2007). The field criteria used to identify compaction completed to meet demands of the market.
include waterlogging on the surface or in subsurface layers, Cannell et al. (1978) using data from many field experi-
an increase in soil strength, a reduction in visible porosity, ments concluded that a soil’s suitability for long-term no-
changes to soil structure, soil colour and particularly the dis- tillage is to a considerable extent determined by its inherent
tribution of roots and of soil moisture (Spoor et al., 2003; susceptibility to compaction. Structural stability of topsoils
Batey & McKenzie, 2006). Details of how to prepare and conferred by greater organic matter content, presence of
describe a soil in the field using visual and tactile techniques
applicable to different zones are given by Batey (1975). It
can also be helpful if a comparison is made between the soil (a)
under investigation and an area nearby which has received
little or no traffic such as that close to a fence or hedgeline.
After reviewing the different approaches, there are several
reasons why direct assessment of compaction in fields is
recommended for soil management purposes. Experience
shows that there is often a wide variation in the degree of
compaction encountered in fields, both laterally and verti-
cally. This variation weakens the value of point-source tests.
Using methods ‘blindly’ without knowledge of what lies
beneath, usually provide inadequate information or values
which are difficult to interpret. Direct physical examination
of a soil face exposed in a trench provides one of the most
effective means of identifying soil compaction. In some cir-
cumstances, it may be beneficial to orientate an inspection
trench at right-angles across the prevailing tillage tracks or (b)
suspect compacted land; this allows a comparison to be
made of compacted and less compacted land.
Once offending layers have been identified in the field,
further measurements or tests may be done at specific loca-
tions to quantify the compaction. This may be particularly
beneficial where experimental treatments have been applied.

Susceptibility of soils and cropping systems

The workability and trafficability of soils (and thus of their
susceptibility to compaction) depends on the interaction
between climate and soil physical properties as discussed by
Thomasson (1982) and Hodge et al. (1984). On much land,
the period when good working conditions pertain is
restricted to when the soil moisture content is less than field
Figure 3 (a) Severe compaction in the ploughed topsoil (spade
capacity, so that soils which are poorly drained are particu-
depth) of a non-calcareous clay in southern England. Note the dense
larly susceptible to compaction. The trafficability of land by smooth faced structures lacking visible pores, grey colour (oxygen
machinery and animals is restricted by soil wetness which is deprivation) and restricted rooting of oilseed rape. (b) In contrast
determined by the depth to slowly permeable horizon. Both this dense topsoil structure in a calcareous clay was the result of
workability and trafficability are reduced as the content of 10 years without any tillage. The warm brown colour and frequent
clay in the soil increases. By combining climatic data with roots are indicative of adequate aeration.

ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345

calcium carbonate and free drainage are properties, which
they consider enhance resistance to compaction and therefore
suitability for no-tillage (Figure 3). The vulnerability of soils
to compaction in Europe has been assessed and a map pro-
duced by Jones et al. (2003) using a two-stage process. First,
the inherent susceptibility of the soil to compaction is esti-
mated on the basis of relatively stable soil properties of tex-
ture and packing density. Second, the susceptibility class is
then converted into a vulnerability class through consider-
ation of the likely soil moisture status at the time of critical
loadings. The vulnerability classes proposed are based on
profile pit observations, on a wide range of soils examined
mainly in intensively farmed areas where large-scale field
equipment is employed.
Rendzinas developed on free-draining chalk and limestone
drain rapidly and can be worked without damage soon after
rain. Coarse sandy soils, although workable at a wide range
of moisture contents, are susceptible to being compacted into
a dense matrix. Fine sandy and silty soils are often slowly
permeable and thus susceptible to compaction as are clayey
soils. Ferralsols have high structural stability; however, after
several passes of a forest skidder, bulk density increased,
hydraulic conductivity decreased sharply and ruts formed up
to 25 cm deep (Schack-Kirchner et al., 2007). The develop-
ment of risk-based maps indicating soil vulnerability to stress,
including compaction, (Horn et al., 2005; Debeljak et al.,
2009) may help to identify soils which are most susceptible.
The risk of compaction occurring during cropping is
related to the type of crop grown and to the land condi-
tion at both seedtime ⁄ planting and harvest. The risk with
grain and seed crops is usually low. They are harvested
above ground at the end of summer when the land is
frequently dry and firm and in addition, the weight of
produce to be transported off the field is not usually
greater than 10 t ⁄ ha. By contrast, many root crops are
harvested later in the year when the soil is at or wetter
than field capacity; they have to be lifted from the ground
and the weight of produce to be removed is substantial, in
the range of 30–50 t ⁄ ha. Compaction risks are therefore
much greater. For similar reasons many vegetable crops
can be deemed high risk with the additional hazard that
they often have to be lifted under inclement conditions at
the behest of their retail outlet.
In grassland, the susceptibility of soils to poaching
(compaction) by cattle was related to soil bulk density and
the support given by the sward as well as to clay content
(Scholefield & Hall, 1985).
Effects of compaction
The compaction of soil affects adversely nearly all properties
and functions of the soil, physical, chemical and biological
(Hakansson et al., 1988; Whalley et al., 1995). It alters its
structure by crushing aggregates or combining them into lar-
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
Soil compaction and soil management 339
Figure 4 Soil erosion in a field of linseed in Scotland after an April
storm caused runoff down compacted wheeltracks.
ger units, increases its bulk density and decreases the number
of coarser pores (e.g. Wolkowski, 1990; Horn et al., 1995;
Richard et al.,1999; Needham et al., 2004; Delgado et al.,
2007). These changes lead to reduced permeability to water
and air (Douglas et al., 1998; Mooney & Nipattasuk, 2003),
increased surface runoff, erosion (Schack-Kirchner et al.,
2007), flooding and reduced groundwater recharge (Hamza
& Anderson, 2005). Compaction may occur on the surface of
the land, within the tilled layer, frequently just below the
zone of tillage, or at greater depths. Compact layers may
vary in thickness from a few mm (smearing) to typically 20–
100 mm in agricultural situations (Hatley et al., 2005), or
more, where heavy machinery has traversed wet soil (Hutch-
ings et al., 2002; Alakukku et al., 2003; Sinnett et al., 2006).
Wheeltracks may cause rainwater to flow downslope to
create ponds in low spots within a field, forming areas prone
to further compaction (Figure 4). On water repellent soils,
Bryant et al., 2007, suggested that compaction may lead to
an increased rate of surface wetting and thus to the more
rapid initiation of infiltration.
Crop growth, yield and quality may be adversely affected.
These adverse effects may be caused by a restriction in root
depth (Stone, 1988; Hettiaratchi, 1990; Pizer, 1990; Batey,
2000; Batey & McKenzie, 2006), by a reduction in nutrient
uptake (Batey & McKenzie, 2006; Birkas, 2008), or because
of the formation of waterlogged or anoxic zones (Batey,
1988; Stalham et al., 2005) (Figure 5). The latter may induce
denitrification (Barken et al., 1981; Batey & Killham, 1986)
and slow nitrification. Where roots in compact soil are con-
fined to macropores, the rate at which they can extract water
and nutrients from the soil between the macropores may be
considerably slowed. Furthermore, the restriction may induce
the roots to send hormonal signals that slow the growth of
the shoot, even if they are able to take up adequate water and
nutrients (Passioura, 1963). Where compaction reduces the
340 T. Batey
Figure 5 A grey anaerobic layer in a clay loam caused by ploughing
after harvesting sugar beet from wet land. Ponded water is flowing
down the face of the impermeable layer. These conditions are toxic
to roots and favour denitrification during warm periods.
penetration of crop roots, the topsoil may dry out more
quickly as water for transpiration is extracted from a shal-
lower depth. This effect in turn leads to reduced uptake of
nutrients, particularly of N, from the drier soil.
The effect of compaction on manganese deficiency is com-
plex. On mineral soils, it has been observed to intensify the
deficiency, but on some organic soils, consolidation often
reduces the severity of the symptoms (Batey, 1963) (Figure 6).
In these latter circumstances, Passioura & Leeper (1963) sug-
gest that as compaction increases the area of root–soil con-
tact, more manganese is made available; if anaerobic
conditions develop, a substantial increase in exchangeable
manganese may occur.
Figure 6 Alternating stripes of dark green and paler green in a field
of barley growing on a loam in Scotland The crop was showing
typical manganese deficiency in the broad yellow stripes which was
controlled by wheelings in the narrower strips of consolidated soil.
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
The manifestation of soil compaction varies in crops. The
effects are related to the depth at which the compaction
occurs and its severity, to seasonal soil moisture stress and
to rainfall intensity and distribution; they are also influenced
by crop species, variety, and stage of growth. Legumes are
known to be particularly sensitive to compaction, possibly
because of the need for adequate aeration on N fixation in
nodules.
Some soil-borne diseases are made worse by stress to the
crop which might be induced by compaction caused by drier
or wetter conditions in the root zone (Sullivan & Montgom-
ery, 1998; Lane et al., 2000). In forestry, damage to roots
during compaction may facilitate the entry of pathogenic
fungi (Hakansson et al., 1988).
Subsoils composed of sand, although porous, commonly
inhibit the entry of roots which may be thickened and stubby
and unable to penetrate for more than a few cm. This is con-
sidered to be caused by a combination of inherent or induced
compaction and by the rigid particle-to-particle structure
(Hettiaratchi, 1987; Batey, 1988; Blackwell, 2004; Moore,
2004).
A farmer’s experience of compaction
Based in East Anglia near Ely (UK), we farm 1860 ha with a
range of soils ranging from light sands to loamy peats; some
of this is annually rented land. Potatoes, beetroot, leeks,
grass for turf and carrots are grown with wheat and French
beans for freezing as non-root crops. Much of the root har-
vest is transported off the field by trailers with dual axles
running alongside the harvester. Compaction is of very seri-
ous concern. In order to lessen its impact, dual wheels,
reduced tyre pressures and controlled traffic systems are
used. Some, but not all of the harm can be masked by irriga-
tion. The main adverse effect of compaction is the variation
in the growth of high-value crops which means that a pro-
portion of the crop is of lower value or in some cases,
unmarketable. A key remedial technique is to cross-till imme-
diately after the harvest of all the root crops. This breaks up
the intensive surface wheeltracks and prevents rain from run-
ning into low parts of the field. Subsoiling to a depth of
45 cm is also undertaken, not as a routine operation but only
where examination of the soil profile has identified a com-
pact layer. Education is also a key priority, through training
all staff operating tractors and harvesters are made aware of
the causes and effects of compaction. Drainage is also a criti-
cal factor and all field drains are regularly inspected and
cleaned out by drain jetting, particularly on land where iron
ochre is known to be a problem (Lawrence, 2009).
Compaction and climate
As discussed in the introductory paragraphs, there is a diver-
gence of opinion on the seriousness of compaction as a

degrading process. In Scotland, the incidence was considered
to be localised and that there was no clear evidence that
compaction posed a serious threat (Towers et al., 2006).
However, Van den Akker & Soane (2004) found that
compaction is the most widespread kind of soil degradation
in Central and Eastern Europe with about 25 Mha proved to
be lightly affected and about 36 Mha moderately affected.
The incidence and severity is related to land use and most
prevalent where heavy machinery is used.
The effects of compaction on crop production can also be
related to climate. The water required to meet the transpira-
tion demands of green crop canopies is provided from
reserves in the soil, supplemented by rainfall or irrigation.
The reserves are related to soil texture (available water
capacity) and the depth of soil accessible to roots. The
potential damage from compaction is worst where the subsoil
provides a significant proportion of the water required by
crops to meet transpiration demands. In drier and warmer
areas where the average maximum summer soil moisture
deficit is high, a restriction in the foraging ability of roots
to reach subsoil water causes severe moisture stress. Compac-
tion can also have a severe effect on soils with low reserves
of available water. In cooler or wetter areas where the
summer deficit is moderate or low, the effects of compaction
are less. In some circumstances, even severe compaction
may have little or no adverse effect. One example is the
dense indurated layer found under several soils in the NE of
Scotland at depths of 40–50 cm. Although the dense layer is
impenetrable to roots, the yields of arable crops are little
affected in most seasons; this is owing to the cool moist
weather and the small soil water deficit in summer of some
50 mm (Batey, 1988). The crops are thus able to obtain
enough water from their restricted rooting depth. Values of
the average maximum potential soil water deficits for differ-
ent parts of the UK are shown in map form by Batey (1988).
This climatic factor may well account for the differences in
the perception of the severity of the effects of compaction.
In wetter climates and in wetter-than-average seasons, the
adverse effects of compaction are mainly because of
restricted drainage; in these circumstances a secondary conse-
quence can be the bogging down of harvesters operating in
wet ground conditions – possibly inducing further compac-
tion. In areas which experience intense rainfall events,
compaction can cause severe erosion on both farmed land
and on open country where wildlife movements have made
impermeable tracks or have congregated in large numbers
around watering holes.
Environmental concerns
Environmental concerns are of increasing importance. Both
surface and subsurface compaction may induce runoff or soil
erosion (Morgan, 1985; Lundekvam & Skoien, 1998; Stalham
et al., 2005). Tramline wheel tracks are the principal culprits,
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
Soil compaction and soil management 341
often leading to overland flow both within-field and off-field;
furthermore the flow may re-distribute sediment, nutrients
and pesticides within the field and beyond. The latter may
present additional hazards. These and other environmental
aspects are discussed by Horn et al. (1995), DEFRA (2002,
2005).
Alleviation of compaction
Although avoidance of compaction is a primary tenet of
good soil management (Larsen et al., 1994; Hatley et al.,
2005), its incidence, assessment and alleviation is also an
essential component (DEFRA 2005). Approaches to compac-
tion alleviation are discussed in detail by Spoor (2006). In
agricultural situations, factors determining how compact soil
may be loosened, depend on whether it is on or below the
surface and on its thickness, depth and severity. Where the
compaction is found on the surface, cross-tillage soon after
its creation can be an effective method of control (Batey,
1988; Lawrence, 2009). Where the compaction occurs within
the topsoil, the next tillage operation may be all that is
required to loosen the compacted area as discussed by Birkas
(2008). Where it occurs below the topsoil and beyond the
reach of surface tillage implements, deeper treatment is
necessary. This has been the focus of many experiments,
with variable results. When deep loosening was attempted in
a 3-year experiment on 16 sites in the UK, the technique
produced significant subsoil loosening and fissuring but yield
responses did not occur except on compacted sandy soils in
spring cropping (Marks & Soane, 1987; Soane et al., 1987).
Yield responses depended largely on the extent of moisture
stress experienced by the crop. Furthermore, loosening on
silty soils reduced yields in wet seasons and this was associ-
ated with soil structural instability. Many of the adverse
effects of compaction on crop growth may be mitigated
where irrigation can be applied. Management strategies after
loosening had an important influence on the longevity of the
loosening effects (Soane et al., 1987) since loosened soil can
be readily compacted. Several authors stress the need to
make a careful assessment of the need for loosening before
such work begins (e.g. Spoor et al., 2003). Others place
emphasis on the importance of making visual field checks
across the loosened soil zone at an early stage in the allevia-
tion process to check that the desired disturbance is being
achieved (Spoor (2006).
The success of subsoil loosening is also related to the soil
strength and moisture content when the work is done. To be
effective, the soil should be sufficiently fragile to shatter as
the loosening tine passes through or just below the compact
layer. The depth of the loosening should also be chosen care-
fully, ideally this should be just below the compacted zone.
In a field where poor crop growth had been caused by
marked compaction following the installation of a pipeline,
subsoil loosening had been found to be ineffective. Further
342 T. Batey
investigation by the author found that a narrow slot a few
mm wide had been cut through the compact layer but no
shattering or loosening had taken place; the conclusion was
that the base of the loosening tine had passed through too
deeply, well below the most compact layer and only the tine
leg had cut through the compacted zone.
There is concern that with increased depths of subsoil
compaction, changes at depths below 40 cm are virtually
permanent and that deep compaction causes persistent and
possible permanent reductions in crop yield (Hakansson &
Reeder, 1994). Natural agencies of freezing do not seem to
alleviate compaction; Swedish experiments showed that
11 years after deep compaction, crop yields were still
adversely affected in spite of normal annual freezing to
depths of 40–70 cm (Etana & Hakansson, 1994). To loosen
compaction that is both severe and deep, requires special
equipment and techniques (Sinnett et al., 2006; Spoor, 2006).
Progressive loosening using multiple passes has been success-
fully undertaken to loosen highly compacted soil to depths
of 75 cm; these are costly and so far have been done only on
land affected by non-agricultural activities.
Avoiding and reducing compaction
Cato, 234-149 B.C. (cited by Birkas, 2008) recommended
‘Do not plough wet soil and do not drive cart or livestock
on a rain-soaked field’. This is a sound principle but leaves
unanswered the question of how to adhere to it and at the
same time feed our ever-increasing world population. With
current farming practices and economics, the use of larger
and heavier machines for tillage and harvest is inevitable and
unless appropriate compensating measures are taken, related
increases in the degree of compaction are unavoidable. As
discussed by Van den Akker et al. (2003), axle loads are
increasing and are increasingly causing severe damage to
subsoils. Therefore, it seems prudent to plan ahead to use
techniques which as far as possible minimise compaction
but also to develop methods to assess the degree of deeper
compaction in the soil and how it may be alleviated.
Although the mass of tractors, harvesters and loaded trail-
ers has increased substantially, the extra mass has been to
some extent compensated for by the use of dual wheels on
tractors, an increase in tyre widths, and on trailers by an
increase in the number of axles; all steps which allow reduc-
tions in tyre pressures. Tyre pressure is probably the most
important factor controlling compaction under wheels as dis-
cussed by Davies et al. (1973). Investigations by Van den
Akker (1998) found that low tyre pressures proved to be very
effective in preventing subsoil compaction. More powerful
tractors can mean an increased working width for tillage
machinery reducing the extent of compaction; however, their
greater weight unless compensated for, could mean that their
compacting forces penetrate deeper into the soil. In the early
phases of mechanisation in the 19th Century, steam engines
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
providing pull did not cross the field; Hakansson et al. (1988)
noted that yields produced in this way exceeded by about
26% the yields produced under similar circumstances where
tractors (with single rear wheels) were used. Other methods to
reduce compaction include the use of dual wheels, rubber
tracks and flotation tyres (as discussed by Antos, 2008). It
has been proposed that axle loads should be restricted, to
avoid compaction deeper than 40 cm, with a limit of 6 t on a
single axle or 8–10 t on a tandem axle (Hakansson et al.,
1988). Tijink & van der Linden (2000), however, stress the
danger when assessing compaction risk, of considering axle
loads alone. It is critical that both loads and pressures are
considered together to enable a combination to be identified
which will minimise compaction risk. The practical soil man-
agement approach must be to always use the lowest safest
tyre pressure for the operation concerned.
High-value crops which respond unfavourably to compact-
ion, may be grown in beds from which wheel tracks are
excluded during the growing season. Seedbed tillage and
other equipment are designed to straddle the beds. On a
more extensive scale, GPS technology has been used to
restrict all wheel tracks to precise routes and the concept of
Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) has been developed into a
cropping system and applied on 2 Mha in Australia (Tull-
berg et al., 2007).
Conclusions
Soil compaction is widespread and with current trends, its
incidence is likely to increase. Adverse effects vary, related
to weather, rainfall intensity, soil type, crop species and
variety. Crop yield and quality may be unaffected or may
be reduced; however, severe losses are often restricted to
limited areas used for headlands or access tracks. The
principal harm is caused by a reduction in the permeability
of the soil to water, air and roots. On sloping land,
compaction may induce both surface and subsurface water
flow which can lead to erosion with both in-field and
off-field consequences.
The management of soils should include the assumption
that the mass of machinery is likely to increase. There appear
to be two alternative approaches: either the machinery has to
be confined to tracks (‘controlled traffic’) or it must be
accepted that a degree of compaction is inevitable. Engineer-
ing measures can reduce the risk of deeper subsoil compac-
tion but some surface layer compaction will occur. The
question is how best to manage land affected by compaction.
Just as soils are regularly tested for nutrients, the physical
condition must receive similar and appropriate attention. To
detect compaction, visual and tactile assessment directly in
the field is recommended. Such assessments when made by
experienced soil scientists give reliable and accurate informa-
tion on the degree of compaction on the surface, within the
tilled layer and in the soil immediately below. However, it is

not clear that there are enough scientists suitably trained to
meet the current demand as discussed by Godwin et al.
(2008).
Techniques for loosening compact soils are well established
to operate to depths of up to about 45 cm although experi-
mental evidence on their benefits is varied. With pressure
applied by the increased mass of tillage and harvesting
machines, there is always the risk that deeper problems may
occur when working under difficult conditions. There
appears, therefore, to be a need to improve methods for the
evaluation of the degree of compaction at greater depths, of
up to 60 cm. At present there are not techniques available
within an agricultural context to loosen deep-seated compac-
tion effectively and economically. This is an area deserving
further investigation.
Acknowledgements
The many helpful suggestions made by Dr D. B. Davies and
Prof. G. Spoor in the preparation of this review are greatly
appreciated. Thanks are also due to RJ Lawrence for giving
his experience as a farmer in dealing with compaction and to
those providing photographs – DC McKenzie, DB Davies
and DA Davidson.
Ongoing sources
Information on research into soil compaction published since
this review may be found at: 1. On-line Index for Soil Use
and Management; see BSSS website; 2. International Soil
Tillage Research Organisation – On-line: istro.org: select
‘Publications’; 3. Members of an ISTRO Working Group
‘Visual soil examination and evaluation’.
References
Alakukku, L., Weisskopf, P., Chanmen, W.C.T., Tijink, F.G.J., van
der Linden, J.P., Pires, S., Sommer, C. & Spoor, G. 2003. Preven-
tion strategies for field traffic induced subsoil compaction: a
review. Soil Tillage Research, 73, 145–160.
Anonymous 1994. Subsoil compaction by high axle load traffic
Special issue of 20 papers. Soil and Tillage Research, 29, 105–277.
Antos, G. 2008. Tillage – energy requirement and soil damage; tech-
nical and operational factors. Ch.3.1 in Birkas M. Environmentally
sound adaptable tillage. Akademia Kiado, Budapest, Hungary.
Ball, B.C. & Douglas, J.T. 2003. A simple procedure for assessing
soil structural, rooting and surface conditions. Soil Use and Man-
agement, 19, 50–56.
Ball, B.C., Batey, T. & Munkholm, L.J. 2007. Field assessment of
soil structural quality – a development of the Peerlkamp test. Soil
Use and Management, 23, 329–337.
Barken, L.R., Bosrresen, T. & Njoss, A. 1981. Effect of soil
compaction by tractor traffic on soil structure, denitrification,
and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Soil
Science, 38, 541–552.
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
Soil compaction and soil management 343
Batey, T. 1963. Manganese and boron deficiency. In: Trace elements
in soils. MAFF Technical Bulletin 21. HMSO, London.
Batey, T. 1975. Soil examination in the field. In: Soil physical condi-
tions and crop production. Technical Bulletin 29, MAFF, HMSO,
London.
Batey, T. 1988. Soil husbandry. Soil and Land Use Consultants Ltd,
Aberdeen, Scotland.
Batey, T. 2000. Ch. 15 Soil profile description and evaluation. In:
Soil and environmental analysis: physical methods (eds K.A. Smith
& C.E. Mullins), pp. 595–628. 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York.
Batey, T. 2009. Personal communication.
Batey, T. & Killham, K. 1986. Field evidence on nitrogen losses by
denitrification. Soil Use and Management, 2, 83–86.
Batey, T. & McKenzie, D.C. 1999. Letter to the editor ‘Deep subsoil
compaction’. Soil Use and Management, 15, 136.
Batey, T. & McKenzie, D.C. 2006. Soil compaction: identification
directly in the field. Soil Use and Management, 22, 123–131.
Birkas, M. 2008. Environmentally sound adaptable tillage. Akademia
Kiado, Budapest, Hungary.
Blackwell, P. 2004. (Western Australia) Personal communication.
Boizard, H., Batey, T., McKenzie, D.C., Richard, G., Roger-
Estrade, J. & Ball, B.C. 2007. Report of the WG Visual Soil
Structure Assessment Field Meeting 25–27th May 2005, France.
Available at: http://www.istro.org From home page select ‘Publi-
cations’ and look through ‘Other publications’.
Bryant, R., Doerr, S.H., Hunt, G. & Conan, S. 2007. Effects of com-
paction on surface water repellency. Soil Use and Management, 23,
238–244.
Cannell, R.Q., Davies, D.B., Mackney, D. & Pidgeon, J.D. 1978.
Soil suitability for direct drilling of combine-harvested crops: pro-
visional classification. Outlook on Agriculture, 9 (6), 306–316.
Daniells, I.G. & Larsen, D.L. (eds) 1991. SOILpak: a soil manage-
ment package for cotton production on cracking clays. NSW Agri-
culture, Narrabri, NSW, Australia.
Davies, D.B., Finney, J.B. & Richardson, R.J. 1973. Relative effects
of tractor weight and wheelslip in causing soil compaction. Journal
of Soil Science, 24, 399–409.
Davies, D.B., Finney, J.B. & Eagle, D.J. 1992. Soil management, 5th
edn. Farming Press Ltd, Ipswich, England.
Debeljak, M., Kocey, D., Towers, W., Jones, M., Griffiths, B.S. &
Hallett, P.D. 2009. Potential of multi-objective models for risk-
based mapping of the resilience characteristics of soils: demonstra-
tion at a national level. Soil Use and Management, 25, 66–77.
DEFRA 2002. Arable cropping and the environment. Dept. for Envi-
ronment Food & Rural Affairs, London.
DEFRA 2005. Cross compliance guidance for soil management. Defra
Publications, London.
DEFRA 2009. Environmental standards for farming – consultation on
proposed changes to standards in cross compliance Good Agricultural
and Environmental Condition (GAEC) and related measures in
England. Dept. for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, London.
Delgado, R., Sanchez-Maranon, M., Martin-Garcia, J.M., Aranda,
V., Serrano-Bernado, F. & Rosua, J.L. 2007. Impact of ski pistes
on soil properties: a case study from a mountainous area in the
Mediterranean Region. Soil Use and Management, 23, 269–277.
Douglas, J.T., Koppi, A.J. & Crawford, C.E. 1998. Structural
improvement in a grassland soil after changes to wheel-traffic
344 T. Batey
systems to avoid soil compaction. Soil Use and Management, 14,
14–18.
Etana, A. & Hakansson, I. 1994. Swedish experiments on the persis-
tence of subsoil compaction caused by vehicles with high axle
loads. Soil & Tillage Research, 29, 167–172.
Fitzpatrick, E.A. 1956. An indurated soil horizon formed by perma-
frost. Journal of Soil Science, 7, 248–254.
Godwin, R., Spoor, G., Finney, B., Hann, M. & Davies, B. 2008.
The current status of soil and water management in England. Royal
Agricultural Society of England, Stoneleigh, Warwick.
Hakansson, I. 1985. Swedish experiments on subsoil compaction by
vehicles with high axle load. Soil Use and Management, 1, 113–116.
Hakansson, I. 1994. Subsoil compaction caused by heavy vehicles –
a long term threat to soil productivity. Soil and Tillage Research,
29, 105–110.
Hakansson, I. & Reeder, R.C. 1994. Subsoil compaction by vehicles
with high axle load – extent, persistence and crop response. Soil &
Tillage Research, 29, 277–304.
Hakansson, I., Voorhees, W.B. & Riley, H. 1988. Vehicle and wheel
factors influencing soil compaction and crop response in different
traffic regimes. Soil & Tillage Research, 11, 239–282.
Hamza, M.A. & Anderson, W.K. 2005. Soil compaction in cropping
systems. A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil
and Tillage Research, 82, 121–145.
Hartemink, A.E. 2008. Soils are back on the global agenda. Soil Use
and Management, 24, 327–330.
Hatley, D., Wiltshire, J., Basford, B., Royale, S., Buckley, D. &
Johnson, P. 2005. Soil compaction and potato crops. Research
Review R260, British Potato Council, Oxford, UK.
Hettiaratchi, D.R.P. 1987. A critical state soil mechanics model for
agricultural soils. Soil Use and Management, 3, 94–105.
Hettiaratchi, D. 1990. Soil compaction and plant root growth. Philo-
sophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 329,
343–355.
Hodge, C.A.H., Burton, R.G.O., Corbett, W.M., Evans, R. & Seale,
R.S. 1984. Soils and their use in Eastern England. Soil Survey
Bulletin 13, Harpenden, Herts, England.
Hodgson, J.M. (ed) 1976. Soil Survey Field Handbook. Soil Survey
of England and Wales Technical Monograph No. 5, Harpenden.
Horn, R., Domzal, H., Slowinskajurkiewicz, A. & van Ouwerkerk,
C. 1995. Soil compaction processes and their effects on the struc-
ture of arable soils and the environment. Soil and Tillage Research,
35, 23–36.
Horn, R., Fleige, H., Richter, F.-H., Czyc, E.A., Dexter, A., Diaz-
Periera, E., Dumitru, E., Enarche, R., Mayol, F., Rajkai, K., de la
Rosa, D. & Simota, C. 2005. SIDASS project: Part 5: Prediction of
mechanical strength of arable soils and its effects on physical prop-
erties at various map scales. Soil and Tillage Research, 82, 47–56.
Hutchings, T.R., Moffat, A.J. & French, C.J. 2002. Soil compaction
under timber harvesting machinery: a preliminary report on the
role of brash mats in its prevention. Soil Use and Management, 18,
34–38.
Jones, R.J.A., Spoor, G. & Thomasson, A.J. 2003. Vulnerability of
subsoils in Europe to compaction: a preliminary analysis. Soil &
Tillage Research, 73, 131–143.
Kok, H., Taylor, R.K., Lamond, R.E. & Kessen, S. 1996. Soil com-
paction: problems and solutions. Publication AF15. Cooperative
Extension Service, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
Lane, A., Bradshaw, N.J. & Buckley, D. 2000. Pests and diseases
of potatoes. In: Pest and disease management handbook (ed D.V.
Alford), pp. 123–165. Chapter 5. Blackwell, Oxford.
Larsen, W.E., Eynard, A., Hadfas, A. & Lipiec, J. 1994. Control
and avoidance of compaction in practice. In: Soil compaction in
crop production (eds B.D. Soane & C. van Ouwerkerk), pp. 597–
625. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Lawrence, R.J. 2009. (Farmer, Ely, Cambrideshire, England) Per-
sonal communication.
Lundekvam, H. & Skoien, S. 1998. Soil erosion in Norway. An over-
view of measurements from soil loss plots. Soil Use and Manage-
ment, 14, 84–89.
Marks, M.J. & Soane, G.C. 1987. Crop and soil response to subsoil
loosening, deep incorporation of phosphorus and potassium fertil-
izer and subsequent soil management on a range of soil types. Part
1: Response to arable crops. Soil Use and Management, 3, 115–123.
McKenzie, D.C. 1998. SOILpak for cotton growers, 3rd edn. NSW
Agriculture, Orange, NSW Australia.
McKenzie, D.C. 2001. Rapid assessment of soil compaction damage.
II. Relationships between the SOILpak score, strength and aera-
tion measurements, clod shrinkage parameters and image analysis
data on a Vertisol. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 39, 127–
141.
Milne, R.M. & Haynes, R.J. 2004. Comparative effects of annual
and permanent dairy pastures on soil physical properties in the
Tsitsikamma region of South Africa. Soil Use and Management,
20, 81–88.
Mooney, S.J. & Nipattasuk, W. 2003. Quantification of the effects of
soil compaction on water flow using dye tracers and image analy-
sis. Soil Use and Management, 19, 356–363.
Moore, G. (ed.) 2004. Soil guide: a handbook for understanding and
managing agricultural soils. Dept of Agriculture, Western Austra-
lia. Bulletin No. 4343
Morgan, R.P.C. 1985. Assessment of soil erosion risk in England
and Wales. Soil Use and Management, 1, 127–131.
Mulholland, B. & Fullen, M.A. 1991. Cattle trampling and soil com-
paction on loamy sands. Soil Use and Management, 7, 189–193.
Mullins, C.E., Young, I.M., Bengough, A.G. & Ley, J.G. 1987.
Hard-setting soils. Soil Use & Management, 3, 79–83.
Needham, P., Scholz, G. & Moore, G. 2004. Ch. 4 Physical restric-
tions to root growth. 4.1 Hard layers in soils. 4.2 Subsurface com-
paction. In: Soil guide: a handbook for understanding and managing
agricultural soils (ed. G. Moore), pp. 109–124. Dept of Agricul-
ture, Western Australia. Bulletin No. 4343.
Oldeman, R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. & Sombroek, W. 1991. World Map
on the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation. An Explana-
tory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation. GLASOD.
ISRIC - Winand Centre - ISSS - FAO - ITC, Wageningen.
Passioura, J.B. 1963. Soil structure and plant growth. Australian
Journal of Soil Research, 29, 717–728.
Passioura, J.B. & Leeper, G.W. 1963. Soil compaction and manga-
nese deficiency. Nature, London, 200, 29–30.
Peerlkamp, P.K. 1967. Visual estimation of soil structure. In: West
European methods for soil structure determination II (eds M. de
Boodt, H. Frese, A.J. Low & P.K. Peerlkamp), pp. 11–12. State
Faculty of Agricultural Science, Ghent, Belgium.
Pizer, N.H. 1990. Understanding soils: the experience of an adviser.
Wye College, Ashford, Kent, England.

Richard, G., Boizard, H., Roger-Estrade, J., Boiffin, J. & Guerif, J.
1999. Field study of soil compaction due to traffic in northern
France: pore space and morphological analysis of compacted
zones. Soil and Tillage Research, 51, 151–160.
Schack-Kirchner, H., Fenner, P.T. & Hildebrand, E.E. 2007. Differ-
ent responses in bulk density and saturated conductivity to soil
deformation by logging machinery on a Ferralsol under native
forest. Soil Use and Management, 23, 286–293.
Scholefield, D. & Hall, D.M. 1985. A method to measure the suscep-
tibility of pasture soils to poaching by cattle. Soil Use and Man-
agement, 1, 134–138.
Sharifi, A., Godwin, R.J., O’Dogherty, M.J. & Dresser, M.L. 2007.
Evaluating the performance of a soil compaction sensor. Soil Use
and Management, 23, 171–177.
Shepherd, T.G. 2000. Visual soil assessment – volume 1. Field guide
for cropping and pastoral grazing on flat and rolling country. Mana-
aki Wheua Press, Landcare Research, Palmerston North, NZ.
Sinnett, D., Poole, J. & Hutchings, T.R. 2006. The efficacy of three
techniques to alleviate soil compaction at a restored sand and
gravel quarry. Soil Use and Management, 22, 362–371.
Smart, P. 1998. Letter to the editor ‘Deep subsoil compaction’. Soil
Use and Management, 14, 69.
Smith, D.L.O. 1987. Measurement, interpretation and modelling of
soil compaction. Soil Use and Management, 3, 87–93.
Soane, B.D. (ed.) 1983. Compaction by agricultural vehicles: a review.
Technical Report No 5. Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engi-
neering, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, Scotland.
Soane, B.D. & van Ouwerkerk, C. (eds.) 1994. Soil compaction in
crop production developments in agricultural engineering II. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Soane, G.C., Godwin, R.J., Marks, M.J. & Spoor, G. 1987. Crop
and soil response to subsoil loosening, deep incorporation of phos-
phorus and potassium fertilizer and subsequent soil management
on a range of soil types. Part 2: Soil structural conditions. Soil
Use and Management, 3, 123–130.
Spoor, G. 2006. Alleviation of soil compaction: requirements equip-
ment and techniques. Soil Use and Management, 22, 113–122.
Spoor, G., Tijink, F.J.G. & Weisskopf, P. 2003. Subsoil compaction:
risk, avoidance, identification and alleviation. Soil and Tillage
Research, 73, 175–182.
Stalham, M.A., Allen, E.J. & Herry, F.X. 2005. Effects of soil com-
paction on potato growth and its removal by cultivation. Research
review R261 British Potato Council, Oxford, UK.
ª 2009 The Author. Journal compilation ª 2009 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 25, 335–345
View publication stats
Soil compaction and soil management 345
Stone, D.A. 1988. Subsoil strength and yield of vegetable crops. Soil
Use and Management, 4, 10–14.
Sullivan, L.A. & Montgomery, L.L. 1998. Deep subsoil compaction
of two cracking clays used for irrigated cotton production in Aus-
tralia. Soil Use and Management, 14, 56–57.
Thomasson, A.J. 1982. Soil and climatic aspects of workability and
trafficability. In: Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Interna-
tional Soil Tillage Research Organisation pp. 551–557. Osijek,
Yugoslavia.
Tijink, F.G.J. & van der Linden, J.P. 2000. Engineering approaches
to prevent subsoil compaction in cropping systems with sugar
beet. In: Subsoil compaction: distribution, processes and conse-
quences (eds R. Horn, J.J.H. van den Akker & J. Arvidsson),
Advances in Geoecology 32, 442–452.
Towers, W., Grieve, I.C., Hudson, G., Campbell, C.D., Lilly, A.,
Davidson, D.A., Bacon, J.R., Langan, S.J. & Hopkins, D.W.
2006. Scotland’s soil resource – current state and threats. Scottish
Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. Research
Report [WWW document]. URL http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
Publications/2006/09/21115639/0 [accessed on 23 January 2009].
Tranter, G., Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., Murphy, B., McKenzie,
N.J., Grundy, M. & Brough, D. 2007. Building and testing
conceptual and empirical models for predicting soil bulk density.
Soil Use and Management, 23, 437–443.
Tullberg, J.N., Yule, D.F. & McGarry, D. 2007. Controlled traffic
farming – from research to adoption in Australia. Soil & Tillage
Research, 97, 272–281.
Van den Akker, J.J.H. 1998. Prevention of subsoil compaction by
defining a maximum wheel load bearing capacity. Advances in
Sugar Beet Research, IIRB, 1, 43–54.
Van den Akker, J.J.H. & Soane, B. 2004. Compaction. Chapter in:
Hillel D. (Ed. In Chief). Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment,
4, 285–293.
Van den Akker, J.H.H., Arvidsson, J. & Horn, R. 2003. Introduc-
tion to the special issue on experiences with the impact and
prevention of subsoil compaction in the European Union. Soil and
Tillage Research, 73, 1–8.
Whalley, W.R., Dumitru, E. & Dexter, A.R. 1995. Biological effects
of soil compaction. Soil and Tillage Research, 35, 53–68.
Wolkowski, R.P. 1990. Relationship between wheel-traffic-induced
soil compaction, nutrient availability and crop growth – a review.
Journal of Production Agriculture, 3, 460–469.