JURNAL INTERNASIONAL

ILMU UKUR TANAH

Disusun Oleh:

Renold Yanspri Pratama

21410013

DOSEN : DR. Ligal Sebastian,S.T.,M.SI / KH. Rizal, S.T

JURUSAN TEKNIK SIPIL

UNIVERSITAS PALEMBANG
 TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Soil Survey: Pedotransfer Function of Linear Extensibility

Percent for Soils of the United States
Cathy A. Seybold and Zamir Libohova

ABSTRACT:
Soil survey is an ongoing process from initial soil mapping through soil survey updates. A national model of linear extensibility percent (LEP) is needed
to improve this process. The objective of this work was to develop and validate models for estimating LEP using general linear models and readily
available soil survey properties. Measured data from the Kellogg National Soil Survey Laboratory database (Lincoln, Nebraska) were used to develop
the prediction models. Twenty LEP prediction equations were developed based on pH and major mineralogy classes. Noncarbonate clay and, de-
pending on the soil pH, either cation-exchange capacity or effective cation-exchange capacity explained between 42% and 86% of the total variation
in LEP. Model equations using cation-exchange capacity as a predictive variable collectively produced a prediction root mean square error (RMSEP)
of 1.44% and mean error (ME) of −0.16%. For low pH soils, the model equations using effective cation-exchange capacity as a predictive variable
collectively produced an RMSEP of 1.29% and ME of −0.034%. The small negative MEs indicate an overall underestimation of LEP. Breaking down
the validation results further among the different mineralogy groups produced a range of RMSEp from 0.42% to 1.80%. The smectitic group had the
largest and the siliceous group had the lowest RMSEp. The prediction accuracy is considered adequate for soil survey purposes, and it is expected
that LEP estimates will ultimately enhance soil survey interpretations. The models will be added to the soil survey database for soil scientists to use
when measured data are not available.
Key Words: COLE, linear extensibility percent, prediction, shrink-swell, soil survey
(Soil Sci 2017;182: 1–8)

L inear extensibility percent (LEP) is a measure of the linear vol-

ume change in soils as a result of a change in water content
(Grossman et al., 1968; Burt, 2011). It is expressed on a whole-soil
basis with units in percentages. Linear extensibility percent charac-
terizes the shrink-swell capacity of soils and was designed for use
in soil genesis and characterization studies (Hallberg, 1977).
Shrink-swell arises from the movement of water into and out of
interlayer spaces of primarily 2:1 phyllosilicate clay minerals that
causes the mineral to expand and contract (Bohn et al., 1979;
Vaught et al., 2006). Linear extensibility percent is calculated
from the coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) as LEP = 100

COLE. The COLE is measured in the laboratory as follows (Grossman
et al., 1968; Soil Survey Staff, 2014):
 
Dbd 1=3
COLE ¼ −1
Dbm
Where Dbd is bulk density at oven dryness (g cm−3), and Dbm is
bulk density at -33 kPa (g cm−3) on natural fabric soil samples
(clods). Bulk densities are corrected for any rock fragments to esti-
mate COLE on a whole-soil basis.
National Soil Survey Center, US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE.
Address for correspondence: Cathy A. Seybold, PhD, National Soil Survey Center,
USDA-NRCS, 100 Centennial Mall North, Rm 152, Lincoln, NE 68508.
E-mail: cathy.seybold@lin.usda.gov
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest: None reported.
Received September 7, 2016.
Accepted for publication December 20, 2016.
Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to
download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in
any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
ISSN: 0038-075X
DOI: 10.1097/SS.0000000000000191
Soil survey interpretations use LEP to assess potential shrinkage
and swelling impacts in a wide range of rural and urban land uses
and also for engineering and geotechnical purposes. Cracks created
when soils shrink can affect soil infiltration rate and cause rapid
movement of water downward into the soil, which can carry
chemicals to the groundwater (de Jong et al., 1992). Soil swelling,
on the other hand, can close cracks and reduce infiltration rates, pos-
sibly causing excessive soil surface runoff and erosion (Favre et al.,
1997). Soils with high shrink-swell potentials can cause damage
to plant roots, cracking or buckling of pavements, cracking of inte-
rior walls in buildings, foundation damages, slope failures, break-
age of underground pipes, and complete structural collapse (Mbagwu,
1992; Mandal et al., 2005; US Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service [USDA-NRCS], 2016). In engi-
neering, LEP can be used for quantifying shrinkage factors such as
the shrinkage limit, shrinkage ratio, and percent volume change
(Hallberg, 1977). Shrink-swell is also important in the genesis of
soil structure (Bronswijk, 1989), and linear extensibility (COLE
multiplied by the layer thickness) is used as a criterion in soil taxon-
omy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999).
Linear extensibility percent is a basic soil property that is captured
in the National Soil Information System (NASIS) database of the
USDA-NRCS for soil map unit components (i.e., soils/series that
make up the map unit). Field estimates of shrink-swell potential in-
clude observation of desiccation cracks, slickensides, gilgai, soil
creep, and leaning utility poles and are placed in one of three classes
of shrink-swell potential (USDA-NRCS, 2016). In soil survey, clas-
ses of shrink-swell are defined based on the LEP of the soil (USDA-
NRCS, 2016). However, more accurate estimates require measure-
ments, which are very time consuming and costly for an entire soil
survey area. Therefore, estimation procedures or models are often
used in soil survey, but there is no national model for estimating
LEP. There are still areas where initial soil mapping is occurring,
and there are many areas going through updates, especially on a ma-
jor land resource area basis. To improve estimates of LEP, a model
that is national in scope and uses available properties within the soil
survey database is needed.
Several soil properties have already been related to the shrink-
swell capacity of soils. The type and amounts of clay in combination

Soil Science • January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1 www.soilsci.com 1

Seybold and Libohova Soil Science

are known to affect the shrink-swell capacity of soils, with clay min- MATERIALS AND METHODS
eralogy being the dominant factor (Seed et al., 1962; Franzmeier and
Ross, 1968; McCormack and Wilding, 1975; Kariuki and van der Data Selection and Analysis
Meer, 2004). Smectite clay minerals have a high capacity to shrink Soil horizons were selected from the KSSL characterization data-
and swell, because of their low layer charge (weak bonds) that al- base (Lincoln, NE), which contains more than 37,000 pedons with
lows water (a polar molecule) to enter between the mineral basal measured chemical and physical properties representing geographi-
planes, causing an expansion or swelling (Bohn et al., 1979). cally diverse soils from across the conterminous United States,
Schafer and Singer (1976) found COLE to be highly correlated to Hawaii, and Alaska. The measured data prior to year 2000 were used
the percent expandable clay, with a lower correlation to the ratio of for model development, whereas data from 2001 to 2010 were used
expandable clay to total clay or total clay content. Franzmeier and for model validation. The data set starts around 1959 when the saran-
Ross (1968) indicated that if clay is expressed on a volume basis coated clod method for determining bulk density was first used in
(an effect of the arrangement of soil particles in space) the rela- soil survey (Brasher et al., 1966), and methodology has not changed.
tionship between COLE and clay content could be improved. In The following measured data were used: total sand (2–0.05 mm),
addition to clay type, cations associated with the clay minerals total silt (0.05–0.002 mm), and total clay (<0.002 mm) (pipette
have also been shown to have an effect on the swelling potential method); carbonate clay (<0.002 mm); organic carbon content
of soils, such as Na-montmorillonite (Al-Rawas, 1999). Zhang (acid-dichromate digestion method, discontinued in 2000); total C
et al. (2016) showed Ca-montmorillonite to have greater swelling (dry combustion); CEC (1.0 N NH4OAc at pH 7); effective CEC
compared with Na-montmorillonite, which was attributed to a (ECEC); bulk density at −33 kPa matric potential (Db,33, saran-
stronger hydration of the Ca-montmorillonite. The plastic index coated clods); oven-dry bulk density (Db,o, saran-coated clods); wa-
(PI) of soils is known to be highly correlated to the expansive ter retention at −1,500 kPa (<2 mm sieved); gypsum content
property of soils (Seed et al., 1962; de Jong et al., 1992; (<2 mm); CaCO3 equivalent (electronic manometer method); pH
Puppala et al., 2013). Other properties have been related to the (in water and 0.01 M CaCl2 in 1:2 soil/solution suspensions); and
shrink-swell potential such as specific surface area (Ross, 1978; LEP (between oven dryness and −33 kPa matric potential measured
de Jong et al., 1992; Grey and Allbrook, 2002) and cation- on saran-coated clods, calculated from COLE). All determinations,
exchange capacity (CEC) (Gill and Reaves, 1957; Grey and except those for bulk density and LEP, are made on air-dried (30°
Allbrook, 2002; Kariuki and van der Meer, 2004). The latter C–35°C), crushed, and sieved (<2 mm) soil samples. All of the pre-
property integrates the total amount of clay and activity of the viously mentioned methods are described in Soil Survey Staff
clay (Yule and Ritchie, 1980). In summary, several properties that (2014) and are reported on an oven-dry basis. Information on the
are basic to soil survey such as total clay, CEC and PI would be soil taxonomic classifications from the soil profile descriptions
useful in predicting LEP. was also used.
Several indexes or models that can predict the swelling or shrink-
age capacity of soils have been developed. An artificial neural net- Soil samples with −1,500 kPa water-to-clay ratios greater than 0.6
work model was developed by Ikizler et al. (2010) to predict were removed from the database, except those with the following
lateral and vertical swelling pressures of soils. Seed et al. (1962) de- mineralogy classes: ferritic, gibbsitic, allitic, sesquic, parasesquic,
veloped a swelling potential index for engineering purposes (on ferruginous, magnesic, halloysitic, amorphic, ferrihydritic, glassy,
compacted clays) that used the percent total clay, clay activity, and and isotic. When the ratios are greater than 0.6, incomplete disper-
an expansion coefficient depending on the clay type. Vertical shrink- sion during the particle size determinations introduces inaccuracies,
age in Texas Vertisols using small cores was estimated by the CEC especially in soils dominated by silicates (Stolpe and Lewis, 1990;
alone (R2 = 0.76) (Yule and Ritchie, 1980). Pruška and Šedivý Soil Survey Staff, 1999; Burt, 2011). Incomplete dispersion has less
(2015) predicted swelling pressures of expansive soils using a con- of an impact on the accuracy of low clay content soils. Soil samples
sistency index (PI) and a colloidal activity index on tuffaceous clays, with more than 3% organic carbon were also removed from the da-
mudstones, claystones, chalk marlites, and neogene clay soils in the tabase to reduce potential error associated with irreversible shrink-
Czech and Slovak Republic (R2 = 0.88). Schafer and Singer (1976) age from organic matter. Organic matter represents a nonreversible
developed a prediction model for COLE using the expandable clay shrinkage portion of the soil, and LEP characterizes the reversible
fraction and porosity for 16 California soils. Their validation results shrinkage of soils (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). Soils with
showed an R2 of 0.59 and very little bias for a wide variety of soils fragments were also removed from the database as COLE is calcu-
(using 160 soil samples from the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory lated on a whole-soil basis. If coarse fragments are present, they are
[KSSL] database in Lincoln, NE). An expansive index was devel- corrected for in the calculation of COLE and thus LEP (Holmgren,
oped by Thomas et al. (2000) using 12 soils of various parent mate- 1968). For this study, soils without coarse fragments were desired
rials from Virginia. They used the swelling 2:1 minerals, PI, liquid
limit, and a swell index and summed them into an index. However,
TABLE 1. Statistical Properties of the Development Data Set
none of the previously mentioned models are specific to the predic-
tion of LEP. In the case where COLE was predicted, it was confined Property n Min Max Median Mean S.D.
to only a few soils and used parameters that are not readily available
Total clay (%) 16,359 1.5 95.0 26.1 28.9 16.4
in soil survey. This makes the previously mentioned models not suit-
able for use in predicting LEP for the diverse range in soils of the Carbonate clay (%) 6,991 <1.0 38.4 2.0 3.4 4.3
United States.
Total sand (%) 16,359 <1.0 97.7 22.6 30.3 25.7
The objective of this study was to develop and validate a model
for estimating LEP using general linear models and soil properties CEC (cmol(+) kg) 12,758 0.1 100.6 17.3 18.9 11.4
readily available within the NASIS soil survey database. The model
ECEC (cmol(+) kg) 3,601 0.1 89.1 6.4 9.3 8.8
would be limited to the basic soil properties captured in soil survey
that are related to LEP such as total sand, silt, and clay; total organic CaCO3 equiv. (%) 14,466 <0.1 95 3.0 9.1 13.1
matter; bulk density; and cation exchange properties. A prediction
Gypsum (% <2 mm) 3,159 <0.1 92 0 1.7 7.9
model that is national in scope will provide consistent and improved
accuracy of LEP estimates, which will benefit all users of soil survey Organic carbon (%) 16,359 <0.1 2.9 0.37 0.58 0.57
data and their interpretations, as soil survey data are being updated
LEP (%) 16,359 <0.1 29.6 2.5 3.7 3.7
or through initial mapping.

2 www.soilsci.com © 2017 The Author(s). Published Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1
in order to estimate COLE on a <2-mm basis, which would be con-
sistent with the properties used in predicting LEP. Percent carbonate
clay was subtracted from the percent total clay to get noncarbonate
clay (nclay) because carbonate clay has less of an influence on the
shrink-swell properties than silicate clays (Nettleton et al., 1991).
Subtracting out the carbonate clay removes the disadvantage of the
particle-size measurement by giving only silicate clay amounts.
The database was further screened for obvious inconsistencies, and
samples with Db,33 > Db,o, negative values of water contents retained
at −1,500 kPa, ECEC > CEC, and the sums of sand, silt, and clay
less than 100% were removed.
In the final database, only pedons that had a correlated soil classi-
fication based on laboratory data were used. Within a pedon, hori-
zons were used only if they met the previously listed criteria. The
family mineralogy class was extracted from the soil classification.
Pedon depths varied, ranging up to 200 cm. Organic C ranged from
0% to 3%. Horizons contained no rock fragments. The −1,500 kPa
water-to-clay ratios were all less than 0.6 except for those horizons
in the mineralogy classes listed previously. There were no missing
values for total sand, silt, and nclay. There were no missing values
for LEP and CEC or ECEC. The statistics describing the develop-
ment data set are presented in Table 1.
Data Stratification
The database was partitioned into more homogeneous soil groups to
improve the accuracy of the LEP predictions. The data set for model
development was stratified by taxonomic mineralogy class. It is well
established that clay mineralogy governs the shrink-swell behavior
of soils (Franzmeier and Ross, 1968; Nettleton and Brasher, 1983;
Kariuki and van der Meer, 2004; Burt, 2011). The major taxonomic
FIGURE 1. The taxonomic mineralogy classes of the continental United States in this study. The “other” mineralogy class includes ferritic, gibbsitic,
allitic, sesquic, parasesquic, ferruginous, magnesic, halloysitic, amorphic, ferrihydritic, glassy, and isotic.
Soil Science • January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1
Predicting Linear Extensibility Percent
clay mineralogy classes used were smectitic, kaolinitic, vermiculitic,
and illitic, as well as the major mineralogy classes of mixed, sili-
ceous, and carbonatic (Fig. 1). Most of the remaining taxonomic
mineralogy classes are dominated by Fe and Al oxides, hydroxides,
amorphous materials, and other less common minerals and are of
minor extent and so were grouped together. Mineralogy classes in-
cluded in this group are ferritic, gibbsitic, allitic, sesquic, parasesquic,
ferruginous, magnesic, halloysitic, amorphic, ferrihydritic, glassy, and
isotic and will be referred to as the “other” mineralogy group. In soil
taxonomy, a mineralogy class is assigned to all mineral soils, except
Quartzipsamments (USDA-NRCS, 2016). The LEP concept is
not applicable to organic layers, but they are assigned to mineral
layers of organic soils (Soil Survey Staff, 2016). All mineral ho-
rizons that do not fit into the mineralogy groups defined previ-
ously (including those mineral horizons in Histosols and
Histels) are assigned to the “mixed” mineralogy group. Com-
plete coverage of all soils is necessary for a national model.
Similar to calcium carbonate, gypsum does not have a CEC,
and thus, it is corrected for in the sample. Soils with greater than
5% gypsum were also grouped into a separate data set, which was
split further into two data sets at a threshold of 40% gypsum. In
most cases, NASIS does not contain clay content (particle size in-
formation) for soils with greater than 40% gypsum. Therefore, a
separate group is needed because clay content cannot be used as
a predictive variable. Visual examination of scatter plots of LEP
versus nclay content for the smectitic and mixed mineralogy
groups showed a change in the relationship at approximately
35% and 20% clay, respectively. To improve predictions, the
smectitic group was split at 35% clay, and 20% clay for the mixed
mineralogy group.
www.soilsci.com 3
Seybold and Libohova Soil Science

TABLE 2. Statistical Properties of the Validation Data Set

Validation
The validation data set consisted of 2,176 soil samples from KSSL
Property n Min Max Median Mean S.D.
corresponding to pedons sampled throughout the United States
Total clay (%) 2172 1.0 91.0 30.0 33.0 24.7 (Table 2). All properties of the validation data set were within the
range of the development data set. Organic C in this data set was es-
Carbonate clay (%) 382 <1.0 35 2.0 3.7 5.2
timated from the difference between the total and CaCO3-C (Soil
Total sand (%) 2172 <1.0 96.0 13.0 23.4 24.7 Survey Staff, 2014). Model performance was evaluated by compar-
ing measured versus predicted LEP values and by calculating the
CEC (cmol(+) kg) 1695 0.5 84.9 21.1 22.5 12.9
prediction RMSE (RMSEP) and mean error (ME) as defined in
ECEC (cmol(+) kg) 477 0.1 39.2 6.9 8.7 7.6 McBratney et al. (2011). Confidence intervals (P = 0.05) were cal-
culated for the slope and intercept of the least squares estimate line.
CaCO3 equiv. (%) 900 <0.1 87 2 7.5 12.5

Gypsum (% <2 mm) 304 <0.1 92 0 2.1 10.4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Organic carbon (%) 2172 <0.1 2.9 0.60 0.80 0.69

LEP (%) 2172 <0.1 27.5 3.5 3.7 4.4

Statistical Analysis
Linear extensibility percent was estimated using general linear
model procedures in SYSTAT Software (2009). For each stratum
(data group), the best fit model (with the lowest root mean square er-
ror [RMSE]) was developed. The RMSE gives the accuracy of the
estimations in terms of S.D.; the smaller the RMSE, the more accu-
rate the model. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to
help in the selection of predictive variables. Only data elements that
contributed significantly (P = 0.05) to predicting LEP and that con-
tributed more than 5% to the overall improvement of the coefficient
of determination (R2) were included in the equations. The R2 value
represents the proportion of total variability in LEP data that is ex-
plained by a model. Scatter plots of the residuals versus the fitted
values of each model were used to determine whether there were
nonlinearity, unequal variances, and outliers in the data. All outliers,
as identified by the studentized residual in SYSTAT Software
(2009), were removed from the data groups.
Model Development and Comparisons
The data set used to develop the prediction models had a broad range
in soil properties and represents the soils of the United States (Fig. 2).
Clay content ranged from 1.5% to 95%, and CEC ranged from 0.1
to 100.6 cmol(+) kg−1 (Table 1). The range in LEP varied from 0%
to 29.6%. Given the wide range of soil properties, the LEP for
the complete unstratified data set was highly correlated with CEC
(r = 0.834), ECEC (r = 0.708), nclay (r = 0.813), and total clay con-
tent (r = 0.743). The high correlations with these properties were
expected and are similar to what others have found between clay,
CEC, and some measure of the soil shrinkage and/or swelling po-
tential (Gill and Reaves, 1957; Seed et al., 1962; Franzmeier and
Ross, 1968; McCormack and Wilding, 1975; Grey and Allbrook,
2002; Kariuki and van der Meer, 2004). The CEC and ECEC can
give an indication of the clay mineralogy (Burt, 2011). In an exam-
ple, Puppala et al. (2013) used a high CEC value to indicate the
presence of smectite clay minerals and a low CEC to indicate
the presence of nonexpansive clay minerals such as kaolinite. In
the present study, LEP weakly correlated with calcium carbonate
(r = −0.196) and organic carbon (r = 0.158) contents. Similarly,
others have shown no relationship between COLE and organic C

FIGURE 2. Sample location of pedons (continental United States only) that make up the development data set used in the prediction of LEP.

4 www.soilsci.com © 2017 The Author(s). Published Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1 Predicting Linear Extensibility Percent

TABLE 3. Model to Predict LEP for Soil Layers With <3% Organic Carbon
Models Equation† n R2 RMSE

1. Gypsum >5% 0.082 × ngclay − 0.096 × CEC + 0.008 × (CEC) + 0.263 2

218 0.88 1.444

2. Gypsum >40% and clay not available 0.157 × CEC − 0.276 52 0.75 0.254

3. Smectitic and clay 35% 0.16 × nclay + 0.18 × CEC − 4.219 2000 0.66 2.447

0.176 × nclay + 0.088 × ECEC − 1.346 274 0.42 2.863

4. Smectitic and clay <35% 0.128 × nclay + 0.088 × CEC − 1.613 956 0.52 1.288

0.14 × nclay + 0.113 × ECEC − 2.239 179 0.67 1.020

5. Kaolinitic 0.017 × nclay + 0.18 × CEC − 0.227 201 0.62 0.912

0.003 × nclay + 0.001 × (nclay) + 0.236 × ECEC − 0.067

2
385 0.51 1.768

6. Mixed and clay 20% 0.135 × nclay + 0.132 × CEC − 2.611 4619 0.67 1.434

0.06 × nclay + 0.167 × ECEC − 1.126 1049 0.59 0.976

7. Mixed and clay <20% 0.063 × nclay + 0.07 × CEC − 0.279 3408 0.43 0.640

0.05 × nclay + 0.084 × ECEC − 0.289 774 0.49 0.454

8. Siliceous‡ 0.016 × nclay + 0.17 × CEC + 0.003 × (CEC) − 0.265

2
393 0.78 0.826

0.016 × nclay + 0.199 × ECEC − 0.098 752 0.64 0.512

9. Vermiculitic 0.151 × nclay + 0.103 × CEC − 2.881 28 0.86 1.475

10. Illitic 0.026 × nclay + 0.227 × CEC − 1.398 135 0.79 0.817

0.02 × nclay + 0.223 × ECEC − 0.548 46 0.47 1.049

11. Carbonatic 0.16 × nclay + 0.092 × CEC − 1.878 332 0.73 1.271

12. Other§ 0.065 × nclay + 0.06 × CEC + 0.015 416 0.60 1.063

−0.025 × nclay + 0.002 × (nclay) + 0.049 × ECEC + 0.599

2
142 0.61 0.808

13. All other mineral horizons¶ Uses the mixed mineralogy equations
Equations were developed based on taxonomic mineralogy classes and selected soil properties. The equations are ordered to serve as a guide in the selection
of the appropriate model.
†ngclay = nclay adjusted to a gypsum-free basis (%); nclay = nclay content (%); CEC = cation-exchange capacity (cmol(+) kg−1); ECEC = effective cation-
exchange capacity (cmol(+) kg−1); nclay (%) = total clay (%) − carbonate clay (%).
‡Includes Quartzipsamments.
§Other mineralogy classes include ferritic, gibbsitic, allitic, sesquic, parasesquic, ferruginous, magnesic, halloysitic, amorphic, ferrihydritic, glassy, and isotic.
¶Includes mineral horizons of Histosols and Histels.

(Schafer and Singer, 1976; de Jong et al., 1992) and have found
COLE to have no correlation or to be negatively correlated with
the carbonate content of the soil (de Jong et al., 1992; Dinka
et al., 2013). The high correlations with CEC and nclay suggest
they would be the most useful in predicting LEP.
The development data set was stratified into 12 data sets based on
their gypsum content, taxonomic mineralogy class, and clay content
(Table 3). For each data set, a general linear model was developed
for a total of 12 prediction equations (Table 3). The CEC and nclay
content were found to be the most useful in predicting LEP. The
CEC and nclay content alone explained between 43% and 86% of
the variability in LEP for nine of the equations (Table 3). For soils
with greater than 5% gypsum, nclay (on a gypsum-free basis) and
CEC explained 88% of the variability in LEP. For soils with greater
than 40% gypsum, CEC alone explained 75% of the variability in
LEP. Noncarbonate clay, CEC, and (CEC)2 explained 78% of the
variation in LEP for the siliceous mineralogy group (Table 3). No
other combination of predictor variables provided equations with
a higher R2 and lower RMSE for either of the data sets.
In soil survey, CEC is available only for soils that have a pH
greater than 5.5, and ECEC is available for low pH layers (USDA-
NRCS, 2016). To make the prediction of LEP available for low pH
soils, a second set of eight prediction equations was developed that
use ECEC as a predictor variable in place of CEC (Table 3). Because
gypsum generally does not occur in low pH soils, no additional
equations were needed. In low pH soils, the ECEC and nclay content
were the most useful variables in predicting LEP. For six of the equa-
tions, the ECEC and nclay content explained between 42% and 67%
of the variability in LEP (Table 3). Noncarbonate clay, (nclay)2, and
ECEC explained 51% of the variation in LEP for the kaolinitic min-
eralogy group (Table 3). Similarly, for the “other” mineralogy data
set, nclay, (nclay)2, and ECEC explained 61% of the variation in
LEP. No other combination of predictor variables provided equa-
tions with a lower RMSE.
The RMSEs ranged from 0.25 to 2.86 among all the equations
(Table 3). In general, the RMSEs were slightly higher for the smec-
titic equations compared with the other groups. They also have the
greatest range in LEP values among the mineralogy groups, because
RMSE depends on the scale or range of the data.
The numbered models serve as a guide to help select the correct
equation in predicting LEP (Table 3) and provide flexibility for the
user. Based on the properties of the soil and taxonomic classifica-
tion, the user selects the prediction equation from Table 3 starting
with Model 1. If gypsum is present in the soil and whether total clay

Soil Science • January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1 www.soilsci.com 5

Seybold and Libohova Soil Science

Model Validation

FIGURE 3. A scatter plot of the measured versus predicted LEP
representing prediction equations that use CEC as one of the predictor
variables, as listed in Table 3.
is available will determine which gypsum equations to use in predicting
LEP (Table 3). Next, if gypsum is not present in the soil, then the
taxonomic mineralogy class and total clay content are used to deter-
mine which equation to use (Table 3). For example, if the soil has
mixed mineralogy and the clay content is less than 20%, then the ap-
propriate equation is used to predict LEP (depending whether CEC
or ECEC is available). The models provide an LEP estimate for ev-
ery soil sample that has an organic carbon content of 3% or less,
given that the CEC or ECEC, nclay content, and the soil classifica-
tion are known. If rock fragments are present in the soil, then the pre-
dicted LEP is adjusted to a whole-soil basis: (1 − volume fraction of
fragments)
LEP.
Each soil sample from individual pedons in the validation data set
was run through the appropriate predictive model to estimate LEP,
based on the models in Table 3. All developed prediction models
were used as indicated by the breakdown of the soil taxonomic min-
eralogy classes in the validation data set (1% has >5% gypsum, 24%
smectitic, 5% kaolinitic, 61% mixed, 3% siliceous, 0.5% vermiculitic,
1% illitic, 2% carbonatic, and 2.5% other). This is very similar to the
mineralogy class breakdown of the development data set (1.5% has
> 5% gypsum, 21% smectitic, 3.5% kaolinitic, 60% mixed, 7% sili-
ceous, 0.5% vermiculitic, 1% illitic, 2% carbonatic, and 3.5% other).
A plot of measured versus predicted LEP values for all other equa-
tions is presented in Fig. 3. The collective model (all equations
using CEC) explained 87% of the variation in the LEP data. Accu-
racy of the predictions produced an RMSEp of 1.44% and ME of
−0.16% (Fig. 3).
Equations using ECEC as a predictor variable were validated as a
separate group. Validation of the equations using ECEC as a predic-
tor variable for low pH soils is shown in Fig. 4. The collective model
explained 77% of the variation in the LEP data. Accuracy of the pre-
dictions produced an RMSEp of 1.29% and ME of −0.034% (Fig. 4).
Prediction accuracy for equations using ECEC was slightly lower
than that for equations using CEC. It should be noted that the range
in LEP is smaller for equations using ECEC than that for equations
using CEC. Validation results from Schafer and Singer (1976) on
a model developed from 16 California soils could predict LEP
within 1% to 2%. Also, simple linear regressions using total clay
for predicting LEP were developed from laboratory characterization
data for each of the taxonomic mineralogy groups (montmorillon-
itic, mixed, and kaolinitic) that resulted in R2 ranging from 0.44 to
0.77 (Soil Survey Laboratory Staff, unpublished data, 1981). There
are no other published studies that attempted to predict LEP or ad-
dressed such a wide range of soils as in the present study.
TABLE 4. Validation Results for the Prediction of LEP for Each of the
Mineralogy Groups
Mineralogy n R2 RMSEp ME

Gypsum content >5% 19 0.95 0.813 0.073

Smectitic 534 0.80 1.80 −0.390

35% clay 434 0.72 1.787 −0.450

<35% clay 100 0.58 0.732 −0.130

Kaolinitic 108 0.60 1.750 −0.001

Mixed† 1313 0.77 1.086 −0.063

20% clay 913 0.71 1.144 −0.005

<20% clay 400 0.34 0.498 −0.196

Siliceous‡ 71 0.74 0.418 −0.331

Vermiculitic 10 0.90 1.297 −0.590

Illitic 25 0.62 1.079 0.056

Carbonatic 37 0.61 1.218 −0.689

Other¶ 53 0.45 1.580 0.609

FIGURE 4. A scatter plot of the measured versus predicted LEP
representing prediction equations that use ECEC as one of the predictor
variables, as listed in Table 3.
†Includes mineral horizons of Histosols and Histels and other classifica-
tions where the mineralogy class is not used.
‡Includes Quartzipsamments.
¶Other mineralogy classes include ferritic, gibbsitic, allitic, sesquic,
parasesquic, ferruginous, magnesic, halloysitic, amorphic, ferrihydritic, glassy,
and isotic.

6 www.soilsci.com © 2017 The Author(s). Published Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1
In the plots of measured versus predicted LEP in Fig. 3, the 95%
confidence intervals for the slope (0.825, 0.856) do not include 1,
suggesting a significant difference from unit 1 slope. The 95% con-
fidence intervals for the intercept (0.574, 0.787) do not include 0,
which indicates the intercept is significantly different from 0. Simi-
larly, in plots of measured versus predicted LEP in Fig. 4, the 95%
confidence intervals for the slope (0.760, 0.836) do not include 1,
and the 95% confidence intervals for the intercept (0.410, 0.739)
do not include 0. For both plots, this means that more than 95% of
the time similarly constructed intervals will not contain unit 1 slope
and 0 intercept. In other words, the model slightly overestimates
LEP starting at the intercept (0 LEP), then crosses over the 1:1 line
at some point, and beyond that point, the model underestimates LEP
as LEP increases. The crossover point is at LEP of 4% in Fig. 3 and
at 2.75% in Fig. 4. However, the overall ME is small, −0.16% for
equations using CEC and −0.034% for equations using ECEC.
The small negative ME indicates an overall underestimation.
Validation results for the different mineralogy groups are pre-
sented in Table 4. The RMSEp ranged from 0.42% to 1.80%
among the mineralogy groups, with the smectitic group having
the largest RMSEp. However, the smectitic group also has the
largest range in LEP. The siliceous group had the lowest RMSEp.
In general, the lower clay content groups tended to have lower
RMSEp. The range in the RMSEp was lower than that for the
RMSE of the estimate and tended to be lower or similar for most
of the mineralogy groups. The MEs or bias ranged from −0.689 to
0.609 among the different mineralogy groups (Table 4). The “other”
mineralogy group had the largest positive ME of 0.609, which indi-
cates an overestimation, whereas the carbonatic group had the largest
negative ME of −0.689, which indicates an underestimation of LEP. Six
of the nine mineralogy groups had a small negative ME (Table 4). In
general, the MEs were small, indicating that these models can pre-
dict LEP reasonable well for the wide variety of soils of the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
Models were developed for predicting LEP that can be applied
to soils of the United States. The data were stratified based on
the taxonomic mineralogy class and pH, which resulted in 20
general linear models for predicting LEP. The models apply to
mineral soils with less than 3% organic carbon. Noncarbonate clay
and CEC were the variables most highly correlated with LEP.
Noncarbonate clay and CEC were able to explain between 43%
and 86% of the variation in LEP for nine of the models, whereas
nclay and ECEC (low pH soils) explained between 42% to 67%
of the variability in LEP for six of the models. Validation results
showed a prediction accuracy (RMSEp) of 1.44% with an ME of
−0.16% for equations using CEC as a predictor variable and an
RMSEp of 1.29% with an ME of −0.034% for equations using
ECEC as a predictor variable. The RMSEp ranged from 0.42% to
1.80% among the different mineralogy groups, which were gener-
ally lower than the RMSE of the estimate. The models are consid-
ered adequate for use in soil surveys.
The LEP prediction models developed in this study are an im-
provement over previous estimation procedures based on visual esti-
mations of shrink-swell potential and on a discrete class assignment.
The models will be made available as a calculation within the NASIS
database for field soil scientists to use when measured data are not
available. Initial soil mapping is still being conducted in the United
States, and many areas are undergoing updates. Improvements in
LEP estimates will improve interpretations generated from soil
survey data, which benefits all users of soil survey information.
REFERENCES
Al-Rawas A. A. 1999. The factors controlling the expansive nature of the
soils and rocks of northern Oman. Eng. Geol. 53:327–350.
Soil Science • January 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 1
Predicting Linear Extensibility Percent
Bohn H. I., B. L. McNeal, and G. A. O’Connor. 1979. Soil Chemistry. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Brasher B. R., D. P. Franzmeier, V. Valassis, and S. E. Davidson. 1966. Use of
saran resin to coat natural soil clods for bulk-density and water-retention
measurements. Soil Sci. 101:108.
Bronswijk J. J. B. 1989. Prediction of actual cracking and subsidence in clay
soils. Soil Sci. 148:87–93.
Burt R. 2011. Soil Survey Laboratory Information Manual. Soil Survey In-
vestigations Report No. 45. Version 2.0. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
de Jong E., L. M. Kozak, and H. B. Stonehouse. 1992. Comparison of shrink-
swell indices of some Saskatchewan soils and their relationships to stan-
dard soil characteristics. Can. J. Soil Sci. 72:429–439.
Dinka T. M., C. L. S. Morgan, K. J. Mcinnes, A. S. Kishné, and R. D. Harmel.
2013. Shrink-swell behavior of soil across a Vertisol catena. J. Hydrology.
476:352–359.
Favre F., P. Boivin, and M. C. S. Wopereis. 1997. Water movement and soil
swelling in a dry, cracked Vertisol. Geoderma. 78:113–123.
Franzmeier D. P., and S. J. Ross Jr. 1968. Soil swelling: Laboratory measure-
ment and relation to other soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
32:573–577.
Gill W. R., and C. A. Reaves. 1957. Relationship of Atterberg limits and
cation-exchange capacity to some physical properties of soil. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 21:491–494.
Grey C. W., and R. Allbrook. 2002. Relationships between shrinkage indices
and soil properties in some New Zealand soils. Geoderma. 108:287–299.
Grossman R. B., B. R. Brasher, D. P. Franzmeier, and J. L. Walker. 1968. Lin-
ear extensibility as calculated from natural-clod bulk density measure-
ments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:570–573.
Hallberg G. R. 1977. The use of COLE values for soil engineering evaluation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:775–777.
Holmgren G. S. 1968. Nomographic calculations of linear extensibility in
soils containing coarse fragments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:568–570.
Ikizler A. B., M. Aytekin, M. Mekli, and F. Kocabas. 2010. Prediction of
swelling pressures of expansive soils using artificial neural networks.
Adv. Eng. Softw. 41:647–655.
Kariuki P. C., and F. van der Meer. 2004. A unified swelling potential index
for expansive soils. Eng. Geol. 72:1–8.
Mandal D. K., C. Mandal, and M. V. Venugopalan. 2005. Suitability of
cotton cultivation in shrink-swell soils in central India. Agric. Sys.
84:55–75.
Mbagwu J. S. C. 1992. Evaluation of shrink-swell potential of soils by two
procedures. Pedologie. 42:69–82.
McBratney A. B., B. Minasny, and G. Tranter. 2011. Necessary meta-data for
pedotransfer functions. Geoderma. 160:627–629.
McCormack D. E., and L. P. Wilding. 1975. Soil properties influencing swell-
ing in Canfield and Geeburg soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 39:496–502.
Nettleton W. D., and B. R. Brasher. 1983. Correlation of clay minerals and
properties of soil in the western United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
47:1032–1036.
Nettleton W. D., B. R. Brasher, and S. L. Baird. 1991. Carbonate clay charac-
terization by statistical methods. In: Nettleton W. D. (ed.). Occurrence,
Characteristics, and Genesis of Carbonates, Gypsum, and Silica Accumu-
lations in Soils. SSSA Spec. Publ. no 26. 75–87.
Pruška J., and M. Šedivý. 2015. Prediction of soil swelling parameters. Proc.
Earth Planet. Sci. 15:219–224.
Puppala A. J., T. Mhammanoon, and B. C. S. Chittoori. 2013. Swell and
shrinkage characterizations of unsaturated expansive clays from Texas.
Eng. Geol. 164:187–194.
Ross G. J. 1978. Relationships of specific surface area and clay content to
shrink-swell potential of soils having different clay mineralogical compo-
sitions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 58:159–166.
Schafer W. M., and M. J. Singer. 1976. Influence of physical and mineralog-
ical properties on swelling of soil in Yolo County, California. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 40:557–562.
Seed H. B., R. J. Woodward, and R. Lundgren. 1962. Prediction of swell-
ing potential for compacted clays. J. Soil. Mech. Foundations Div.
88:53–87.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice. US Department of Agriculture, Handbook no. 18. US Gov. Print.
Office, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification
for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. US Department of Agriculture,
Handbook no. 436. 2nd ed. US Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
www.soilsci.com 7
Seybold and Libohova
Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg soil survey laboratory methods manual. Soil
Survey Investigations Report No. 42. Version 5.0. US Department of Ag-
riculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, p. 998. Available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=
nrcs142p2_054247 (accessed January 5, 2017).
Stolpe N. B., and D. T. Lewis. 1990. Mineralogical implications of high ratios
of 1500 kPa water content to percent measured clay for two soils of west-
ern Nebraska. Geoderma. 46:1–16.
SYSTAT Software. 2009. SYSTAT 13 for Windows. Version No. 13.1.
SYSTAT Software Inc., San Jose, CA.
Thomas P. J., J. C. Baker, and L. W. Zelazny. 2000. An expansive index for
predicting shrink-swell potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:268–274.
8 www.soilsci.com
Soil Science
USDA-NRCS. 2016. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. [Online]
Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?
cid=nrcs142p2_054242. Accessed July 7, 2016.
Vaught R., K. R. Brye, and D. M. Miller. 2006. Relationship among coeffi-
cient of linear extensibility and clay fractions in expansive, stony soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:1983–1990.
Yule D. F., and J. T. Ritchie. 1980. Soil shrinkage relationships of Texas
Vertisols: I small cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:1285–1291.
Zhang X., Y. Hao, Y. Zhao, F. Min, and S. Song. 2016. Study on the dif-
ferences of Na- and Ca-montmorillonites in crystalline swelling re-
gime through molecular dynamics simulation. Adv. Powder Technol.
27:779–785.
© 2017 The Author(s). Published Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.