Amézketa Aggregate Review

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
ISSN: 1044-0046 (Print) 1540-7578 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20
Soil Aggregate Stability: A Review
E. Amézketa
To cite this article: E. Amézketa (1999) Soil Aggregate Stability: A Review, Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 14:2-3, 83-151, DOI: 10.1300/J064v14n02_08
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v14n02_08
Published online: 22 Oct 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2810
View related articles
Citing articles: 281 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa20
Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 13 October 2017, At: 05:24
Soil Aggregate Stability:
A Review
E. Amézketa
ABSTRACT. Soil aggregate stability is a crucial soil property affecting

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 05:24 13 October 2017
soil sustainability and crop production. A broad outline of the processes

and agents of aggregate formation and aggregate stabilization are pre-
sented and discussed in this review. Aggregate stability is difficult to
quantify and interpret. The aim of aggregate stability tests is to give a
reliable description and ranking of the behavior of soils under the effect
of water, wind and management. Numerous methods have been used to
determine aggregate stability with varying success. The different meth-
odologies complicate the comparison among aggregate stability data. It
is also difficult to obtain a consistent correlation between aggregate
stability and other important soil properties such as soil erodibility or
crusting potential. This paper reviews the different methods of mea-
surement of soil aggregate stability used in the literature, paying atten-
tion to the conditions of sample collection in the field and sample
preparation and treatments in the laboratory. A unified methodological
framework including the most interesting aspects of existing methods is
suggested. The possibility of using aggregate stability data as an es-
timation of soil erodibility is also discussed. [Article copies available for a
fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail
address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com]
KEYWORDS. Aggregate formation, aggregate stabilization, soil ag-

gregate stability, crust formation, macro-aggregate stability tests, mi-
cro-aggregate stability tests, soil erodibility
E. Amézketa, Unidad de Suelos y Riegos, Servicio de Investigación Agroalimen-

taria, Diputación General de Aragón, Apartado 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain.
Address correspondence to the author at: E-mail: espe@amezketa.net
The author wishes to thank Dr. R. Aragüés for very helpful suggestions and
comments for improvements of the manuscript. He also thanks L. Padilla for correct-
ing English.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 14(2/3) 1999
E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 83
84 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
INTRODUCTION
Soil is a natural resource that must be sustainably managed for the future
of humankind. Maintaining sustainable soil resources or preserving soil re-
sources for long-term is of primary necessity. This idea is taken into account
in the concept of ‘‘Sustainable agriculture,’’ which currently is a global issue,
receiving special attention in scientific comunity, policymakers, and even in
the agricultural community. According to The Technical Advisory Commit-
tee to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, ‘‘sus-
tainable agriculture should involve the successful management of resources
to satisfy changing human needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality
of the environment and conserving natural resources’’ (Lal and Pierce, 1991).
In this context, soil structure is a keyword in the field of soil resource man-
agement for sustaining agricultural productivity while maintaining an accept-
able standard of environmental quality. Soil structure is one important entry
point into the complex problem of sustainable agriculture.
Soil structure can be defined in terms of form and stability (Kay et al.,
1988). Soil structural form refers to the heterogeneous arrangement of solid
and void space that exists at a given time, whereas the stability of a soil’s
structure is its ability to retain this arrangement when exposed to different
stresses (Angers and Carter, 1996). Good soil structure is a most desirable
soil characteristic for sustaining agricultural productivity and for preserving
environmental quality. It depends on the presence of stable aggregates. The
stability of the aggregates and the pores between them affects the movement
and storage of water, aeration, erosion, biological activity and the growth of
crops. Thus, aggregate stability influences a wide range of physical and bio-
geochemical processes in the natural and agricultural environments. Main-
taining high soil aggregate stability is essential for preserving soil productiv-
ity, minimizing soil erosion and degradation and minimizing environmental
pollution derived from soil degradation as well. Thus, maintaining high soil
aggregate stability is a requisite for the sustainable use of soil and for the
sustainable agriculture. Arshad and Coen (1992) proposed aggregate stability
as one of the soil physical properties that can serve as an indicator of soil
quality. Hortensius and Welling (1996) include it in the international stan-
dardization of soil quality measurements. In addition, measurements of soil
aggregate stability could also estimate other soil properties, such as the ero-
sive and crusting potential of the soils, which by themselves require much
time, work and economic support.
Many different methods exist for measuring soil aggregate stability (Jas-
trow and Miller, 1991). The reason for the existence of so many different
methods may be explained (1) by the existence of different mechanisms that
produce destabilization, (2) by the different scales at which stability can be
determined, and (3) by methodological reasons. Basically, the main destabi-
Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 85
lizing mechanisms in the soil are slaking, clay dispersion and clay swelling. It
has been suggested that disintegration of the soil macro-aggregates into mi-
cro-aggregates is the first step in the loss of soil structure, while clay disper-
sion, a time-dependent chemical process, is the second step (Abu-Sharar et al.,
1987; Quirk and Murray, 1991; Shainberg et al., 1992a; Le Bissonnais, 1988,
1989, 1990; So and Aylmore, 1993). The determination of field soil aggre-
gate stability can be performed at different scales (small or large). At these
scales the methodology is different. Even among methods of stability mea-
surement at the same scale, there may be important differences. These differ-
ences may be related to one or more of the following aspects: (1) the condi-
tions of sample collection, (2) the characteristics of the sample subjected to
the test, particularly its structure, aggregate size, and moisture content; (3) the
treatment applied to the sample, such as the wetting technique, rate of wet-
ting, time of shaking the sample, raindrop impact energy etc., which present
different degrees of disruptive energy applied; (4) the measurement of the
disaggregation and dispersion, which is often not clearly distinguished from
the treatment, and (5) the expression of the result, that is, the stability param-
eter used.
The calculation and expression of aggregate stability in different ways
complicates the comparison among aggregate stability data presented in the
literature. It also makes difficult to obtain a consistent correlation between
aggregate stability and soil erodibility or crusting potential. In this sense,
there are apparent contradictions in the literature, due to the fact that conclu-
sions about the correlation between aggregate stability data and erodibility
data are made without considering the different methodologies used to deter-
mine both parameters. Consequently, it is important to pay attention to the
methodology used when comparing stability results. To avoid these problems
a standardization of the methodology would be necessary.
On the other hand, the terms used in the literature can lead to some
confusion; some use the term ‘‘aggregate stability’’ to refer indistinctly to
macro-aggregate stability and/or micro-aggregate stability, whereas others
refer it only to macro-aggregate stability. For example, the tests used to
determine stability of macro-aggregates are usually called ‘‘aggregate stabil-
ity tests,’’ while the tests used to determine stability of micro-aggregates are
usually called ‘‘dispersion tests.’’ Water-stable and wet-aggregate stability
are commonly used terms to refer to macro-aggregate stability. The most
used parameter to describe macro-aggregate stability is the ‘‘Water Stable
Aggregates,’’ WSA. We think, however, that ‘‘aggregate stability’’ may in-
clude stability of macro- and micro-aggregates; so, in this paper we will use
this term as a synonym of soil structural stability or soil aggregation, includ-
ing the stability of all aggregates, and we will discriminate between macro-
and micro-aggregate stability.
This paper discusses the main processes and agents of aggregate formation
and stabilization, and reviews the main methodologies used to determine
aggregate stability. The paper emphasizes the importance of considering the
characteristics of the methods used, due to the fact that the methodology
influences the stability results. The possibility of using the aggregate stability
data as an estimation of soil erodibility is also analyzed. Finally, based on the
reviewed literature, and on our own research and experience we propose a
unified methodological framework, which includes the most interesting as-
pects of the existing methods. This unified method could be used for a wide
range of different soils, from weakly to strongly aggregated soils.
AGGREGATE FORMATION AND STABILIZATION
Soil aggregation is the process by which aggregates of different sizes are

joined and held together by different organic and inorganic materials. Thus, it
includes the processes of formation and stabilization. In the field these pro-
cesses occur more or less continuously, and even act at the same time. Conse-
quently, their effects interact, complicating their discrimination. Neverthe-
less, some authors report that the formation of soil aggregates occurs mainly
as a result of physical forces, while the stabilization of soil aggregates is
produced by a number of factors, in particular the quantity and quality of
inorganic and organic stabilizing agents (Lynch and Bragg, 1985; Oades,
1993; Dalal and Bridge, 1996). However, clay flocculation is a pre-requisite
for soil aggregation (Dexter, 1988). The physical forces include alternate
wetting and drying (semi-arid and sub-humid regions), freezing and thawing
(temperate regions), the compressive as well as drying action of roots, and
the mechanical alimentary action of soil fauna, mainly earthworms, termites
and ants. The inorganic stabilizing agents include mainly clays, polyvalent
metal cations such as Ca2+, Fe3+, and Al3+, oxides and hydroxides of Fe and
Al, calcium and magnesium carbonates and gypsum. The organic stabilizing
agents can be considered in three main groups based on the age and degrada-
tion of the organic matter: transient, temporary and persistent binding agents
(Tisdall and Oades, 1982). The transient binding agents are decomposed
rapidly by microorganisms and include microbial- and plant-derived polysac-
charides. Temporary binding agents are roots, hyphae, particularly vesicular-
arbuscular mycorrizal hyphae, and some fungi. Persistent binding agents
consist of resistant aromatic humic material associated with polyvalent metal
cations, and strongly sorbed polymers (Tisdall and Oades, 1982). These
humic materials appear to be physically protected within clay- and silt-sized
aggregates (Skjemstad et al., 1993). They are derived from the resistant
fragments of roots, hyphae, bacteria cells and colonies.
There are several models of aggregation (Edwards and Bremner, 1967;
Tisdall and Oades, 1982; Elliott, 1986; Oades and Waters, 1991), and the
difference among them is mainly the number of stages of aggregation. These
models confirm the hierarchical order of soil aggregation. The lowest hierar-
chical order is micro-aggregates less than 2 m diameter, consisting of clay
particles attached to organic molecules (OM) by polyvalent cations (P)
(Clay-P-OM). The next hierarchical order is the combination of these micro-
aggregates (<2 m) into micro-aggregates ((Clay-P-OM)x)y, which are <250
m diameter. The next hierarchical order is the bonding of micro-aggregates
(<250 m) into macro-aggregates (>250 m). Finally, macro-aggregates will
bind into clods (several mm or even cm). Tisdall and Oades (1982) proposed
that micro-aggregates themselves are built up in stages with different types of
bonds at each stage. In their model, the stages of aggregation or aggregate

hierarchy were: <0.2 m 0.2-2 m 2-20 m 20-250 m >2000 m di-
ameter. Oades and Waters (1991) modified the model, suggesting that the
stages of aggregation were: <20 m 20-90 m 90-250 m >250 m.
These models can be applied generally to soils where organic matter is the
main binding agent. In general, these models confirm the utility of the con-
cept of micro- and macro-aggregates to separate aggregates less and higher
than 250 m, respectively. Good soil structure is described as, ‘‘one where all
the hierarchical orders are well-developed and are stable against the actions
of water and external mechanical stresses’’ (Dexter, 1988). The hierarchical
nature of soil structure indicates that different mechanisms of aggregation
operate for different size classes of aggregates. Thus, macro-aggregates
greater than 250 m, and specially those greater than 2 mm in diameter,
appear to be held together largely by fine roots and fungal hyphae. Aggre-
gates 20-250 m consist largely of particles 2-20 m diameter bonded togeth-
er by various cements including persistent organic materials and crystalline
oxides and highly disordered aluminosilicates (Tisdall and Oades, 1982).
Recent studies (Oades and Waters, 1991; Golchin et al., 1994; Golchin et al.,
1995) showed that encrustation of plant debris by mineral particles is another
mechanism in the formation and stabilization of these micro-aggregates. For
example, micro-aggregates with diameters of 2-20 m consist of particles <2 m
diameter bonded together by persistent organic bonds (plant and fungal de-
bris encrusted with inorganic compounds). Units smaller than 2 m in diame-
ter consist of clay particles held together by inorganic and organic cements
and electrostatic bonds. Consequently, aggregates of different size classes
will have different stability. Dexter (1988) concluded that compound par-
ticles of lower hierarchical order are more dense and have a higher internal
strength than particles of higher hierarchical order. He also suggested that if
the lowest hierarchical order of soil structure is destroyed, the other hierarchi-
cal orders are simultaneously destroyed. Consequently, characterization of
soil aggregate stability requires the analysis of the behavior of particles of
different hierarchical orders, such as macro-aggregates, and clay- and silt-

size micro-aggregates.
FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL AGGREGATE STABILITY
Two main groups of factors affecting soil aggregate stability can be con-
sidered: (1) soil primary characteristics or internal factors, and (2) external
factors to the soil. Among the soil primary characteristics, we will review and
discuss the influence of the electrolyte (concentration, thus electrical conduc-
tivity, EC; type of cations, sodium adsorption ratio, SAR; pH, etc.), clay
mineralogy, CaCO3 and gypsum, organic matter, and Fe and Al oxides on

aggregate stability. Among the external factors, we will discuss the climate,
the age, the biological factors, and the agricultural management. However,
one must not consider one parameter without considering the interactions
with the other parameters.
Internal Factors
It has been shown that wet aggregate stability (macro-aggregate stability)

and dispersible clay (micro-aggregate stability) are related to similar soil
variables (Goldberg et al., 1988).
Electrolyte
It has been suggested that disintegration of the soil macro-aggregates into

micro-aggregates is produced primarily by the wetting action and by water-
drop impact, being independent of electrolyte concentration (EC) (Shainberg
et al., 1992a) and composition (specially sodium adsorption ratio, [SAR =
Na/(Ca + Mg)0.5]). Barzegar et al. (1994b) and Levy and Torrento (1995)
noted however an adverse effect of sodicity (SAR) on macro-aggregate sta-
bility, showing that sodicity decreased the amount of macro-aggregates
(>250 m) and consequently increased the amount of micro-aggregates
(<250 m). The slight adverse effect of exchangeable Na in macro-aggregate
stability noted by Levy and Torrento (1995) was only noticeable at increasing
ESP from 0.3 to 1.3%, while there was no effect in the range from 1.5 to 5%.
The main factors controlling clay dispersion/flocculation are the electro-
lyte concentration (EC), the solution pH and the sodium adsorption ratio
(Quirk and Schofield, 1955; Shainberg and Letey, 1984; Suarez et al., 1984;
Amézketa, 1992; Amézketa and Aragüés, 1995a, b).
Low electrolyte concentrations and high SAR values produce clay disper-
sion and swelling and consequently the loss of soil structure. The adverse
effects of these factors on the hydraulic conductivity and/or infiltration rate

are well established (Quirk and Schofield, 1955; McNeal and Coleman, 1966;
Frenkel et al., 1978; Alperovitch et al., 1981; Shainberg et al., 1981a, b;
Quirk, 1986; Abu-Sharar 1985; Abu-Sharar et al., 1987; Shainberg and Sing-
er, 1990; Rengasamy and Olsson, 1991; Amézketa and Aragüés, 1995b).
Several studies have also shown that occurrence of poor physical conditions
are present even at low SAR values (Oster et al., 1980; Rengasamy et al.,
1984; Curtin et al., 1995; Crescimanno et al., 1995; Levy and Torrento, 1995;
Kaplan et al., 1996). Sodium causes swelling and/or dispersion of clay par-
ticles, and slaking of unstable aggregates (Crescimanno et al., 1995). A
threshold concentration curve defined from SAR and EC values is very
useful to define chemical conditions (SAR, EC) that destabilize soil structure
from those under which structure is stable. However, single stability lines
must be developed for each soil (Pratt and Suarez, 1990), since other vari-
ables also affect soil structural stability.
Gupta et al. (1984), Arora and Coleman (1979), Shainberg and Letey
(1984), Suarez et al. (1984), Chiang et al. (1987), Keren et al. (1988) and
Chorom et al. (1994) observed that clay dispersion increases with increasing
soil pH. The importance of the pH effect is demonstrated by the observation
that differences in relative hydraulic conductivity between pH 6 and 9 were
equivalent to differences between SAR 20 and 40 (Suarez et al., 1984).
Amézketa and Aragüés (1995a) found that the negative effect of increasing
pH values on the enhancement of clay dispersion was only important for
electrolyte concentrations below the flocculation value (FV).
Some authors have found that, for a given SAR, clay dispersion differs
with the presence of Ca or Mg. Abderrahman and Rowell (1979), Yousaf et
al. (1987), Heil and Sposito (1993a), and Curtin et al. (1994b) found that, for
a given SAR, Ca is more effective than Mg in flocculating soil clay particles.
Allperovitch et al. (1986) observed that this differential effect may be negli-
gible in soils high in calcium carbonate, because the exchangeable Mg en-
hances dissolution of CaCO3 and the released electrolytes prevented clay
dispersion. Thus, Amézketa and Aragüés (1995a) found that Ca and Mg had
the same effect on the dispersion of clay in several calcareous soils.
Of the four major cations found in soils (Ca, Mg, Na, and K), the effect of
exchangeable K on soil physical and hydraulic properties is probably the
least clear. Reported results vary or conflict with respect to this effect. Quirk
and Schofield (1955) consider K as deleterious as Na. Levy and Torrento
(1995) found K as not deleterious, limiting clay dispersion and maintaining
macro-aggregate stability. They attributed this to the lower hydration energy
of adsorbed K, which is 72% that of adsorbed Na. On the other hand, Levy
and Van Der Watt (1990) observed an intermediate effect of K between Ca
and Na. Moreover, the Hofmeister’s lyotropic serie establishes that the de-
creasing order of cations promoting flocculation is Ca+2 > Mg +2 > K+ > Na+
(Van Olphen, 1977).
Clay Mineralogy
Clay is one of the aggregating factors in the soil. However, the effect is
different depending on its mineralogy. Considering the physiochemical char-
acteristics of clays, the smectitic clays should be more efficient on aggrega-
tion than other clays because of their large specific surface area, high Cation
Exchange Capacity (CEC), and consequently, high physiochemical interac-
tion capacity. In addition, Emerson (1964) showed that swelling clays are less
subject to slaking than kaolinite or illite because the pressure which is devel-
oped by entrapped air is released by swelling. However, fissuring of mont-

morillonite may occur, due to the combination of stress of entrapped air and
swelling of aggregates (Le Bissonnais, 1996a). Conversely, McNeal et al.
(1966) established that under unstable conditions, such as high SAR values
and low electrolyte concentrations, soils high in montmorillonite are unsta-
ble, whereas soils with high contents in kaolinite and sesquioxides are rela-
tively stable, and soils high in 2:1 clay minerals, but without or with low
amounts of montmorillonite have an intermediate behavior. The frequent
association of kaolinite with iron oxides may be responsible for the very
strong stability of their aggregates to slaking.
Another mechanism of aggregate breakdown, chemical dispersion, de-
pends on clay mineralogy. El-Swaify (1976), Van Olphen (1977), Arora and
Coleman (1979), Oster et al. (1980), and Shainberg and Letey (1984) deter-
mined that illites are the clays most sensitive to dispersion (higher floccula-
tion values). This is due to the smaller edge-to-face attraction forces in
comparison to the other clays because of the irregular and terraced surfaces
of the illite particles. Arora and Coleman (1979) found that the sensitivity to
flocculation by NaHCO3 was in the decreasing order: illite > vermiculite >
smectite > kaolinite. Nevertheless, Velasco-Molina et al. (1971) found that
the soil dispersion order was: montmorillonitic > halloysitic-kaolinitic >
micaceous. However, at low ESP values, the micaceous soil dispersed more
than the halloysitic-kaolinitic soil.
Clay mineralogy influences soil aggregate stability, but the effect is diffi-
cult to assess because soils usually contain a mixture of clay minerals, so
their behavior is modified by the association with other minerals. In this
sense, Frenkel et al. (1978) reported that the addition of small amounts of
montmorillonite to kaolin soils promotes the dispersion of kaolinin flocs.
This behavior is explained by the fact that negatively charged montmorillo-
nite particles (faces) are adsorbed on the positively charged kaolin edges
preventing the edge-to-face association of the kaolin structure (Frenkel et al.,
1978).
Moreover, previous investigations concluded that the dispersion of soil

clays could be related to the dispersion of the corresponding reference clays
(Arora and Coleman, 1979; Yousaf, 1983). Rengasamy (1983) and Goldberg
and Forster (1990) reported, however, that the colloidal stability and the
flocculation value (FV) of soil clay suspensions were greater than those of
reference clay suspensions. Extrapolation from reference clay results is,
therefore, not possible and additional factors such as the content of organic
matter, Fe and Al oxides, or CaCO3 affect the colloidal stability of soils
(Miller et al., 1990; Frenkel et al., 1992; Kretzschmar et al., 1993).
In conclusion, the effect of clay mineralogy on aggregate stability seems to
be ambivalent. However, the interaction of this factor with other soil proper-
ties may be responsible for the apparently contradictory results. Goldberg and
Forster (1990) and Amézketa and Aragüés (1995a) reported that dispersion
tests (micro-aggregate stability tests) using reference clays are not appropri-
ate to describe the flocculation-dispersion behavior of soil clays.
Clay content has been also considered as a cementing agent (Shainberg et
al., 1992a; Brubaker et al., 1992; Curtin et al.,1994a; Le Bissonnais, 1996a).
However, Ternan et al. (1996) found that soils with a higher clay content had
a lower aggregate stability.
CaCO3 and Gypsum
The beneficial effect of calcite dissolution on the structural stability of

calcareous soils has been reported by Alperovitch et al. (1981), Shainberg et
al. (1981a, b), Yadav and Girdhar (1981), Ben-Hur et al. (1985), and Minhas
and Sharma (1986), who concluded that the released Ca was enough to
prevent clay dispersion. On the contrary, soil infiltration rate is independent
of the presence of calcite or gypsum in the soil, depending basically on the
sodicity of the soil surface and on the electrical concentration of the water
applied to the soil. Le Bissonnais (1996a) concluded that the effect of CaCO3
on aggregate stability probably depends on the size distribution of CaCO3
particles and on the clay content. For a beneficial aggregating effect sufficient
clay must be present and CaCO3 particles must be smaller than the size of silt.
Very fine particles of soil calcite have sufficiently high surface-free energies
for their solubility to be higher than the theoretically predicted values for
well-crystallized calcite (Inskeep and Bloom, 1986).
Reclaiming sodic soils with naturally occurring CaCO3 is enhanced by
enriching irrigation water with CO2, which leads to a constant lime dissolu-
tion and to a continuous supply of Ca2+ that removes Na+ from the exchange
sites (Nadler et al., 1996a).
Efficiency of reclamation of soils with gypsum depends on the flow rate
of the percolating solution. Increasing flow rates (1) reduces the thickness
of the water film around the gypsum particles, (2) reduces the contact time
between a unit volume of water and the surface area of the gypsum particles,
and (3) reduces the opportunity for Ca-Na exchange (Nadler et al., 1996a).
Consequently, increasing flow rates reduces the efficiency of using gypsum
for reclamation.
Organic Matter
The role of organic matter (OM) with regard to aggregate stability is still
controversial.
Addition of organic anions (fulvates, citrates, oxalates, tartrates, salicy-
lates, aspartates, lactates, and acetates) to soil suspensions increases clay
dispersion (Shanmuganathan and Oades, 1983; Durgin and Chaney, 1984;
Piccolo and Mbagwu, 1989; Kosmas and Moustakas, 1990; Goldberg et al.,
1990; Frenkel et al., 1992; Heil and Sposito, 1993a, b; Tarchitzky et al., 1993;
Kretzschmar et al., 1993; Itami and Kyuma, 1995; and Heil and Sposito,
1995). Van den Broek (1989) observed that addition of small amounts of
fulvic and citric acids to clay suspensions notably increased clay dispersion,
whereas aromatic acids (salicylic and p-hydroxybenzoic) have a flocculating
effect. Visser and Caillier (1988) also showed the dispersive effect of humic
substances.
On the other hand, there have been numerous positive correlations be-
tween organic matter and water stable aggregates, WSA ((Greenland, 1971;
Hamblin and Davies, 1977; Hamblin and Greenland, 1977 (all three cited in
Fortún and Fortún, 1989); Chaney and Swift, 1984; Benito Rueda and Díaz-
Fierros Viqueira, 1989; Mbagwu and Piccolo, 1989; and Fortún et al., 1989).
This apparent contradiction on the effects of OM comes from the compari-
son of OM with stability parameters such as WSA, and Dispersed Clay, DC.
Considering that increasing WSA increases aggregate stability, it can be
concluded that OM increases aggregate stability. Considering that increasing
clay dispersion decreases aggregate stability, it can be concluded that OM
decreases aggregate stability. The paradox can be understood in part if we
separate aggregate stability in macro-aggregate stability and micro-aggregate
stability, as we propose in this paper. WSA reflects macro-aggregate stability
whereas DC reflects micro-aggregate stability.
There are more likely three main hypothesis to explain the apparent con-
tradiction. First, both stability parameters emphasize different aspects of
stability, macro-aggregate stability and micro-aggregate stability. Second, the
effect depends on the type of union between the humic substances and the
clay, and in particular, on the size of the organic anions. Only if the organic
anion is longer than the clay edge, it will attach to the edges of several clay
particles and bind them together (Durgin and Chaney, 1984; Emerson, 1977;
and Shanmuganathan and Oades, 1983). Third, OM acts differently at the two
levels, macro-aggregates and micro-aggregates. Thus, organic bonds stabi-
lize aggregates against slaking and disaggregation, but once these bonds are
broken and disaggregation has occurred, the organic matter acts as a defloc-
culant (Emerson, 1983; Goldberg et al., 1990; and Itami and Kyuma, 1995).
In this sense, Goldberg et al. (1990) and Nadler et al. (1996b) suggest that the
effect of organic matter on soil structure is a function of the size scale of the
soil particles analyzed. Thus, in clay-sized aggregates, organic matter acts
over the particle charge (Goldberg et al., 1990), whereas in coarse sand-sized
aggregates, organic matter acts as a binding agent, through roots and hyphae
(Tisdall and Oades, 1982). Thus, OM would have different effects on mac-
roaggregation than on microaggregation. Heil and Sposito (1993b) and
Kretzschmar et al. (1993) found that the effect of organic matter in clay-sized
aggregates (colloidal stability) was not caused by electrostatic mechanisms

(changing the particle charge), but by steric mechanisms. Steric mechanisms
consist of steric repulsion resulting from the overlap of adsorbed organic
polymers. The polymer coating acts as a hard surface, and limits the closest
approach of two coated particles to twice the thickness of an adsorbed layer,
reducing the effectiveness of attractive short-range van der Waals forces
between mineral particles (Heil and Sposito, 1993b).
Other works have found no correlation between OM and WSA (Carter et
al., 1994), suggesting that some components of the organic carbon pool are
more actively involved in stabilizing aggregates than others (Perfect and Kay,
1990). Roberson et al. (1991) showed that densimetrically separated heavy
fraction (HF) soil carbohydrate was well correlated with soil structure, while
total organic C and total carbohydrate were not significantly correlated with
structure. Hot-water extractable carbohydrates, which have microbial origin,
were postulated by Haynes and Swift (1990) and Gijsman and Thomas
(1995) to be involved in soil aggregate stabilitization. Golchin et al. (1994)
and Puget et al. (1995) indicated that the stability of soil structure is more
closely related to the young and active SOM fraction than to total SOM
content.
In summary, the contradictory results found in the correlations among
macro-aggregation and organic matter are due to one or more of the follow-
ing reasons: (1) only part of the organic matter is responsible for water-stable
aggregation, (2) there is a content of organic carbon above which there is no
further increase in water-stable aggregation, (3) organic materials are not the
major binding agents, and (4) it is the disposition rather than the type or
amount of organic matter which is important (Tisdall and Oades, 1982).
The stabilizing effect of organic matter results from the combination of the
transient aggregating effect of polysaccharides on micro-aggregates, the tem-
porarily stabilizing effect of roots and hyphae on macro-aggregates, and the
persistant effect of polymers and aromatic compounds on micro-aggregates.
Several works have confirmed these conclusions studying the distribution of
organic matter at different soil aggregate size fractions (Christensen, 1986;

Elliott, 1986; Gupta and Germida, 1988; Cambardella and Elliott, 1992,
1993; Angers et al., 1993a, 1995; Schulten et al., 1993; Beare et al., 1994b;
Puget et al., 1995) as well as the decomposition rates of size and density
fractions of soil organic matter (Golchin et al., 1994; Golchin et al., 1995;
Hassink, 1995). In addition, some authors have reported that another positive
effect of organic matter is to form a hydrophobic coating around the aggre-
gates, reducing soil wettability, slowing down the wetting rate, and conse-
quently reducing the sensitivity to slaking (Mbagwu and Piccolo, 1989; Sulli-
van, 1990; Blackman, 1992; Zhang and Hartge, 1992, cited in Zhang, 1994;
Caron et al., 1996).
The dispersive effect of organic matter is the result of the following mech-
anisms: (1) the blocking of positively charged edges of clay minerals by

negatively charged organic anions, (2) the complexation of polyvalent cat-
ions by organic matter, and (3) the steric repulsion resulting from the overlap
of adsorbed organic polymer layers (Heil and Sposito, 1993a, b).
Fe and Al Oxides
The influence of sesquioxides on soil aggregation is still a matter of

controversy in literature. McNeal and Coleman (1966), McNeal et al. (1968),
El-Swaify and Emerson (1975), El-Swaify (1976), Du Plessis and Shainberg
(1985), Chiang et al. (1987), Shainberg et al. (1987), Keren and Singer (1989,
1990, 1991), Goldberg et al. (1990) and Pinheiro-Dick and Schwertmann
(1996) stated that soils having a high content of iron and aluminum oxides
are very stable. However, Borggaard (1983, cited in van Den Broek, 1989)
and Bartoli et al. (1991) showed that their effect on aggregate stability is
negligible. This apparent contradiction is related to the variation in crystallin-
ity, particle size and distribution of the oxide (van Den Broek, 1989), as well
as to the level at which oxides act. The major effect of these compounds is
mainly on soil micro-aggregation, and basically limiting clay dispersion and
swelling. The stabilizing effect of the sesquioxides are through different
mechanisms: (1) iron and aluminum in solution act as flocculants, (2) ses-
quioxides bind clay particles to the organic molecules, and (3) sesquioxides
can precipitate as gels on clay surfaces.
El Rayah and Rowell (1973), El-Swaify and Emerson, (1975), El-Swaify
(1976), Frenkel and Shainberg (1980), Goldberg and Glaubig (1987), and
Keren and Singer (1989, 1990) establish that aluminum polymers are more
effective in aggregating than iron polymers. The higher efficiency of the
aluminum polymers is due to (1) their higher point of zero charge (pzc)
(Goldberg and Glaubig, 1987, and Keren and Singer, 1989, 1990), leading to
a higher charge density, and consequently to stronger clay-polymers attrac-
tion forces; and (2) the planar shape of the Al precipitates, differing to the
spherical shape of the Fe polymers; what means a higher touching surface, so

a higher binding surface to clay particles.
However, McNeal et al. (1968) and Shainberg et al. (1987) found that Fe
polymers (as FeCl3) were better stabilizing than Al polymers, and concluded
that the stabilizing effect was related to the charge on the polymers and not to
the total amount extracted.
In conclusion, there is good evidence of the positive effect of the sesquiox-
ides on micro-aggregate stability, even though the debate of whether iron or
aluminum is more effective in aggregation of soil particles is not completely
resolved.
External Factors
Climate
Climate is one of the soil-forming factors that strongly influences the soil
type and the degree of soil aggregation. Carter and Stewart (1996) character-
ize and summarize the impact of varying climate on soil aggregation and
organic matter storage. Blackman (1992) observed a seasonal variation in the
aggregate stability and Bullock et al. (1988) presented seasonal processes in
relation to the weather conditions that affect aggregate stability.
Water content changes (wetting-drying cycles) and air temperature (freez-
ing-thawing cycles) influence the formation and destruction of soil structure
in a dynamic way. In the field, soil is subjected to multiple wetting and drying
cycles as a result of the processes of condensation, rainfall, irrigation, capil-
lary action and evaporation. These cycles, affected by air temperature, induce
the freezing-thawing cycles.
After years of investigation, there is still diversity of opinion in the litera-
ture about the effect of these cycles on soil structural stability. Lynch and
Bragg (1985) and Oades (1993) mentioned that the soil aggregate formation
is attributed to mainly physical forces such as wetting and drying and freez-
ing and thawing. Synthetic aggregates were formed by wetting and drying a
suspension of clay, silt and sand (Singer et al., 1992; Amézketa et al., 1995).
Grant and Blackmore (1991) and Wenke and Grant (1994) observed that
some soils, usually vertisols, presented the ability to re-aggregate their clay in
the course of wetting and drying. The behavior of these soils was called
‘‘self-mulching.’’
Soulides and Allison (1961), Tisdall et al. (1978), Lehrsch et al. (1991),
and Mulla et al. (1992) found that wetting and drying cycles decreased
macro-aggregate stability. However, Utomo and Dexter (1982), Dexter et al.
(1988), and Barzegar et al. (1995) found that these cycles resulted in water-
stable macro-aggregation. Singer et al. (1992) suggested that wetting and
drying cycles had an effect on the stability of artificial aggregates, but the
effect was dependent on the clay type.
Utomo and Dexter (1982) introduced the concept of ‘‘equilibrium states of
soil’’ to explain the apparent inconsistencies mentioned above. They introduced
the hypothesis that for any given soil composition and physical environment
history, there is an equilibrium proportion or range of proportions of water
stable macro-aggregates. Soils which have less than the appropriate equilibri-
um value will increase their proportion, and soils which have more than the
appropriate value will decrease their proportion. They also attribute part of
the inconsistencies to the failure to distinguish between physical and micro-
biological aggregating factors.
However, some of the contradictory results may also arise from differ-
ences in soil type, or differences in experimental conditions, such as soil
aggregate size, method and rate of wetting the samples, and soil water content
at the time of sampling. We will discuss some of these possible reasons for
explaining the apparent inconsistencies.
Experimental conditions such as the method of wetting and in particular
the wetting rates influence the effects of wetting-drying cycles on macro-ag-
gregate stability. Aggregates wetted very slowly will maintain their structure
(Kemper and Rosenau,1986; Reichert and Norton, 1994; Amézketa et al.,
1996a). However, the wetting process can be highly disruptive if it is not
slow enough. During wetting, the aggregates may either disintegrate com-
pletely (slaking) or remain intact with only loosening at the points of weak-
ness (mellowing) (Barzegar et al., 1996). Rapid wetting produces: (1) non-
uniform or differential hydration and swelling of the clay fraction, causing
shear planes; and (2) air entrapment inside capillary pores. When the bonds
between different structural units are strong enough to overcome the shear
planes and the pressure of entrapped air, only microcracks are formed in the
soil matrix, reducing the cohesiveness of particles and hence the soil strength
(McKenzie and Dexter, 1985; Le Bissonnais, 1989; Le Souder et al., 1991;
Oades, 1993; and Barzegar et al., 1995). In these cases, the aggregates main-
tain intact. On the other hand, when the bonds are weak and the entrapped air
produces a pressure exceeding their cohesive strength, aggregates slake into
smaller structural units (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986; Grant and Dexter, 1990;
Gäth and Frede, 1995). Mellowing is desirable in agricultural soils because it
increases soil friability and reduces the energy of draft forces of tillage tools
during cultivation (Barzegar et al., 1996).
Stability also varies with the soil water content at the time of sampling.
Some authors have found that macro-aggregate stability decreased with in-
creasing soil water content (Gerard, 1987; Coote et al., 1988; Perfect et al.,
1990a, c; Gollany et al., 1991; Rasiah et al., 1992; Caron et al., 1992b; Chan
et al., 1994), and clay dispersion increased with increasing water content
(Rasiah et al., 1992; Caron et al., 1992b; Watts et al., 1996a), whereas others
observed that structural stability increased with increasing water content
(Kemper and Rosenau, 1986; Monroe and Kladivko, 1987; Angers, 1992;
Caron et al., 1996).
An increase in the initial water content condition increases the resistance
of an aggregate to the disrupting forces (Truman et al., 1990; Le Bissonnais et
al., 1989; Gollany et al., 1991; Le Bissonnais and singer, 1992). Angers et al.
(1993b) noted that a positive relationship between macro-aggregate stability
and soil water content is observed when the aggregates are allowed to slake
(direct immersion of dry-aggregates in water), whereas a negative correlation
exists when the aggregates are wetted under vacuum or tension and therefore
minimized slaking stresses. Le Bissonnais and Singer (1992) also observed

that the apparent positive effect of increasing water content on aggregate
stability is due to a reduction in slaking, while the apparent negative effect is
due to the fact that shear strength of wet aggregates is lower than that of dry
aggregates, so wet aggregates are less resistant to raindrop impact. The re-
duction in cohesive strength of all particle bonds at higher water contents was
attributed by Watts et al. (1996a) in part to osmotic effects plus the dissolu-
tion of stabilizing material. Shainberg et al. (1992a) and Reichert and Norton
(1994) added that for smectitic soils the hydration of exchangeable cations
and the clay surfaces makes wet aggregates weaker than dry aggregates.
The relationship between structural stability parameters and water content
is complex because different processes interact over different time scales.
Aggregate stability is a function of both external disruptive forces and inter-
nal bond strength within the aggregate (Gollany et al., 1991). External dis-
ruptive forces from rapid wetting are inversely related to the antecedent soil
water content. Internal forces binding aggregates are also inversely related to
water content. With greater soil water content, soil aggregates are more
resistant to slaking even though cohesion is reduced. Aggregate stability is
the result of the balance of both tendencies. In addition, the relationship
between aggregate stability and water content is dependent on cropping his-
tory, soil type etc. Kemper et al. (1987), Dexter et al. (1988), and Caron and
Kay (1992) observed that maximum rates of cohesion recovery occurred at
moderate soil water tensions, probably because some tension is needed to
pull the particles into direct contact, but a continuous water phase is also
essential to allow diffusion of bonding agents to the contact points. Dexter
(1988), Dexter et al. (1988), and Watts et al. (1996a) mentioned that the
optimum water content for thixotropic hardening is around the lower Plastic
Limit (PL) of the soil.
In addition, Emerson (1967), Kay and Dexter (1990) and Watts et al.
(1996a) added that the dispersive behavior of soils is also a function of soil
water content. They found that there is a critical minimum water content
necessary for clay dispersion. For the three soils studied by Watts et al.
(1996a) and for some of the soils of Emerson (1967) the critical minimum
was close to the plastic limit (PL). However, for other soils the critical
minimum was much higher than the PL. On the other hand, Rasiah (1994)
concluded that the maximum clay dispersion occurred at soil water contents
equal to or greater than saturation.
Drying of the soil increases tension or negative pressure in the water, and
the retreating menisci pull small suspended mineral particles together, in-
creasing the number of contact points at which bonding can take place. As
drying continues, soluble compounds such as silica, carbonates, and organic
molecules are concentrated in the liquid phase. This solution phase contracts
to the immediate vicinity of the contacts and solutes are precipitated around
these contact points, strengthening the cohesion (Kemper and Rosenau, 1984;
1986; Kemper et al., 1987; Bullock et al., 1988; Dexter et al., 1988; Mulla et
al., 1992; and Lehrsch and Brown, 1995). Thus, a combination of deposition
of colloids and precipitation of slightly soluble minerals around the contact
points between soil particles stabilize the aggregates when dry, increasing
soil cohesion. Dexter (1988) and Oades (1993) add that in some soils shrink-
age on drying develops soil structure, creating aggregates. On drying, shrink-
age occurs and creates tensile stresses which will eventually lead to the
development of cracks along planes of weakness thus creating aggregates.
Cracks appear where the soil has low tensile strength which is where the soil
is wettest.
On the other hand, Hussein and Adey (1995) reported that changes due to
wetting are not entirely reversed on drying and this hysteresis leads to pro-
gressive development of structural units through sequential wet/dry cycles.
Lehrsch et al. (1991), Edwards (1991), Mulla et al. (1992) and Staricka
and Benoit (1995) found that macro-aggregate stability decreased in response
to freezing-thawing cycles, while Perfect et al. (1990b) found an increase in
soil stability upon these cycles. Aggregate stability depends on soil water
content at the time of freezing the soil. Lehrsch et al. (1991), and Staricka and
Benoit (1995) observed that macro-aggregate stability decreased linearly
with increasing water content at freezing. Bullock et al. (1988) observed that
freezing aggregates produced their disruption only if the water content at the
time of freezing was greater than 0.20 kg kg 1.
Freezing aggregates results in the expansion of ice crystals in pores be-
tween particles, breaking particle-to-particle bonds, and effectively splitting
the aggregates into smaller aggregates. During thawing little bonding exists
between micro-aggregates, and the pores created by expanding ice collapse
(Kay et al., 1985; Bullock et al., 1988).
The properties of compacted clays tend to be improved by frost action, as
the soil is broken up and loosened, thereby raising drainage and ventilation
conditions, whereas the properties of uncompacted and highly saturated soils

will be deteriorated by freezing, because microfabric changes (particle orien-
tation, reduction in effective pore space) by ice pressure, consolidation and
thaw settlement can lead to a compaction and decrease in permeability (Czur-
da et al., 1995).
Air and soil temperature also have an indirect effect on soil aggregate
stability through their effect on water content of the soil surface. Rapid
cooling of the soil surface induces gradients which causes migration of mois-
ture to the surface from deeper soil, increasing the water content (Bullock
et al., 1988).
Finally, wind velocity affects also soil structural stability, and especially
soil erodibility. Wind erosion is a serious soil degradation process leading to
soil loss and limiting agricultural sustainability in many places of the world.
In agriculture, the risk of wind erosion is increased during fallow periods,
specially if residue is sparse (Larney et al., 1994). The severity of wind
erosion depends on the aggregate size distribution of the soil surface (Kemp-
er and Rosenau, 1986). It has been considered that the wind-erodible fraction
is the fraction of particles smaller than 0.84 mm (Campbell et al., 1993a, b).
Time (Aging)
Time is another soil-forming factor, which also influences aggregate sta-

bility. Increases in relative stability with time were found in artificially pre-
pared aggregates held at constant water content (Blake and Gilman, 1970). In
addition, increases in strength of clays over months or years following com-
paction or remolding have been observed by civil engineers and recognized
as ‘‘thixotropic age hardening’’ (Molope et al., 1985a). This effect is also
known as curing, or strength regain (Dexter et al., 1988). Physical processes
seem to be responsible for these stabilizations. Mitchell (1960) hypothesized
reorientation of platy clay particles by externally applied shearing forces into
a more uniformly parallel arrangement. ‘‘In this more ordered structure clay
platelets can slip past one another, and matric water potential is maximum
(least negative). When the shearing force is removed and the system comes to
rest, thermal oscillations tend to randomize the orientation of the clay par-
ticles. The resulting disorder imparts rigidity to the system, and at the same
time, matric potential decreases as the water structure becomes modified by
hydration processes and by redistribution of ions in the electric double layers
surrounding the clay surfaces.’’ Thus, orientation of water molecules and
associated cation equilibrium, and spontaneous shifting of clay particles to
positions of lowered potential energy account for the build-up in aggregate
stability during aging. Dexter et al. (1988) added that particle-particle ce-
mentation through the drying effect could also contribute to age-hardening.
This thixotropic age hardening of clays also contributes to stabilize soil

aggregates produced by cultivation (Molope et al., 1985a; 1987).
Seasonal variations and/or variations in aggregate stability within a grow-
ing season have also been observed (Perfect et al., 1990a; Caron et al., 1992c;
Mulla et al., 1992; Lehrsch and Jolley, 1992). These temporal variations,
however, are attributed to climatic factors and to biological factors rather than
to the time factor (aging).
Biological Factor
The biological system is another soil-forming factor. It includes plant

roots, soil microbes, and soil fauna. They form aggregates and pores, espe-
cially macropores, but their major role is in the stabilization of soil structure.
All biota influence soil structure through: (1) the organisms themselves, (2) their
activities, and (3) their by-products (Jastrow and Miller, 1991).
The main effects of the most important biological components on soil
structure will be discussed in turn. However, readers are referred to reviews
such as Lynch and Bragg (1985), Gupta and Germida, (1988), Jastrow and
Miller (1991), Oades (1993), Kandeler and Murer (1993), for a wider discus-
sion of the importance of soil biota on soil structure.
Roots
They are considered as temporary binding agents by Tisdall and Oades

(1982). Several authors evidenced that macro-aggregate stability is improved
in the presence of roots (Habib et al., 1990; Pojasok and Kay, 1990b). Their
positive effect on soil aggregation consist on: (1) enmeshing fine particles
into stable macro-aggregates, even when the root is dead; (2) drying the
localized soil environment around the roots, reorienting clay particles parallel
to the axis of the root and drawing soil particles together; (3) supplying
decomposable organic residues to soil; (4) supporting a large microbial popu-
lation in the rhizosphere; (5) providing food for soil animals, such as earth-
worms and the mesofauna (Tisdall and Oades, 1982; Oades, 1993; Tisdall,
1996); and (6) releasing polyvalent cations, increasing concentrations of ions
in solution (Pojasok and Kay, 1990b).
Rooting pattern, root functions and physiology are responsible for the
crops’ different abilities in modifying soil structure (Chan and Heenan,
1996). Monocotyledenous plants are superior to dicotyledenous plants and
grasses are better than cereals in stabilizing aggregates, due to the fact that the
former contain a much greater root biomass (Lynch and Bragg, 1985; Oades,
1993).
On the contrary, Caron et al. (1992a) reported a short-term decrease in soil
structural stability (decrease in WSA and increase in dispersible clay) follow-

ing bromegrass establishment, and they attributed that decrease in part to the
physical fragmentation of aggregates by root penetration. Reid and Goss
(1981) also showed that the growth of roots of maize and tomato dispersed
clay from two loams. The increased dispersion was attributed to chelates and
organic acids, exuded by roots, which removed polyvalent cations from the
bonds between clay and organic matter (Reid et al., 1982).
However, in spite of these punctual negative effects of roots on soil ag-
gregation, their effect is in general positive.
Soil Microbes
Live and/or dead bacteria, hyphae, particular vesicular-arbuscular mycor-

rhizal fungi, and saprophytic fungi are the main aggregating microbes. They
are considered temporary binding agents by Tisdall and Oades (1982).
Many researchers have found a significant correlation between microbial
biomass and water-stable aggregates, this is, macro-aggregate stability (Gup-
ta and Germida, 1988; Carter, 1992; Sparling et al., 1992; Bruce et al., 1992;
Kandeler and Murer, 1993; Amézketa et al., 1996b).
The microorganisms produce enzymes responsible for mineralizing high
molecular weight compounds (Kandeler and Murer, 1993), and also release
extracellular polysaccharides (Chaney and Swift, 1986a; Baldock et al.,
1990; Chenu, 1993) which bind soil particles, stabilizing the soil aggregates.
These mucilages or gums are considered transient binding agents (Tisdall and
Oades, 1982) because they are decomposed rapidly by microorganisms.
Amézketa et al. (1995) used artificial aggregates inoculated with bacteria to
study the effect on aggregate stability of the polysaccharides produced in situ.
Synthetic aggregates were created by drying a slurry of sand, silt and clay at
40_C. Half of the aggregates were inoculated with bacteria to allow produc-
tion of polysaccharides and the other half were maintained without inocula-
tion, as control. WSA of the aggregates incubated with bacteria were higher
than WSA of the aggregates-control. The polysaccharides produced by the
bacteria and the bacteria themselves were responsible for the increased ag-
gregate stability. Molope et al. (1987) suggested that there are a limited
number of microsites between soil particles where polysaccharides can act as
adhesives in aggregate formation. They added that any polysaccharide pro-
duced by bacteria in excess of that occupying all the available sites would add
little or nothing to aggregate stability.
Dorioz et al. (1993) concluded that the influence of living organisms on
aggregate stability was more than simply a strong secretion of polysacchar-
ides. Living organism are able, by themselves, to induce a structure in a
mineral matrix under conditions in which physical mechanisms prove inef-
fective. These authors emphasize the importance of the suction resulting from
adsorption of water by the organisms and the growth of living organisms

contributing to fabric development. These mechanisms develop stresses that
promote a reorganization and reorientation of clay particles around the organ-
ism cells, stabilizing micro-aggregates. In addition, fungi have a general
packing effect, with mycelia networks growing in the fissure and entangling
the mass of clay (Tisdall, 1991; Hadas et al., 1994). Thomas et al. (1993)
observed that mycorrhizae slowed the slaking process in the soil. However,
Degens et al. (1994) reported that hyphae are not so effective in the stabiliza-
tion of sandy soils.
Now that the role of microorganisms in soil aggregation is becoming
clearer, the question is whether or not there is any prospect for manipulating
the soil microbial population or their by-products to promote aggregate sta-
bility. This is one of the targets of soil biotechnology. In this sense, Roberson
et al. (1995) demonstrated that microbial extracellular polysaccharides (EPS)
production can be managed by N supply to agricultural soils.
Soil Fauna
Earthworms, many insect larvae, and other larger fauna may stabilize
structure by ingesting soil and mixing it intimately with humified organic
materials in their guts, and egesting it as casts or pellets (Tisdall and Oades,
1982; Jastrow and Miller, 1991; Oades, 1993). Earthworm burrows strongly
promote infiltrability, gas exchange, and root growth (Poier and Richter,
1995). Some research, however, suggests that earthworm activity can also
promote soil degradation. Shipitalo and Protz (1988) propose that ingestion
of soil by earthworms results in disruption of some existing bonds within
micro-aggregates and realignment of clay domains. Therefore, fresh casts are
more dispersible than uningested soil, contributing to soil erosion and crust-
ing. Significant improvement in the water stability of fresh, moist casts only
occurs when incorporated organic debris from the food sources is present and
when moist casts are aged or dried. Nevertheless, in the long term, casting
activity enhances soil aggregate stability.
In addition, nematodes, termites, ants, spiders and the larvae of various
beetles and moths can form structure by creating biopores (Oades, 1993).
However, he added that, in general, the mesofauna are not considered impor-
tant in the formation of structure in arable soils because they are too small to
move most soil particles. Nevertheless, the mesofauna in conjunction with
the larger fauna could well be beneficial in enhancing and stabilizing the
pores in which they live.
For more information on the effect of the activities of animals in soils, the
reader is referred to Hole (1981), Lobry de Bruyn and Conacher (1990), Lee
and Foster (1992), Schrader et al. (1995), and Poier and Richter (1995).
Agricultural Management
Tisdall and Oades (1982) suggested that water stability of macro-aggre-

gates is dependent on the soil management, while water stability of micro-ag-
gregates is independent of it. However, Kay and Dexter (1990), Curtin et al.
(1994a), and Watts et al. (1996b) observed that soil management history
influenced clay dispersibility.
Amézketa et al. (1996b) compared the relationship between macro-aggre-
gate stability (WSA) and four farming systems where all soil-forming fac-
tors, except management, are equal. Low-input, organic, conventional four-
year and two-year rotation systems were analyzed during the growing season
of tomato. Significant differences in macro-aggregate stability were found

between the organic and the conventional systems. The WSA for the organic
system was the most stable, and WSA for the conventional systems were the
least stable. These observations are in agreement with the results of Reganold
et al. (1987) and Reganold (1988).
Individual management practices such as tillage, irrigation, organic matter
amendments, crop rotation, gypsum amendments, and conditioners influence
soil structural stability. The combination of management practices contrib-
utes to differentiate the behavior of the different farming systems, especially
their water-aggregate stability.
We need to understand how soil management influences aggregation so
that we can make suitable modifications to farming practices to enhance soil
structural stability. To choose which practices to use for attempting to amelio-
rate the soils, attention has to be paid to the level within the soil structural
hierarchy requiring attention (i.e., macroaggregation or microaggregation).
Tillage
Tillage is one of the principal soil management techniques used for a

variety of reasons such as seedbed preparation, incorporation of fertilizers
and crop residues, and weed control.
The effect of tillage on soil structural stability is still controversial. Tillage
may increase infiltration when it loosens surface crusts, disrupts dense soil
layers, or provides surface depressions for temporary storage of water (Ung-
er, 1992). Gibbs and Reid (1988) and Dexter (1988) found that tillage (except
rolling) creates macropores. Carter (1994) found that many soils need some
regular tillage to prevent or ameliorate excessive soil compaction and poor
structure. This need for tillage is called ‘‘soil tillage requirement’’ (Carter,
1994).
On the other hand, tillage may also decrease infiltration. Many soils sub-
jected to frequent and intensive cultivation suffer a deterioration in structure,
which is reflected by a decrease in the stability of aggregates (Tisdall et al.,

1978).
Soil tillage indirectly affects soil aggregate stability mainly through its
influence on (1) soil moisture (Perfect et al., 1990a, c; Mahboubi et al., 1993),
(2) the redistribution of soil organic matter and the microbial activity (Gibbs
and Reid, 1988; Carter, 1992; Angers et al., 1993a; Angers et al., 1995;
Unger, 1995; Costantini et al., 1996), (3) the soil solution composition (Naidu
et al., 1996), and (4) the population of soil fauna.
Tillage breaks down the aggregates, (1) smoothing the surface, and (2) ex-
posing organic matter to microbial attack (Roberson et al., 1991). Conse-
quently, OM is lost. In addition, tillage dilutes organic matter through mixing
the organic-matter-rich surface horizons with horizons low in organic matter.

Intensive tillage practices can also cause excessive soil compaction and
poor structure, especially under conditions of high soil moisture (Carter,
1994). The increased power demand of tractors and harvesters leads to heavi-
er loads causing compaction extending to deeper zones. As a consequence,
plowpans and subsoil compaction are produced (Soane et al., 1982). Oades
(1993) concluded that cultivation destroys the continuity of biopores by
cutting them off at plough depth. Such pores will not transmit free water. He
also reported that tillage disturbs the habitat of larger organisms and de-
creases their numbers.
Electrical conductivity (EC) of soil solutions was generally 2-3 times
lower in farmed soils than in undisturbed soils (Naidu et al., 1996). The
reduction of EC contributed to increase the sensitivity of the farmed soils to
dispersion.
Amézketa et al. (1996b), comparing four farming systems, found that the
most intensive system in terms of tillage had the lowest macro-aggregate
stability. Watts et al. (1996b) found that aggregates collected following tillage
yielded greater amounts of dispersed clay than those collected immediately
prior to tillage. They also observed that higher tillage energy resulted in
higher clay dispersion for a given soil water content.
On the contrary, direct drilling and reduced cultivation significantly in-
creased organic carbon, microbial activity and improved soil structural stabil-
ity (Weill et al., 1988; Carter, 1992; Carter and Mele, 1992; Smettem et al.,
1992; Cambardella and Elliott, 1993; Mahboubi et al., 1993; Beare et al.,
1994a, b; Chan et al., 1994). The absence of tillage (NT) had an important
stabilizing effect on macroaggregation relative to other tillage treatments;
aggregates under NT were less subject to slaking (Angers et al., 1993b).
Conservation tillage methods reduced soil erosion (Wollenhaupt et al., 1995).
Consequently, conservation tillage (direct drilling, reduced cultivation passes,
stubble retention) has gained interest as a method for reducing soil degrada-
tion and conserving soil moisture.
For successful adoption of conservation tillage practices, attention to cli-

matic factors and to soil type, especially to soil tillage requirement is essen-
tial. A review of conservation tillage strategies for humid temperate regions
is presented by Carter (1994).
Irrigation
The type, rate and duration of irrigation, as well as the quality of irrigation
water strongly affects soil structural stability.
Furrow and flood irrigation produce aggregate slaking, due to the com-
pression of entrapped air during the rapid soil wetting. The released material
fill up the pores in the immediate surface, forming a depositional crust.

Sprinkler irrigation has also been shown to induce seal and crust formation
due to the impact of the water drops (Shainberg, 1992; Singer and Warring-
ton, 1992). Water drop impact increases the aggregate breakdown, transports
the released particles through splash and compacts the induced crust. Water
drop disrupting impact forces are highly dependent upon drop size and shape
and fall height. These parameters depend on the irrigation type, and on the
characteristics of the sprinklers etc. However, Loch and Foley (1994) sug-
gested that, for most soils, wetting rate is of greater importance than drop
impact as a factor in aggregate breakdown on wetting.
The quality of the irrigation water is essential in the soil structural stability.
Parameters such as the water electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption
ratio (SAR), and pH influence the physicochemical dispersion of clay. The
effect of these parameters on soil structure have been discussed.
Organic Matter Amendments
The very important role of soil organic matter (SOM) content on macro-
aggregate stability and soil productivity has led to the consideration of find-
ing ways to manage and increase it. However, Wander et al. (1994) observed
that making recommendations about organic matter management is difficult
because accepted measurements of SOM quality do not exist. To effectively
manage SOM, indices sensitive to changes in the functionally important
active SOM fraction must be identified. The above authors mentioned that
biologically active SOM may be the key to soil productivity. Different strate-
gies to manage SOM include: incorporation of crop residues, cover crop
cultivation, addition of organic fertilizers such as manure, compost, applica-
tion of organic wastes (sludge). These additions introduce a mixture of sub-
strates into the soil where a heterogeneous microbial population starts de-
composing them to produce biomass, CO2 and secretions (Hadas et al.,
1994).
Crop residues retained on or near the soil surface usually enhance infiltra-
tion by dissipating raindrop energy, thus minimizing aggregate breakdown
and surface sealing, and by retarding surface water flow, thus providing more
time for infiltration (Cassel et al., 1995). Straw left on top of the soil in-
creased aggregate stability by reducing the wetting rate (Chan, 1995). Soil-
incorporated residues result in favorable infiltration when they maintain fa-
vorable soil porosity and organic-matter concentrations (Unger, 1992; Pikul
and Zuzel, 1994). Loch (1994b) concluded that retention of crop residues on
the soil surface has greater importance improving water storage than improv-
ing soil aggregation. On the other hand, Baldock et al. (1994) reported that
incorporation of wheat straw increased the stability of macro-aggregates but
there was also a moderate tendency to increase dispersion of clay.

The amount, the C/N ratio of the residues and their decomposition rates
influence the response pattern of soil structure (Hadas et al., 1994; Sun et al.,
1995). Addition of residues of cotton with high C/N ratio provoked immedi-
ate effect on the soil stability, but the effect was transient. Conversely, large
amounts of residue with a moderate C/N ratio stabilize aggregates for longer
periods (Hadas et al., 1994). Avnimelech and Cohen (1989) concluded that
amendments with C/N ratios between 15 and 40 resulted in the greatest soil
structural improvement. The soil water content and the N availability influ-
ence the residues’ decomposition rate and the effect on soil stability (Hadas
et al., 1994).
Although incorporation of crop residues have been seen as a practice to
improve soil structural stability, in humid regions the excessive crop residues
present problems for optimum crop establishment and plant growth (Carter,
1994).
Cover crops, such as grasses, legumes, and/or annual grain plants (barley
or wheat), add C to the soil through root exudation and turnover and through
decomposition of residues. In addition, legumes fix N (Roberson, 1991).
Cover crops have rapid and significant effects on the stability of soil macro-
aggregates, even when the total amount of organic C in the soil is apparently
not affected (Roberson et al., 1991). They identified a rapid increase in heavy
fraction (HF) carbohydrate content as a response to increases in C inputs by
cover crops. Campbell et al. (1993b) found that legume green manure and
hay crops reduced the wind-erodible fraction. Cover crops can also protect
soil surface against the disruptive effect of water drops.
Organic fertilizers such as manure, compost, etc., also act to increase C
and N, resulting in increased microbial biomass C and N (Amézketa et al.,
1996b). Weill et al. (1988) found that manure addition increased soil ma-
croaggregation. The fertilizer effect may be related to relative amount of
roots produced, the associated root exudates and microbial growth.
Application of organic wastes (sludge and others) to soils increases the
number and size of water-stable macro-aggregates (Metzger et al., 1987; Lax

and Garcia-Orenes, 1993). These authors suggest that fungi contribute more
than bacteria to the increase in WSA after sludge application. The same
authors agree that the dynamic of aggregation in a waste amended soil is
characterized by two phases. In the first, ‘‘aggregative’’ phase, the labile part
of the substrate is metabolized, and the resulting microbial activity is directly
responsible for the formation of WSA. In the second, ‘‘stabilization’’ phase,
while part of the organic cementing agents decompose, WSA also undergo
stabilization processes, such as the binding of organic molecules to clay
surfaces. Consequently, fewer but more stable aggregates remain.
Abu-Sharar (1993) found that a relatively high rate of sewage sludge (8%)
was effective in preventing extensive clay dispersion with decreasing electro-
lyte concentration at SAR 10.
Crop Type and Crop Rotation
Diverse plant species may contribute to soil aggregation in different ways,

probably because of differences in root parameters (density, excretions, de-
gree of mycorrhizal infection), in quality and quantity of organic matter input
and/or in associated mesofaunal and microbial decomposers (Graham et al.,
1995; Gijsman and Thomas, 1995; Chan and Heenan, 1996).
Virgin soils have much higher aggregate stability than cultivated soils
(Barzegar et al., 1994b). Aggregate stability varies greatly among different
cropping systems. The presence of any crop in soils versus the fallow control
was associated with increases in macro-aggregate stability (Monroe and Kla-
divko, 1987). A survey of the problems of soil degradation in agricultural
soils in Quebec (Canada) showed that more than 80% of the soils under
monoculture present signs of structural degradation relative to adjacent soils
under perennial forages (Angers et al., 1993b). Kay et al. (1988) suggested
that the decrease in aggregate stability following cultivation of a native or
old-meadow soil may be very rapid, differing with soils and depending on the
nature of soils constituents. Several authors have showed that soil resistance
to slaking was increased in pastures and forage crops compared with arable
soils (Haynes and Swift, 1990; Haynes and Francis, 1993; Perfect et al.,
1990c; Angers, 1992; Pojasok and Kay, 1990b).
On the other hand, soil aggregate stability is also sensitive to the kind of
crop grown, either as monoculture or in rotation with others. Comparisons of
water-stable macro-aggregates of soils under different crop rotations provide
sometimes contradictory results. Angers and Mehuys (1988) measured a
significant increase in macro-aggregate stability in a soil under barley and
alfalfa, but no changes under corn and a fallow treatment. Angers and Me-
huys (1989) observed that the two years of cropping barley and alfalfa did not
affect soil C and N contents but significantly increased carbohydrate content
with respect to a fallow control. They concluded that at least part of the
changes in water-stable aggregation was related to carbohydrates in the soil.
Angers et al. (1992) observed little difference in the specific effects of two
crops (corn and barley) on soil organic matter or water-stable aggregation.
Angers et al. (1993b) obtained no effect on soil aggregation of two rotations
(continuous barley vs. a 2-yr barley-red clover). Monroe and Kladivko
(1987) did not find differences in macro-aggregate stability among different
crops, such as corn, soybeans and wheat. Ellsworth et al. (1991) and Arrigo
et al. (1993) reported lower stability under soya beans than under corn. Chan
et al. (1994) found lupin more effective than wheat in promoting aggregation.
Chan and Heenan (1996) found differences in structural stability among four
crops in the order lupin > canola > barley > field pea. Miller and Radcliffe
(1992) and Curtin et al. (1994a) reported that legumes, because of their low
C/N ratios and resulting fast decomposition rates, can stabilize soil aggre-
gates rapidly. Gijsman and Thomas (1995) concluded that the addition of
legumes to pastures did not affect the soil aggregate distribution, although
aggregates showed somewhat more stability against slaking.
Kay et al. (1988), Gibbs and Reid (1988) and Rasiah and Kay (1994)
proposed models to describe the changes in soil aggregation under different
cropping systems. Gibbs and Reid (1988) developed a model based mainly
on the factors involving the macropore creation, destruction and blockage,
and specially of soil pores >100 m, which are the most important for root
growth and soil transmission properties.
Companion cropping has been other possible strategy to reduce erosion
during alfalfa establishment. Companion cropping involves growing a small
grain, typically oat, in association with alfalfa during establishment. Howev-
er, Wollenhaupt et al. (1995) did not find companion cropping very effective
in reducing soil loss during alfalfa establishment.
In conclusion, the decreasing order of importance of different cropping
systems on maintaining or increasing aggregate stability is the following:
virgin soils > pasture and forage crops > arable crops in rotation > arable
crops in monoculture > fallow.
Chemical Amendments
Chemical amendments are materials that supply divalent cations (usually

Ca2+) for replacement of exchangeable Na+. At the same time they increase
the EC in the soil solution, enhancing clay flocculation and maintaining
aggregate stability. They are added to the soil or to the irrigation water. They
are grouped into three categories: (1) soluble calcium salts (e.g., CaCl2), not
economically profitable for application in the field; (2) sparingly soluble salts
(CaSO4.2H2O, CaCO3); and (3) acids or acid forms of chemicals added to
calcareous sodic soils. The second group is the most commonly applied in the
field. Morin and Van Winkel (1996) emphasized the importance of uniformly
covering the soil surface completely with the amendment to improve the
aggregation and hence, the infiltration. Baldock et al. (1994) observed that
addition of gypsum imparted no benefit to macro-aggregate stability, but
reduced clay dispersion significantly.
However, the addition of gypsum as phosphogypsum (a by-product of the
phosphorous industry) has some negative consequences, because readioac-
tive elements have been detected in the phosphogypsum. Excessive applica-
tion of phosphogypsum could lead to the accumulation of radioactive ele-
ments in the cultivated zone, and these elements could possibly enter the food
chain (Nadler et al., 1996a).
In relation with the third group, acids and sulfur are of value for ameliorat-
ing soils containing CaCO3 with which the acid interacts to form gypsum
(using H2SO4) or calcium chloride (using HCl). Being highly corrosive,
neither H2SO4 nor SO2 should be added to water, which flows through metal
or concrete irrigation systems (Keren, 1996). Miyamoto et al. (1975 a; cited
in Keren, 1996) claim that in sodic soils, the concentrated acid, sprinkled
directly onto the soil surface, has advantages in better distribution, less de-
struction of soil aggregates, and more efficient leaching of salts.
Other by-products of given industries have been studied as potential
amendments for soil reclamation and erosion control. The fluidized bed
combustion bottom-ash (FBCBA) is a material produced from the capture of
SO2 from coal-fired electric power generating plants. It contains CaO,
Ca(OH)2, and CaSO4 (anhydrite). Reichert and Norton (1996) studied the
possibility of using this material to control erosion of variable-charge soils.
Although this material is a stronger source of electrolytes than gypsum, it
also increases the pH of soil systems, which causes an increase in negative
charges and dispersion. Consequently, this material can not be considered as
a widely applied amendment, even though it had favorable effects in some
soils.
Synthetic Conditioners
Considerable research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s on the utility
of synthetic polymers as soil conditioners. Typically, the polymers were
applied to the soil as a dry powder and the soil mixed, moistened, and tilled to
form desirable sized aggregates. Upon drying, the formed aggregates were
very stable. However, the high polymer cost and the high application rates
limited their use in general agriculture.
Nevertheless, in the last decade new possibilities have emerged. New
polymers (very high molecular weight anionic polyacrylamides, PAMs) and a
new low-rate irrigation water treatment strategy may achieve economic feasi-
bility for PAM in agriculture (Sojka and Lentz, 1994). Application rates of
10-20 kg ha 1 are sufficient for controlling surface sealing and crusting

(Shainberg and Levy, 1994; Zhang and Miller, 1996). In addition, this use
could have important environmental, soil conservation and irrigation effi-
ciency benefits. Barvenik (1994) reviewed PAM characteristics (chemistry,
synthesis, molecular weight, product form), residual monomer concentra-
tions, toxicology, regulations and fate and effects in soil and plant systems.
He concluded that the product is very safe when used as directed. Lentz and
Sojka (1994) reported that PAM reduced phosphorous, nitrate, biochemical
oxygen demand and sediment in treated runoff water.
Several works have shown the beneficial effect in reducing surface sealing
and crusting (Helalia and Letey, 1988b; Ben-Hur et al., 1989; Le Souder et
al., 1991; Zhang and Miller, 1996), for improving aggregation and reducing
clay dispersion (Helalia and Letey, 1988a, 1989; Bryan, 1992; Shainberg et
al., 1992a; Fullen et al., 1995), and even for improving seed germination
(Chan and Sivapragasam, 1996).
Polymer effects on soil physical properties are thought to be a function of
its adsorption and desorption by the soil material. There has been some
controversy about which polymer (cationic, anionic, non-ionic) was more
efficient in improving soil structure. Helalia and Letey (1988a) found that the
order of effectiveness of the compounds was cationic > nonionic > anionic
polymers. However, Levy et al. (1992) found that an anionic PAM was more
effective than a cationic polysaccharide in cementing aggregates together and
increasing their resistance to the erosion. These inconsistencies could be
explained taking into account (1) if the adsorption measurements were made
on clay minerals or on the whole soil, and (2) the electrolyte concentration of
the soil solution (Letey, 1994). The order of adsorption of polymers on
montmorillonite and illite clays is cationic > nonionic > anionic (Aly and
Letey, 1988; Ben-Hur et al., 1992). The positive charged polymers are ad-
sorbed on the negative charges of clays. However, increases in electrolyte
concentration decrease adsorption of cationic polymers because the competi-
tion between inorganic cations and polymers for sites on negatively charged
clay. Increase in electrolyte concentration compresses the electric double
layer at the clay surface and enhances neutralization of the charge of the
anionic polymers so that the adsorption of these polymers increases with
increasing electrolyte concentration (Ben-Hur et al., 1992; Letey, 1994).
Polivalent cations act as bridges between the negative surfaces of the clays
and the anionic polymers. On the other hand, surprisingly, the order of ad-
sorption of polymers on soils was anionic > cationic (Malik and Letey, 1991).
This was explained by the fact that the synthetic polymers do not penetrate
soil aggregates, so interaction with the clay fraction would be minimal. Con-
sequently, the adsorption of polymers on soils is not very dependent on
electrolyte concentration. It depends more on the polymer molecular con-
formation. For predicting the behavior of synthetic polymers on soils, adsorp-

tion measurements should be made on the whole soil.
These results plus the finding that cationic PAMs have higher irritant and
toxicity problems have driven to center the interest on very high molecular
weight moderately anionic PAMs. They have been found to be the most
effective in controlling seal formation and soil erosion, and have the longest
residual effect (Shainberg and Levy, 1994; Sojka and Lentz, 1994; Barvenik,
1994; Levy, 1996). Shainberg et al. (1990) and Shainberg and Levy (1994)
added that their efficiency is enhanced with the addition of electrolytes, either
in the water or phosphogypsum addition at the soil surface. There are, how-
ever, authors that conclude that the application of polysaccharides, PS, is
more convenient than PAM application because of the higher dissolution rate
in water and lower viscosity of PS (Ben-Hur, 1994).

The conditioners form a coating mainly on the periphery of the aggregates
without penetrating the interior, increasing the cohesion of the wet aggregates
(Le Souder et al., 1991; Letey, 1994; Sojka and Lentz, 1996). Drying the soil
causes the polymer in solution to become bonded to the soil in a largely
irreversible fraction. However, cracking produces new, nonconditioned ag-
gregate faces (internal faces), being susceptible to dispersion in water. The
conditioners are only able to slow down the surface degradation, not prevent
it completely. Zahow and Amrhein (1992) added that the polymers were
efficient only for non-sodic soils.
Nadler et al. (1996b) concluded that before applying PAM, the polymer
type and amount should be matched to the soil type, aggregate size, and
desired effect.
METHODS OF LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS

OF SOIL AGGREGATE STABILITY: STABILITY PARAMETERS
Our purpose is to provide an overview of methods for measuring soil

structure and to focus on methods for measuring soil aggregation. Character-
ization of soil structure also includes determination of hydraulic conductivity
(HC), infiltration rate (IR) and pore size distribution. Other methods involve
direct observation of structural features by scanning electron microscopy and
optical scanning of impregnated sections and fracture surfaces. However,
these methods are very laborious and time-consuming and will not be dis-
cussed here. Our aim is to give a detailed analysis of easy, reproducible, and
precise methods for measuring soil aggregation or soil aggregate stability.
The measurement of stable soil aggregates depends on both the forces that
bind particles together and the nature and magnitude of the disruptive forces
applied.
According to the hypothesis of Tisdall and Oades (1982) and Oades
(1984), the aggregate hierarchy infers three main levels of aggregation in

soils: clay level (<2 m), micro-aggregate level (<250 m), and macro-ag-
gregate level (>250 m). The stabilization of different aggregate size frac-
tions, and in particular the stabilization of these three main levels of aggrega-
tion is due to different mechanisms. Thus, different sized structural units have
different stabilities, and respond to environmental conditions such as rain,
wind, irrigation or management practices in a different way. Macro-aggre-
gates are easily disrupted by wetting or with low energy agitation, whereas
micro-aggregates have higher stability and, for complete dispersion, they
require more energetic treatments, such as prolonged shaking or sonification.
In particular, the clay fraction requires the most vigorous mechanical treat-
ment and/or a chemical treatment for its complete dispersion. Pojasok and
Kay (1990a) emphasized the importance of making stability measurements at

different scales of structural units. Consequently, characterization of soil
aggregation requires analyzing the behavior of macro-aggregates (through
macro-aggregate stability tests, usually called aggregate stability tests) and of
clay- and silt-sized micro-aggregates (through dispersion tests).
Macro-Aggregate Stability Methods
Many different methods exist for measuring soil macro-aggregation; some

focus on aggregate size distribution and others on aggregate stability (Jastrow
and Miller, 1991). Some analyze the breakdown of aggregates due to the
wetting action, others consider the mechanical action, and others include both
actions. Wetting action and the mechanical action are designed to simulate
the forces acting in the field. Thus, these tests were designed to quantify
basically water erosion. Because of that, very few tests have paid attention to
the effect of the chemical composition (EC, SAR) of the water on macro-ag-
gregate stability, even though the effect of these parameters on clay disper-
sion and swelling is very well documented.
The convenience of the method to be used becomes important when large
numbers of routine analyses are to be made. It is therefore preferable that the
stability measurements be rapid and relatively inexpensive. On the other
hand, the existence of several methods makes the comparison of aggregate
stability data from different studies very difficult, due to the fact that numeri-
cal values of soil structure indices depend on the measurement procedure
(Letey, 1991).
Aggregate size distribution may be determined wet or dry. Determining
the size distribution of dry aggregates is the more popular method to study
the effects of tillage treatments and wind erosion (Kemper and Rosenau,
1986). To this end, Chepil (Chepil and Bisal, 1943; and Chepil, 1962; cited in
Kemper and Rosenau, 1986) developed a rotary sieve that could separate
samples of broken soil into dry aggregates of several size ranges. The wind-
erodible fraction has been considered to be the fraction <0.84 mm (Campbell

et al., 1993a, b). Determining the size distribution of wet aggregates is the
most common method at the scale of soil macroaggregation to study the
water effects. It involves (1) wetting the sample, and (2) separating aggre-
gates into selected sizes, by sieving the sample through a set of sieves under
water. This procedure involves a disruptive force (wetting), so it allows, in a
sense, to test the water stability of the aggregates. Thus, the size distribution
of water-stable aggregates is essentially a measure of macro-aggregate stabil-
ity, in that the aggregates retained on the various sieves must have remained
stable during the wetting and sieving process (Jastrow and Miller, 1991).
Basic methods have been employed by Yoder (1936), Williams et al. (1966),
Kemper and Koch (1966), and Kemper and Rosenau (1986). Firstly, multi-
ple-sieve methods were used to determine aggregate stability. However,

Kemper and Rosenau (1986) concluded that results obtained using single-
and multiple-sieve methods were equally well correlated with field phenome-
na of practical importance, but multiple-sieve methods are more laborious
and more time-consuming than the single-sieve methods. Consequently, the
standard stability test for water stable macro-aggregates is the single-sieve
method proposed by Kemper and Koch (1966), and later improved by Kemp-
er and Rosenau (1986).
The standard test includes wetting the sample (by vapor until saturation),
wet-sieving, dispersing the ‘‘aggregate stable-mass’’ and discounting the
‘‘sand-mass.’’ Thus, 4 g of 1-2 mm air-dried aggregates were placed on a 60
mesh (0.26-mm openings) sieve and vapor-wetted to saturation. The sieve
was placed in a modified Yoder apparatus and was raised and lowered
through a 1.3-cm vertical distance at 35 cycles per minute for 3 minutes.
Material remaining on the sieve after 3 minutes was oven-dried (105_C) and
weighed to give a ‘‘stable aggregate mass’’ (SA). After weighing, this materi-
al was dispersed in a dispersing solution or with an ultrasonic probe. The
fraction remaining on the 0.26-mm sieve was oven-dried and weighed to
obtain the mass of >0.26-mm sand (SM). The water-stable aggregate percent-
age (WSA) was calculated by:
% WSA = [(SA SM)/(Soil original mass SM)] × 100
Even for the standard method, the literature shows variations in specific
procedures. Some of these variations are necessitated or influenced by the
type of soils being studied, but others result from the materials available for
conducting the analyses or simply because of arbitrary, subjective decisions.
These variations joined to the lack of standardized methods for sample
collection and preparation before applying the test, add more difficulty to the
comparison of results from different studies in the literature. If comparisons
are to be made among structural stabilities of soils or among treatment effects
on structural stability of a given soil, procedures such as (1) sample collection

and preparation, (2) sample physical condition before applying the test (ag-
gregate size, moisture content), (3) treatments to apply to the sample (method
of wetting, rate of wetting, etc.), (4) measurement of disaggregation, and
(5) expression of the results should be standardized.
Differences in any of these five procedures could cause contradictory re-
sults in comparing macro-aggregate stability data obtained by different au-
thors. Moreover, variations in the treatments applied to the samples deter-
mine that different destabilizing processes are measured. Thus, different
methods may emphasize different aspects of stability. Beare and Bruce (1993)
and Dickson et al. (1991) found significant differences in macro-aggregate
stability data after different pretreatment conditions and wet-sieving proce-
dures were applied. In order to emphasize the importance of standardizing the

procedure, in the following subsection we will pay special attention to the
conditions of sample collection in the field and to those modifications in
sample preparation and treatment in the lab with respect to the standard
procedure.
Conditions of Sample Collection in the Field and Variations

in the Specific Procedures Among the Different Wet Stability Tests
The field conditions when collecting samples may vary greatly. Aggregate
stability varies seasonally, depending on climate, so samples taken at differ-
ent periods of the year will behave differently.
In addition, the method of collecting the samples and transporting them to
the laboratory influences aggregate stability. Sampling instruments such as
shovels cause less compression than augers in soil samples, affecting less the
aggregate stability (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986; Jastrow and Miller, 1991).
Once the sample is taken, it is also important to maintain its integrity until it
is prepared for analysis. Samples must be placed in boxes or in plastic bags
for transport from the field to the lab, and care must be taken in packing and
transportation to prevent samples from being crushed and broken.
The moisture condition at the time of sampling and/or at the time of
applying the test to the soil samples influences aggregate breakdown and
erosion. Compression is more likely to occur if sampling is conducted when
soils are wet. Keeping the sample at the field moisture may give an accurate
assessment of the soil behavior for the time of sampling (Bullock et al.,
1988), but does not allow for comparisons with samples in different condi-
tions. Therefore for comparisons it seems preferable to air dry the samples
before testing. Air-drying is meant to standardize initial conditions. Never-
theless, Kemper and Rosenau (1986) and Murer et al. (1993) reported that
aggregate stability increases slowly with time of storage. Consequently, they
recommended that analyses be made as soon as possible after air-drying is
completed. For long-term storage, Jastrow and Miller (1991) recommended

freezing over air-drying the sample. In the literature, some test are done with
field-moist aggregates (Angers and Mehuys, 1989; Perfect et al., 1990a, c;
Angers et al., 1993b; Rasiah and Kay, 1994), others with air-dried aggregates
(Williams et al., 1966; Kemper and Rosenau, 1986; Oades and Waters, 1991;
Loch and Foley, 1994; Amézketa et al., 1996a), and others with both (Rober-
son et al., 1991; Lehrsch and Jolley, 1992; Amézketa et al., 1996b).
As well, aggregate size influences aggregate stability. Bresson (1995) re-
ported that with coarse aggregates, slaking due to entrapped air compression
is less intensive. Abu-Sharar (1993) added that increasing size of soil aggre-
gates would lead to a reduction of clay dispersion. Kay and Dexter (1990)
reported that comparisons between studies which have employed different

initial aggregate size fractions should be avoided. It seems preferable for
standardization to use a defined aggregate size. Some authors use the whole
soil sample (Abu-Sharar et al., 1987; Abu-Sharar, 1988; Bartoli et al., 1991).
However, Kemper and Rosenau (1986) and Kay and Dexter (1990) con-
cluded that results are more reproducible if aggregates of a limited size range
are selected for the determination of the stability. This involves sieving and
selecting a given size. Samples should be broken apart under field-moist
conditions. The choice of the limits of the aggregate size for the test varies
greatly: 0.5-1 mm (Pierson and Mulla, 1989); 1-2 mm diameter (Kemper and
Rosenau, 1986, standard test; Dickson et al., 1991); < 2 mm (Loch and Foley,
1994; Nadler et al., 1996b); 2-2.8 mm (Chaney and Swift, 1986a, b); 2-4 mm
(Haynes and Swift, 1990); 3-4 mm (Le Souder et al., 1991); 3.35-5.60 mm
(Matkin and Smart, 1987); <4 mm diameter (Oades and Waters, 1991); 1-8
mm (Burke et al., 1986); 5-8 mm (Mahboubi et al., 1993).
Once the soil sample is ready for the test, the following step is the applica-
tion of the test. The macro-aggregate stability tests include the treatment
applied to the sample (wetting the sample, applying different intensities of
disruptive energy, etc), the measurement of disaggregation (wet-sieving, dis-
persing the ‘‘aggregate stable-mass’’ and discounting the ‘‘sand-mass’’), and
expression of the result (determination of water-stable aggregates). However,
most often the treatment and the measurement of disaggregation are not
clearly separated, because measurement involves energy and is destructive
(Amézketa et al., 1996a).
The literature abounds with variations in specific procedures at almost
every step. A major consideration in determining macro-aggregate stability is
the method of wetting the sample in distilled water. Several studies have
confirmed the great influence of different prewetting techniques in wet ag-
gregate stability determination (Dickson et al., 1991; Beare and Bruce, 1993).
For comparisons, the prewetting technique must be standardized. Rapid wet-
ting or flooding at atmospheric pressure (Dickson et al., 1991; Jastrow and
Miller, 1991) is the most disruptive wetting method, leading to the slaking of
aggregates due to the entrapped air in the pores. Slow wetting (by capillary,
under vacuum, with vapor, with aerosol) is less disruptive, avoiding the
slaking of aggregates. Several studies (Elliott, 1986; Pierson and Mulla,
1989, 1990; Roberson et al., 1991, 1995; Beare and Bruce, 1993; Campbell
et al., 1993a, b) have emphasized the value of comparing soil specific re-
sponses to different pretreatment conditions, as a means for describing envi-
ronmental influences on soil structure. Rapid wetting is fairly comparable to
wetting the soil surface by irrigation (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986) or by
heavy rainstorms. Slow wetting under tension is comparable to wetting the
soil bellow the surface and/or it also corresponds to soil wetting by gentle
rainfall. It is less destructive and may allow a better discrimination among

unstable soils than fast wetting.
The final water content which the sample has reached after wetting and
before wet-sieving influences the sample stability. Kemper and Rosenau
(1986) advised to bring the soil samples to water content near their field
capacities before immersion. Bullock et al. (1988), Lehrsch et al. (1991), and
Lehrsch and Brown (1995) brought the samples to water content 0.30 kg
kg 1 soil. This standard threshold moisture content is higher than the mois-
ture content at 0.03 MPa of the samples, so they made sure that the aggre-
gates were saturated. Cambardella and Elliott (1993) brought the soils up to
field capacity plus 5%, the moisture content at which maximum aggregate
stability was attained for their soils. Amézketa et al. (1996b) (data not pub-
lished) realized that once the soils were saturated, even though the water
content varied, the aggregate stability data did not change. Sun et al. (1995)
showed that maximum aggregate stability was obtained in saturated samples.
Consequently, saturating the aggregates before wet-sieving allows compari-
son of stability data.
In other cases, the treatment consists in wetting the samples in liquids
other than distilled water, such as ethanol (Henin et al., 1958; Le Bissonnais,
1988, 1989, 1990), water-alcohol-benzene (Burke et al., 1986), NaCl or NaIO4
solutions (Angers and Mehuys, 1989).
Other treatments consist of applying different intensities of disruptive
mechanical energy to the sample, such as 16 hours end-over-end shaking
(Rengasamy et al., 1984; Oades and Waters, 1991) and 4 hours shaking
(Dong et al., 1983). Dong et al. (1983) suggested that 4 hours of shaking may
simulate field erosion conditions.
Wet-sieving involves immersion of samples in distilled water or in other
liquids, and separation of aggregates into one or various sizes depending on
sieving the sample through a single sieve or through a nest of sieves. The
selection of sieve sizes affects the result. The standard method uses only one
sieve with hole size of 0.26 mm. Researchers using multiple-sieves are:
Oades and Waters (1991), Angers (1992), Angers et al. (1992), Beare and
Bruce (1993), Beare et al. (1994a, b), Carter (1992), and Carter and Mele
(1992).
The time and frequency of the sieving process vary also among the tests.
While in the standard test, the sieving process consisted of sieving for 3
minutes at 35 cycles per minute over a vertical distance of 1.3 cm, other tests
sieved for 10 minutes at 40 strokes per minute (Pojasok and Kay, 1990a); 1
minute at 40 strokes per minute (Smettem et al., 1992); 15 minutes at 25
min 1 (Haynes and Swift, 1990); 2 minutes at 25 min 1 (Elliott, 1986;
Cambardella and Elliott, 1993); 2 minutes at 46 strokes min 1 with a vertical
distance of 4.5 cm (Weill et al., 1988); 10 minutes at 30 strokes min 1 with
stroke length of 3.1 cm (Chan et al., 1994); 30 minutes at 30 oscillations

min 1 (Mahboubi et al., 1993).
Some researchers wet-sieve the samples in liquids other than distilled
water, such as ethanol (Henin et al., 1958; Le Bissonnais, 1988, 1989, 1990;
Mahboubi et al., 1993), CaCl2 (Smettem et al., 1992; Wace and Hignett,
1991), NaCl (Williams et al., 1966), tap water (Matkin and Smart, 1987;
Smith et al., 1992) and benzene (Henin et al., 1958; Mahboubi et al., 1993).
Letey (1991) reported that the results of the aggregate stability tests are
highly dependent upon the chemical composition of the water used to make
the measurement. Smith et al. (1992) advertised the risk of introducing seri-
ous artefacts in the stability test if the water used in sieving could affect water
stable aggregate size. Distilled water has been demonstrated to produce clay
dispersion. Nevertheless, it has been the most commonly used liquid in the
wet-sieving techniques.
In the standard test (single-sieve method) material remaining on the sieve
(>0.26 mm) after the wet-sieving process, is oven dried and weighed to give
the ‘‘stable aggregate mass’’ (SA). This mass is corrected for the dry sand-
mass >0.26 mm. Several ways have been used by the researchers in the
different stability tests to obtain this sand mass. However, there is not a
comparison among these ways to make sure that all of them act in the same
way, dispersing completely the ‘‘stable aggregates’’ (SA) and producing the
same amount of sand mass.
The different expressions of the stability data also complicates the com-
parison among them. The water-stable aggregate percentage (WSA) is the
typical parameter obtained from the standard single-sieve technique (Kemper
and Rosenau, 1986). Multiple-sieve techniques express the stability data
through the particle size distribution (PSD) in different classes, or through
several indexes, such as Mean Weight Diameter (MWD) and Geometric
Mean Diameter (GMD) (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986), and Aggregation Index
(AI) (Weill et al., 1988; Carter, 1992) etc. Weill et al. (1988) used another
stability parameter, the aggregate stability index, expressing it as the ratio
between the amount of aggregates remaining after wet sieving and the
amount of aggregates remaining after dry sieving. Chisci et al. (1989)
compared soil structure stability indices based on single-sieve and multiple-
sieve analysis.
Although many researchers report that they use the ‘‘standard method,’’
modifications of any of the steps (as discussed previously) greatly affect the
results of the tests, making comparisons of results very difficult.
One of the limitations of the standard test is that it does not allow a discrimi-
nation between the different destabilizing mechanisms, because: (1) the treat-
ment (slow wetting) and the measurement of dissagregation (wet-sieving) are
not clearly separated; (2) the measurement of dissagregation (wet-sieving)
involves energy and is destructive (3 minutes moving up and down through a

1.3 cm vertical distance); and (3) wet-sieving is done in distilled water, so in
addition to the mechanical effect due to the agitation during wet-sieving,
there may also be a chemical effect on aggregate stability, which has not been
taken into account. Thus, the standard method quantifies the loss of stability
after a slow wetting action (microcracking), a shaking action (mechanical
dispersion) and probably a chemical action (chemical dispersion), but with-
out discriminating the relative importance of each of them.
Other methods of evaluating soil aggregation at the scale of soil macro-ag-
gregates, besides wet-sieving, will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
A turbidimetric test in addition to two wet-sieving tests was used by
Molope et al. (1985b) to measure macro-aggregate stability even though
turbidimetry is usually used as a micro-aggregate stability technique. The
latter authors found that, with the same pretreatment (rapid wetting), aggre-
gate stability values measured by wet sieving were closely correlated with
those obtained by turbidimetry although the relationship was not linear. How-
ever, we believe that a high variability can be obtained reading the turbidity
of macro-aggregates (particles >250 m) because they settle rapidly, causing
turbidity to change rapidly with time.
Roberson et al. (1991) estimated the resistance of aggregates to slaking by
placing the aggregates on a given sieve size, and subjecting them to wetting
by dropping water, maintaining a constant head of water. Disruption by drop
impact was minimized by covering the aggregates with a filter paper. Aggre-
gate slaking resistance was expressed as the percent of oven-dried soil re-
maining on the sieve after treatment. They found that this method correlated
well with the Yoder (1936) method of aggregate stability measurements.
Emerson (1967, 1991) provided a system for classifying aggregates ac-
cording to their stability in water. This classification is based on relatively
simple tests assessing the slaking of the aggregates and their subsequent
degree of dispersion in water. It gives an idea of the degree of aggregate
stability as well as of the physical and chemical reasons for it. Other classifi-
cation tests have been less widespread in their use (Matkin and Smart, 1987).
However, for comparison among soil stabilities, tests leading to stability
indices on a continuous scale (quantitative tests) rather than classification
tests (qualitative tests) are preferred since they are less subjective and more
quantitative.
The high energy moisture characteristic (HEMC) technique was first pro-
posed by Childs (1940), later modified by Collis-George and Figueroa
(1984), and finally improved by Pierson and Mulla (1989). The improve-
ments of the latter authors were controlling the wetting force used to break
down the aggregates, allowing a fast wetting treatment less disruptive than
the one in the original technique, and a slow wetting treatment. This improve-
ment allows the application of this technique to weakly aggregated soils. A

stability ratio value is calculated dividing the structural index at fast wetting
by the structural index at slow wetting. The structural indexes are calculated
dividing the volume of drainable pores by the modal suction. These parame-
ters are estimated from modeling the moisture characteristic curves of the
aggregates and calculating analytically the specific water capacity curves.
However, all these steps make the method more laborious.
Roth and Eggert (1994) developed a method to determine aggregate stabil-
ity in terms of raindrop induced breakdown. This method is based on a
procedure described by Young (1984). It consists basically in subjecting
aggregates placed on sieves in special PVC containers to a given rainfall
intensity. Aggregate stability was expressed as the percentage of stable aggre-
gates remaining on the sieves following rainfall application, as a rate of
aggregate breakdown. This aggregate stability method is a simple and easy
one, although it basically analyzes the effects of raindrop impact energy
without separating the effects of rate of wetting.
Loch (1994a) and Loch and Foley (1994) proposed another method for
measuring and describing aggregate breakdown on wetting by rainfall. High
and low energy rain were used so that effects of rate of wetting could be
separated from those of drop energy. Size distributions of water-stable mate-
rial (aggregates and primary particles) were measured by wet sieving after
the rain treatments. Loch and Foley (1994) found this method remarkably
successful in predicting the hydraulic behavior of a wide range of soils; far
more successful than the more commonly used methods of measuring stabil-
ity to wetting, especially for swelling soils. However, the main disadvantage
is that this method is more laborious and more time-consuming than the
standard one.
Le Bissonnais (1988, 1989, 1990, 1996b) has proposed a unified method-
ological framework for the measurement of aggregate stability, including the
most interesting aspects of existing methods. His method is a modification of
the method proposed by Henin et al. (1958), and it also borrows the most
interesting aspects from other methods, such as the ones from Kemper and
Rosenau (1986) and Grieve (1979). He has proposed using a mean weight
diameter (MWD) of aggregates remaining after three treatments and wet
sieving in alcohol as a measure of aggregate stability. The three treatments
before sieving are fast wetting, slow wetting and stirring after prewetting.
One of the interesting aspects introduced in this method is the use of
ethanol in one of the treatments and in the measurement of dissaggregation.
Ethanol prevents slaking and swelling due to its relatively low surface ten-
sion, and its much smaller dielectric constant with respect to that of water
(Emerson and Greenland, 1990; Grant and Dexter, 1990). In this way, this
method allows to separate and study independently some of the breakdown
mechanisms. MWD for fast wetting measures the rapid breakdown of aggre-
gates upon wetting (slaking). MWD for slow wetting measures the break-
down of aggregates independent of the slaking. MWD for stirring after pre-
wetting measures the breakdown of aggregates owing to the mechanical
shaking; this is, it measures the wet mechanical cohesion of aggregates.
Another aspect improved in this method is that the measurement of disag-
gregation does not involve energy and is not destructive. The measurement of
disaggregation is independent from the treatments that cause aggregate
breakdown. Consequently, stability data is the result of just the treatment
applied to the sample.
Amézketa et al. (1996a) slightly modified this new method and compared
this one with the standard Kemper and Rosenau method. We also correlated
the erosive and crusting behavior of ten California soils to the aggregate
stabilities determined by both methods. Both stability tests are simple and
give reproducible estimates of aggregate stability. Coefficients of variation
were <5% for both methods. However, the stability parameters defined with
the two tests were not significantly correlated, and they did not rank soils in
the same stability order. Most of the parameters obtained with the new test
were highly correlated with parameters that describe the soil erosive behav-
ior, and ranked the soils in the same order. However, the WSA obtained with
the standard test was not correlated with the erosion and crusting behavior
parameters, and did not rank the soils in the same order. We found that some
of the improvements of this method compared to the standard one are: (1) the
use of different treatments, which give more information about the stability
of aggregates to different forces, although they do not necessarily represent
processes occurring in the soil; and (2) the use of different levels of energy
applied in the treatments, which allows the method to be used with weakly to
strongly aggregated soils. Some of its advantages are that, using different
treatments, (1) it determines stability for various conditions that may occur at
the soil surface, and (2) it helps to identify the mechanisms that may cause
aggregate breakdown. Thus, it allows discrimination of the relative impor-
tance of processes such as slaking and mechanical dispersion. The major

advantage of this new method, at least for the ten studied Californian soils, is
that it relates very well to the erosive and crusting behavior of those soils.
However, it remains to be seen if the new test is equally useful on a wider
range of soils.
Micro-Aggregate Stability Methods
In addition to the importance of analyzing the stability of macro-aggre-

gates, it has been demonstrated the importance of analyzing the stability of
micro-aggregates and in particular the clay behavior, this is, the flocculation-
dispersion behavior of soil clays (Pojasok and Kay, 1990a; Carter and Mele,
1992). Flocculation is the basis of soil aggregation and of a ‘‘good’’ soil

structure (Dexter, 1988).
Methods focusing at the scale of micro-aggregates are based basically on
quantifying clay- and/or silt-sized particles of soils subjected to one or more
of the following treatments: (1) wetting aggregates (Rengasamy et al., 1984),
(2) exposing aggregates to varying levels of disruptive energy by shaking
(Williams et al., 1966; Dong et al., 1983; Rengasamy et al., 1984; Pojasok
and Kay, 1990a; Kay and Dexter, 1990; Bartoli et al., 1992), including soni-
fication (Weill et al., 1988; Bartoli et al., 1991), (3) exposing aggregates to a
Na-resin treatment (Bartoli et al., 1991; Mbagwu et al., 1993), and (4) expos-
ing aggregates to different chemical compositions (SAR, EC, pH) of water
(Abu-Sharar et al., 1987; Abu-Sharar, 1988; Curtin et al., 1994c).
These methods include optical (turbidimetry) and densimetric character-
ization of soil suspensions (Pojasok and Kay, 1990a). Densimetric character-
ization or suspension density is obtained using a plummet balance (Williams
et al., 1966). Quantifying dispersed clay-sized particles in a soil suspension
(dispersion tests) by turbidimetry consists of measuring the percentage of
light dispersion at a given time and depth calculated from the Stokes’ law.
Another method to quantify clay and silt-sized particles is based on the
pipette method (Gee and Bauder, 1986). It consists of siphoning soil suspen-
sions at a given times and depths determined by the Stokes’s law. The specif-
ic size particles collected are determined gravimetrically. However, this
method is laborious and time consuming. Abu-Sharar et al. (1987) used this
method to evaluate the effect of different SAR-electrolyte concentration com-
binations on micro-aggregate stability. The experimental steps involved in
this method are too numerous and laborious to allow a rapid screening of soil
response to chemical treatments. Furthermore, Curtin et al. (1994c) criticized
the use of the Stokes’s law by Abu-Sharar et al. (1987) to estimate particle-
size distribution for the range of experimental conditions where flocculation
occurred.
Finally, a more rapid method for quantifying microaggregation is using a
laser particle sizer (Cooper et al., 1984; Levy et al., 1993). The instrument
makes use of diffraction of laser beam by the particles. The angle of diffrac-
tion is inversely proportional to particle size and the intensity of the difracted
beam at any angle is a mean of the projected areas of particles of a specific
size.
Even though most researchers quantify clay-size particles for analyzing
micro-aggregation, other authors include specific silt-size particles, such as
5 and/or 20 m diameter (Henin et al., 1958; Abu-Sharar et al., 1987;
Curtin et al., 1994c), 50 m diameter (Chan et al. 1994; Naidu et al. 1996),
or even some include fine sand, as in particles 125 m (Coughland et al.,
1991; Loch and Folley, 1992; Loch, 1994a; and Loch and Folley, 1994). There
are also some authors that recommend analyzing the overall size distribution of
the particles resulting from macro-aggregate breakdown (Le Bissonnais et al.,
1989; Emerson, 1991; Roth and Eggert, 1994). Le Bissonnais et al. (1989)
and Le Bissonnais (1996a,b) showed that the development of crusts and seals
were related to the size distribution of the particles resulting from aggregate
breakdown.
Some authors use dispersion indices or ratios to reflect micro-aggregation,
such as the ratio of the weight of clay dispersed in deionized water and the
weight of clay dispersed with sodium hexametaphosphate (Lebron et al.,
1994; Mbagwu et al., 1993) or the ratio of readily dispersed (clay plus silt) in
water to total (clay plus silt) determined by particle size analysis, after dis-
persing with sodium hexametaphosphate (Naidu et al., 1996).
Other authors evaluate the dispersive behavior of soil clays through pa-
rameters such as the flocculation value (FV) (Quirk and Schofield, 1955; van
Olphen, 1977; Shainberg et al., 1981a, b; Amézketa, 1992; Amézketa and
Aragüés, 1995a), the critical coagulation concentration (CCC), (Rengasamy,
1983; Goldberg and Forster, 1990), or the critical salt concentration (CSC)
(Arora and Coleman, 1979). These parameters represent the minimum con-
centration of an electrolyte solution required to flocculate a suspension of
clay in a given time. However, the methodology used to determine these
parameters is different, complicating their comparison. Thus, some research-
ers determine the electrolyte concentration corresponding to 0% dispersion
(Amézketa, 1992; Amézketa and Aragüés, 1995a), others to 20% dispersion
(Goldberg and Forster, 1990), and others to 50% dispersion (Arora and Cole-
man, 1979). Moreover, some researchers determine the electrolyte concentra-
tion required to flocculate a suspension of clay in 24 hours (van Olphen,
1977), others in 3 hours (Goldberg and Glaubig, 1987), and others in 6 hours
(Rengasamy, 1983).
The rheological properties of clay suspensions such as viscosity (Keren,
1988; Keren, 1991), electrophoretic mobility (Lebron and Suarez, 1992a) and
shear stress (Hesterberg and Page, 1993) are also parameters to evaluate clay
dispersion.
Other dispersible clay parameters are the spontaneously dispersed clay
and the mechanically dispersed clay (Rengasamy et al., 1984; Kay and Dex-
ter, 1990; Barzegar et al., 1994a). Rengasamy et al. (1984) reported that they
probably represent the two extreme types of disturbance experienced by a
soil in the field, this is, zero tillage versus intensive tillage respectively. They
may also represent the effects of raindrop impact when the soil surface is
completely covered by plant material compared to that on bare soil. Kay and
Dexter (1990) observed that the amount of spontaneously dispersed clay and
the amount of mechanically dispersed clay measured under conditions of low
energy input are related to (1) aggregate surface area, and (2) the dispersibil-
ity of clay on the exposed surfaces. These parameters provide information to
characterize the exposed surface area of aggregates before and after mechani-
cal treatments. Emerson (1994) adds that spontaneous dispersion of air-dry
aggregates illustrates the ease with which structural change can occur in the
field. Barzegar et al. (1994b) found a strong relationship between the amount
of clay fraction separated by wet sieving and the amount of spontaneously
dispersible clay measured separately. This is consistent with a highly signifi-
cant correlation between spontaneously and mechanically dispersible clays in
soils with SAR >3, obtained by Rengasamy et al. (1994) and Barzegar et al.
(1994a).
Jastrow and Miller (1991) reported that the turbidimetric method has the
advantages of being simple, rapid and relatively reproducible, and it uses
small samples. However, Douglas and Goss (1982) concluded that although
the turbidimetric method is useful for comparing treatments of the same or
similar soil types, it is not suitable for making comparisons among soils with
different particle size distributions.
Many researchers used the turbidimetric method or other dispersion tests
as substitutes of the aggregate stability tests (i.e., the wet-sieving method)
(Williams et al., 1966). However, due to the fact that aggregates of different
size classes will have different stability, determining the stability of micro-
aggregates is necessary; so the turbidimetric method is necessary and com-
plementary to the macro-aggregate stability tests. This is, a combination of
both methods is needed to fully characterize aggregate stability. In addition,
Pojasok and Kay (1990a) proposed to determine dispersible clay (DC) by
turbidimetry on the same sample where wet aggregate stability was deter-
mined. The advantages of this idea are: (1) it saves time, and (2) both mea-
surements (WSA and DC) are made with the same energy input. Several
authors have followed this proposition (Perfect et al., 1990a, b, c; Caron et
al., 1992b, c; Rasiah et al., 1992; Rasiah, 1994).
Finally, few authors have compared soil macro-aggregate stability tests

(wet-sieving) with micro-aggregate stability tests (turbidimetry). When both
tests are applied to the same soil sample, as suggested by Pojasok and Kay
(1990a), this is, when WSA and DC measurements are made on the same
sample with the same energy input, consistent results were obtained. In
general decreases in macro-aggregate stability coincide with increases in
dispersible clay. Thus, as macro-aggregates break down more surfaces are
exposed to clay dispersion. Perfect et al. (1990a) and Curtin et al. (1994a)
also reported significant negative correlation between aggregate stability and
dispersible clay.
However, most of the comparisons between both type of tests were made
with the objective to select which test (1) reflects better the effects of crop-
ping history or other soil management or treatment, and/or (2) discriminates
better among soils behavior (Williams et al., 1966). Williams et al. (1966)
reported values of stability measured by wet sieving that did not appear to be
correlated with those obtained by turbidimetry when the same pretreatment
(slow wetting) was used. The same authors concluded that the wet sieving
technique requires less work, and the turbidimetric technique is more useful
where only limited amounts of material are available or where the natural
structural variations of field material are largely masked, for example, by
treatments with soil conditioners.
Only few authors have used the two types of tests to assess the effects of a
given treatment or a given soil physical property in the stability at the two
levels, macro- and micro-aggregate levels (Bartoli et al., 1991; Mbagwu et
al., 1993). The effects of anionic and nonionic surfactants on soil stability
were consistent when values from wet sieving and turbidimetry were
compared (Mbagwu et al., 1993). The effects of cropping history on soil
stability were not consistent when values from wet sieving and turbidimetry
were compared in the same sample (Haynes, 1993). The effects of organic
matter on soil stability were also not consistent when values from water-stable
macro-aggregates and clay dispersion were compared. In addition, Lebron and
Suarez (1992b) did not observe any correlation between macro-aggregate
stability tests and dispersion tests. It can be concluded that (1) both tests
provide information about different aspects of soil stability, and/or (2) the
studied soil properties or the applied treatments have different effects at the
two levels of soil structure, this is, at macro-aggregation and micro-aggrega-
tion levels.
In summary, for a complete description of soil structural stability, a com-
bination of macro-aggregate stability tests and micro-aggregate stability tests
is necessary.
The Le Bissonnais method modified by Amézketa et al. (1996a) is sug-
gested to assess macro-aggregate stability, with the particularity that it allows
discrimination of the destabilizing mechanisms. Analyzing the overall size

distribution of the particles resulting from macro-aggregate breakdown, in-
cluding determination of dispersed clay, on the same sample where aggregate
stability is determined is suggested to assess micro-aggregate stability.
The scheme to follow to completely characterize soil aggregate stability is
presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Scheme of a complete characterization of soil aggregate stability.
Collecting samples in the field

Transporting to the lab (in plastic bags)
SIEVING
1-2 mm
FIELD MOIST AGGREG. AIR-DRIED AGGREG.
MACROAGGREGATE STABILITY TESTS
SLOW WETTING FAST WETTING STIRRING AFTER

Treatments in DW in DW PREWETTING
SIEVING in DW SIEVING in ethanol

of disaggregation
STABLE STABLE UNSTABLE

Measurement
AGGREGATES AGGREGATES AGGREGATES

>0.25 mm >0.25 mm <0.25 mm
SONICATING
DRY-SIEVING
SM
Stability
WSA MWD PSD
parameters
Turbidimetry or
Laser Ray Difraction
MICROAGGREGATE
STABILITY TEST
Stability
PSD DC
parameters
ESTIMATION OF SOIL BEHAVIOR IN THE FIELD

(SOIL ERODIBILITY, CRUSTING POTENTIAL)
FROM LAB AGGREGATE STABILITY METHODS
Although the disintegration forces applied in the laboratory may attempt

to simulate those found in the field, they do not fully duplicate field condi-
tions. In addition, all laboratory tests try to predict long-term behavior of
soils in the field from short-term observations (Matkin and Smart, 1987).
Consequently, the relationship between aggregate stability in the laboratory
and soil aggregation state and dynamics in the field is largely empirical. For
diagnostic purposes, however, the determination in the laboratory of aggre-
gate stability under different treatments may provide information on the soil
behavior in relation to several disintegrating forces. The aim of aggregate

stability tests is to give a reliable description and ranking of physical behavior
of soils under several stresses, or at least to allow a discrimination between
soils in accordance with field observations.
Soil erodibility is the ease by which soil is detached by splash during
rainfall, irrigation, and/or by the shear of surface flow. It affects infiltration,
hydraulic conductivity, surface sealing and consequently soil erosion. Soil
erosion is generally measured using natural rainfall erosion plots or simulated
rainfall on field plots or in the laboratory (Bradford and Huang, 1993; Tru-
man and Bradford, 1995). Consequently, its prediction and quantification
requires much time, work and economic support. Usually, estimates of ero-
sion rates are obtained using empirical models, such as the Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Renard et al., 1993), the Water Erosion Predic-
tion Project (WEPP) model (Nearing et al., 1990), and/or the EUROpean Soil
Erosion Model (EUROSEM) (Morgan et al., 1993). However, these models
have been used with limited success to provide accurate estimates of soil
erosion throughout the world, due to the lack of an adequate data base
necessary for model calibration.
Another method is to estimate soil erodibility from easily measured soil
properties that are strongly correlated with erodibility. Stability of soil macro-
and micro-aggregates is probably the single most important soil property
governing soil erodibility. The wet-sieve technique (macro-aggregate stabil-
ity test) simulates the action of wetting, and measures the slaking forces
exerted on a soil by flowing water rather than forces of raindrop impact
(Truman et al., 1990). The breakdown of aggregates and the clay and silt
dispersion by shaking in water involves mechanical energy input, as does
dispersion by rainfall, simulating the destructive energy of the raindrops
(Miller and Baharuddin, 1986). Thus, the laboratory measurements of macro
and micro-aggregate stability might therefore be related to infiltration and
erosion behavior of soils. However, there appear to be apparent contradic-
tions about the relationship between erodibility and aggregate stability. Mea-
surements of soil macro-aggregate stability have been found to be strongly

correlated with soil erodibility, either positively (Bryan, 1968; Elwell, 1986;
Miller and Baharuddin, 1987; Coote et al., 1988) or negatively (Bajracharya
et al. 1992). Even for the same soil samples, Ouessar et al. (1993) observed a
logical negative relationship (when stability parameters were calculated for
whole samples) or a counter-intuitive positive relationship (when the stability
parameters were calculated for separated size fractions) between aggregate
stability and soil erodibility. Soil aggregation has been shown to be correlated
with soil erodibility (Wischmeier and Mannering, 1969). Amézketa et al.
(1996a) obtained macro-aggregate stability parameters highly correlated with
parameters describing the soil erosive behavior and ranking the soils in the
same order. However, other authors, such as, Roth and Eggert (1994), Re-
ichert and Norton (1994), and Lehrsch and Brown (1995) did not find any
relationship between aggregate stability and infiltration parameters and/or
erosion rates. Bradford et al. (1987) conclude that aggregate stability may not
necessarily correlate with infiltration.
On the other hand, Miller and Baharuddin (1986) and Shainberg et al.
(1992b) found that soil dispersibility was positively correlated with soil erod-
ibility and inversely related to infiltration. Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model, a process-based model for predicting water erosion, uses
water-dispersible clay in the algorithm for computing interrill erodibility
(Brubaker et al., 1992). However, Meyer and Harmon (1984) obtained that
clay dispersion was inversely related to soil loss. Clay dispersion does not
allow an accurate prediction of final infiltration rate (FIR) or runoff (Wace
and Hignett, 1991; Levy et al., 1993; Loch and Folley, 1994), or soil erosion
(Chagas and Grottola, 1994).
Roth and Eggert (1994), Le Bissonnais et al. (1989), and Le Bissonnais
(1996a,b) added that the size distribution of particles resulting from aggre-
gate breakdown rather than the rate of breakdown greatly affects the surface
sealing susceptibility and consequently soil erosion.
The different methodologies used to determine soil macro- and micro-ag-
gregate stability and erodibility complicate the comparison between aggre-
gate stability and soil erodibility and make difficult to obtain a consistent
correlation between these properties. Some authors attribute the lack of cor-
relation or the illogical relationship between them to various reasons, such as:
(1) the tests used do not reflect all the mechanisms involved, and they do not
exactly correspond to the field processes, (2) the fact that smaller aggregates
are included in the erosion tests than in the aggregate stability tests, (3) soil
erosion prediction models, such as the USDA’s WEPP separate erosion pro-
cesses into rill and interrill subprocesses, while they are interrelated and they
should be studied as a single set (Sharma, 1996), and (4) most soil erosion
prediction models do not account for surface sealing and soil crusting effects
on soil detachment, runoff and infiltration (Nearing et al., 1990; Sharma,
1996). Soil sealing and crusting is detrimental in that it reduces infiltration,

generating runoff and increasing erosion; soil sealing and crusting is benefi-
cial in that it reduces detachment, stabilizing the soil surface, and reducing
erosion. Final soil erosion will depend on the balance between detachment
and transport (Singer and Warrington, 1992).
Moreover, Le Bissonnais (1996a) distinguished two types of erosion situa-
tions: (1) without or with little change in water infiltration capacity, and (2) with
progressive decrease in infiltration capacity. For the first type, he concluded
that aggregate stability is not a good indicator of soil erodibility because the
aggregates themselves are transported, while for the second, aggregate stabil-
ity is closely related to erodibility. ‘‘The first type of erosion may occur in
heavily vegetated nonarable lands during long-duration rainstorms. General-
ly, the vegetation and land use greatly influence the erosion; therefore soil
characteristics are less important.’’ The second type of erosion may occur in
most of the cultivated lands, where infiltration capacity decreases following
rainfall events because of surface sealing and crusting.
SUMMARY
Soil aggregation involves the formation of aggregates through the joining

of sand, silt and clay particles, and their stabilization by organic and inorgan-
ic materials. As a consequence, soils consist of aggregates of different sizes
and the pores between the aggregates. Soil aggregate stability is the ability of
the aggregates to remain intact when subjected to stress. The maintenance of
a ‘‘good’’ soil structure is critical for agricultural sustainability, and depends
on the stability of the aggregates. Thus, soil aggregate stability influences a
wide range of physical and biogeochemical processes in the agricultural envi-
ronment, such as root density and elongation, macropore formation and macro-
porosity, water storage capacity, infiltration and surface runoff rates, soil ero-
sion, nonpoint source pollution from surface applied agricultural chemicals,
biological activity, and crop production. Consequently, soil aggregate stabil-
ity can be used as an index of soil quality. This property is closely related to
primary soil characteristics. Other external factors such as climate, age, bio-
logical factors, and agricultural management greatly influence it as well.
These factors have been discussed in detail in this paper. However, progress
should be made in the understanding of the interaction between these soil
characteristics and the external factors, since their effects on aggregate stabil-
ity often show contradictory results where single parameters are studied.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the effects of these factors on soil aggregate
stability. The well acepted ideas are presented in Table 1, while the ques-
tioned ideas, which can not be generalizated due to the fact that they are not
well founded or imply contradictory results, are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 1. Summary of the well accepted ideas regarding the effect of several
factors on soil aggregate stability.
INCREASE IN THE EFFECT ON

VARIABLE PARAMETER OF
MEASUREMENT CLAY (<2 m) MICROAGGREGATE MACROAGGREGATE
STABILITY (<250 m) STABILITY (>250 m) STABILITY
Electrolyte concentration EC +++ ++
Electrolyte composition SAR --- -
pH -- -
Clay content clay content
CaCO3 CaCO3 content ++ +
Gypsum CaSO4 content ++ +

Organic matter OM content --- ++ +++
Fe and/or Al oxides Fe and/or Al oxides ++ +
content
wetting-drying cycles
wetting rate --
initial water content
Climate freezing-thawing
cycles
water content at time --
of freezing
wind velocity --- -
Time (age) time (age) + +
root mass +++
Biological factors soil microbes (MBC) +++
soil fauna ++
tillage --
crop residues +++
cover crops +++
manure, compost +++
sludge, others +++
pasture and forage ++
Agricultural management crops
arable crops in +
rotation
arable crops in --
monoculture
fallow --
phospogypsum ++ +
amendment
synthetic conditioners: +++
PAM
+++: high positive effect; ++: medium positive effect; +: low positive effect
------: high negative effect; ----: medium negative effect; --: low negative effect
TABLE 2. Summary of questioned ideas regarding the effect of several factors

on soil aggregate stability. Due to the fact that they are not well founded or imply
contradictory results, they can not be generalizated.
INCREASE IN THE EFFECT ON

VARIABLE PARAMETER OF
MEASUREMENT CLAY (<2 m) MICROAGGREGATE MACROAGGREGATE
STABILITY (<250 m) STABILITY (>250 m) STABILITY
Electrolyte concentration EC (+) ?
Electrolyte composition SAR (-- ) ?
pH (-- ) ?
Clay content clay content (+) ? (+) ? (+) ?
CaCO3 CaCO3 content (+) ?
Gypsum CaSO4 content (+) ?

Organic matter OM content
Fe and/or Al oxides Fe and/or Al oxides (+) ?
content
wetting-drying cycles (+) ??? (+) ?? (++) ?
wetting rate ??? (-- ) ?
initial water content (-- ) ?? (+) ? (++) ?
Climate freezing-thawing (+) ??? (+) ?? (++) ?
cycles
water content at time ??? (-- ) ??
of freezing
wind velocity ???
Time (age) time (age) (+) ???
root mass (-- ) ?? (+) ?
Biological factors soil microbes (MBC) (+) ?? (+++) ?
soil fauna (-- ) ??? (+) ?
tillage (-- - ) ?? (-- ) ?
crop residues ?? (+) ?
cover crops ?? (+) ?
manure, compost (-- - ) ?? (+) ?
sludge, others (+) ?? (+) ?
pasture and forage (+) ?? (+) ?
Agricultural management crops
arable crops in (+) ?? (+) ?
rotation
arable crops in (-- ) ?? (-- ) ?
monoculture
fallow (-- ) ?? (-- ) ?
phospogypsum (+) ?
amendment
PAM (++) ?? (+) ?
???: highly uncertain; ??: uncertain; ?: slightly uncertain.
Several models of aggregation present an aggregate hierarchy inferring

three main levels of aggregation: clay level (<2 m), micro-aggregate level
(<250 m), and macro-aggregate level (>250 m). The stabilization of differ-
ent aggregate size fractions, and in particular the stabilization of these three
main levels of aggregation is due to different mechanisms. A complete char-
acterization of soil structure requires the characterization of the macro- and
micro-aggregate stability. Standardized methods for the study of aggregate
stability will be of great interest for allowing comparisons of aggregate sta-
bility data as well as for predicting the erodibility of cultivated soils. Special
attention has to be paid to the conditions of sample collection in the field and
sample preparation and treatments in the laboratory. A combination of mac-
ro-aggregate stability tests that allow discrimination of the destabilizing
mechanisms, and of micro-aggregate stability tests, determining the size

distribution of produced particles after aggregate breakdown, seems to be the
most appropriate way for describing soil aggregate stability. For better com-
parisons between macro-aggregate stability data and micro-aggregate stabil-
ity data, Pojasok and Kay’s idea of applying both tests to the same soil
sample is supported by the author.
Understanding aggregate formation and stabilization in the soils can help
to manage soils appropriately, maximizing aggregate stability, which is es-
sential for the success of agricultural systems as well as for preserving envi-
ronmental quality.
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the well acepted ideas regarding the effect of
several factors on soil aggregate stability are basically, (1) the effects of
electrolyte concentration and composition on clay stability, (2) the effects of
soil properties such as CaCO3 content, gypsum content, organic matter con-
tent, and Fe and Al oxides on clay stability, and (3) the effects of biological
factors and agricultural management on macro-aggregate stability. There re-
mains, however, an incomplete understanding of the subject; there are still
many controversial ideas and several uninvestigated areas. As a consequence,
research is necessary to resolve these controversial ideas and to complete the
understanding of soil aggregation.
Research is necessary in several fronts: (1) to analyze the effect of water
quality (combinations of EC, SAR, pH) on soil macro-aggregate stability, and
(2) to analyze the effect of climate, biological factors and soil management
on microaggregate stability and specially in clay stability.
In relation with the first point, adaptation of the macro-aggregate stabil-
ity tests for this objective is necessary. In this sense, a modification of the
Le Bissonnais method could be useful. The modification would consist of
(1) adding two more treatments to the three treatments of the Le Bissonnais
method, consisting of slow wetting and fast wetting the soil in salt solutions
with different EC-SAR combinations, and (2) wet-sieving the soil samples in
the same salt solutions in which the soils were wetted. For each salt solution,
stability parameters such as MWD, PSDSA (of stable aggregates, >0.25 mm),
PSDUA (of unstable aggregates, <0.25 mm), and DC would be obtained. For
each soil, the comparison of DC obtained with solutions of a given SAR and
different ECs, would allow to determine the flocculation value (FV) for that
SAR. These complementary treatments of the Le Bissonnais method would
allow discrimination of the relative importance of chemical dispersion,
another mechanism that causes aggregate breakdown, in addition to slaking
and mechanical dispersion, the other two degradant mechanisms isolated by

the above mentioned method. It remains to be seen if (1) this methodology is
feasible, and (2) it is useful on a wide range of soils.
In relation to the second point, understanding how soil management in-
fluences microaggregate stability and clay stability would help to understand
its global influence on soil aggregation, which is of relevant importance to
make suitable modifications to farming practices in order to improve soil
structural stability. In this sense, several research needs are:
S Develop techniques to manage soils while minimizing environmental

degradation.
S Develop the possibility of manipulating the soil microbial population or
their by-products to promote aggregate stability. Thus, microbial extra-
cellular polysaccharides can be managed by N and other nutrients sup-
ply to agricultural soils to improve soil structure. In this sense, studying
the effect of varying soil C and N availability using different cover
crops, crop residues and N fertilizers on polysaccharide production and
soil aggregate stability could be a possibility.
S Develop the possibility of manipulating soil fauna, such as earthworms,
etc., to promove soil aggregate stability. Contribution of earthworms
activity to soil aggregation is related to specific earthworms species,
specific diets, etc.
S Determining which parts of OM (HF carbohydrate, LF carbohydrate,
etc.) are more active on soil aggregation and their acting mechanisms.
Determining a measurement of SOM quality that could be useful in as-
sessment of short-term effectiveness of agricultural management prac-
tices would be of a great relevance.
S Developing techniques to manage amendments to remediate or avoid
crusting in the fields: ways and doses of applying the amendments.
REFERENCES
Abderrahman, W. & D.L. Rowell. 1979. The influence of Mg in saline and sodic
soils: a specific effect or a problem of cation-exchange. Journal of Soil Sci.
30:535-546.
Abu-Sharar, T.M. 1985. Stability of soil structure and reduction in hydraulic conduc-
tivity as affected by electrolyte concentration and composition. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of California Riverside. 156 pp.
Abu-Sharar, T.M. 1988. Stability of soil aggregates as inferred from optical transmis-
sion of soil suspensions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:951-954.
Abu-Sharar, T.M. 1993. Effects of sewage sludge treatments on aggregate slaking,
clay dispersion and hydraulic conductivity of a semi-arid soil sample. Geoderma
59:327-343.
Abu-Sharar, T.M., F.T. Bingham & J.D. Rhoades. 1987. Stability of soil aggregates
as affected by electrolyte concentration and composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
51:309-314.
Alperovitch, N., I. Shainberg & R. Keren. 1981. Specific effect of magnesium on the
hydraulic conductivity of sodic soils. Journal Soil Sci. 32:543-554.
Alperovitch, N., I. Shainberg & J.D. Rhoades. 1986. Effect of mineral weathering on
the response of sodic soils to exchangeable magnesium. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
50:901-904.
Aly, S.M. & J. Letey. 1988. Polymer and water quality effects on flocculation of
montmorillonite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:1453-1458.
Amézketa, E. 1992. Físico-Química, estabilidad estructural y técnicas de lavado de
suelos salino-sódicos del sistema de riegos Monegros-Flúmen (Huesca). Ph.D.
dissertation. Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. Lérida, Spain. 220 pp.
Amézketa, E. & R. Aragüés. 1995a. Flocculation-dispersion behaviour of arid-zone
soil clays as affected by electrolyte concentration and composition. Inv. Agr.:
Prod. Prot. Veg.: 10 (1):101-112.
Amézketa, E. & R. Aragüés. 1995b. Hydraulic conductivity, dispersion and osmotic
explosion in arid-zone soils leached with electrolyte solutions. Soil Science
159:287-293.
Amézketa, E., M.J. Singer & K. Scow. 1995. Stabilization of artificial aggregates
through the growth of bacteria and their production of polysaccharides. pp. 289-290.
In Agronomy Abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.
Amézketa, E., M.J. Singer & Y. Le Bissonnais. 1996a. Testing a procedure for
measuring water-stable aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:888-894.
Amézketa, E., M.J. Singer, N. Gunapala, K. Scow, D. Friedman & E. Lundquist.
1996b. Soil aggregate stability in conventional, low-input and organic farming
systems. (unpublished data)
Angers, D.A. 1992. Changes in soil aggregation and organic carbon under corn and
alfalfa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1244-1249.
Angers, D.A. & M.R. Carter. 1996. Aggregation and organic matter storage in cool,
humid agricultural soils. pp. 193-211. In Carter M.R. & B.A. Stewart (eds.).
Structure and organic matter storage in agricultural soils. Advances in Soil
Science. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Angers, D.A. & G.R. Mehuys. 1988. Effects of cropping on macroaggregation of a

marine clay soil. Can J. Soil Sci. 68:723-732.
Angers, D.A. & G.R. Mehuys. 1989. Effects of cropping on carbohydrate content and
water-stable aggregation of a clay soil. Can J. Soil Sci. 69:373-380.
Angers, D.A., A. N’dayegamyie & D. Côté. 1993a. Tillage-induced differences in
organic matter of particle-size fractions and microbial biomass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
57:512-516.
Angers, D.A., N. Samson & A. Légère. 1993b. Early changes in water-stable ag-
gregation induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can J.
Soil Sci. 73:51-59.
Angers, D.A., A. Pesant & J. Vigneux. 1992. Early cropping-induced changes in soil
aggregation, organic matter, and microbial biomass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:115-119.
Angers, D.A., R.P. Voroney & D. Côté. 1995. Dynamics of soil organic matter and
corn residues as affected by tillage practices. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1311-1315.
Arora, H.S. & N.T. Coleman. 1979. The influence of electrolyte concentration on
flocculation of clay suspensions. Soil Sci. 127(3):134-139.
Arrigo, N.M., R.M. Palma, M.E. Conti & A.O. Constantini. 1993. Cropping rota-
tions: Effect on aggregate stability and biological activity. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 24:2441-2453.
Arshad, M.A. & G.M. Coen. 1992. Characterization of soil quality: Physical and
chemical criteria. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7:25-32.
Avnimelech, Y. & A. Cohen. 1989. Use of organic manures for amendment of
compacted clay soils. II. Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 20:1635-1644.
Bajracharya, R.M., W.J. Elliot & R. Lal. 1992. Interrill erodibility of some Ohio soils
based on field rainfall simulation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:267-272.
Baldock, J.A., M. Aoyama, J.M. Oades, Susanto & C.D. Grant. 1994. Structural
amelioration of a South Australian Red-brown earth using calcium and organic
amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:571-594.
Baldock, J.A., J.M. Oades, A.M. Vassallo & M.A. Wilson. 1990. Solid-State CP/
MAS 13C N.M.R. Analysis of bacterial and fungal cultures isolated from a soil
incubated with glucose. Aust. J. Soil Res. 28:213-225.
Bartoli, F., G. Burtin & J. Guerif. 1992. Influence of organic matter on aggregation in
oxisols rich in gibbsite or in goethite. II. Clay dispersion, aggregate strength and
water-stability. Geoderma 54:259-274.
Bartoli, F., G. Burtin & A.J. Herbillon. 1991. Disaggregation and clay dispersion of
oxisols: Na resin, a recommended methodology. Geoderma 49:301-317.
Barvenik, F.W. 1994. Polyacrylamide characteristics related to soil applications. Soil
Sci. 158:235-243.
Barzegar, A.R., R.S. Murray, G.J. Churchman & P. Rengasamy. 1994a. The strength
of remoulded soils as affected by exchangeable cations and dispersible clay. Aust.
J. Soil Res. 32:185-199.
Barzegar, A.R., J.M. Oades, P. Rengasamy & L. Giles. 1994b. Effect of sodicity and
salinity on disaggregation and tensile strength of an Alfisol under different crop-
ping systems. Soil & Till. Res. 32:329-345.
Barzegar, A.R., J.M. Oades & P. Rengasamy. 1996. Soil structure degradation and
mellowing of compacted soils by saline-sodic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

60:583-588.
Barzegar, A.R., P. Rengasamy & J.M. Oades. 1995. Effects of clay type and rate of
wetting on the mellowing of compacted soils. Geoderma 68:39-49.
Beare, M.H. & R.R. Bruce. 1993. A comparison of methods for measuring water
stable aggregates: Implications for determining environmental effects on soil
structure. Geoderma 56:87-104.
Beare, M.H., M.L. Cabrera, P.F. Hendrix & D.C. Coleman. 1994a. Aggregate-pro-
tected and unprotected organic matter pools in conventional- and no-tillage soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:787-795.
Beare, M.H., P.F. Hendrix & D.C. Coleman. 1994b. Water-stable aggregates and
organic matter fractions in conventional- and no-tillage soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
58:777-786.
Ben-Hur, M. 1994. Runoff, erosion, and polymer application in moving-sprinkler
irrigation. Soil Sci. 158:283-290.
Ben-Hur, M., J. Faris, M. Malik & J. Letey. 1989. Polymers as soil conditioners
under consecutive irrigations and rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1173-1177.
Ben-Hur, M., M. Malik, J. Letey & U. Mingelgrin. 1992. Adsorption of polymers on
clays as affected by clay charge and structure, polymer properties, and water
quality. Soil Sci. 153:349-356.
Ben-Hur, M., I. Shainberg, D. Bakker & R. Keren. 1985. Effect of soil texture and
CaCO3 content on water infiltration in crusted soil as related to water salinity.
Irrig. Sci. 6:281-294.
Benito-Rueda, E. & F. Diaz-Fierros Viqueira. 1989. Estudio de los principales fac-
tores que intervienen en la estabilidad estructural de los suelos de Galicia. An.
Edafol. Agrobiol. 48:229-253.
Blackman, J.D. 1992. Seasonal variation in the aggregate stability of downland soils.
Soil use & management 8:142-150.
Blake, G.R. & R.D. Gilman. 1970. Thixotropic changes with aging of shynthetic soil
aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34:561-564.
Bradford, J.M., J.E. Ferris & P.A. Remley. 1987. Interrill soil erosion processes: II.
Relationship of splash detachment to soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
51:1571-1575.
Bradford, J.M. & C. Huang. 1993. Comparison of interrill soil loss for laboratory and
field procedures. Soil Technol. 6:145-156.
Bresson, L.M. 1995. A review of physical management for crusting control in Aus-
tralian cropping systems. Research opportunities. Soil & Water Management
33:195-209.
Brubaker, S.C., C.S. Holzhey & B.R. Brasher. 1992. Estimating the water-dispersible
clay content of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1226-1232.
Bruce, R.R., G.W Langdale, L.T. West & W.P. Miller. 1992. Soil surface modifica-
tion by biomass inputs affecting rainfall infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56:1614-1620.
Bryan, R.B. 1968. The development, use and efficiency of indices of soil erodibility.
Geoderma 2:5-25.
Bryan, R.B. 1992. The influence of some soil conditioners on soil properties: Labora-
tory tests on Kenyan soil samples. Soil Technol. 5:225-247.
Bullock, M.S., W.D. Kemper & S.D Nelson. 1988. Soil cohesion as affected by
freezing, water content, time and tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:770-776.
Burke, W., D. Gabriels & J. Bouma (eds.). 1986. Soil structure assessment. Balkema.
92 pp.
Cambardella, C.A. & E.T. Elliott. 1992. Particulate soil organic matter changes
across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:777-783.
Cambardella, C.A. & E.T. Elliott. 1993. Carbon and nitrogen distribution in aggre-
gates from cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1071-1076.
Campbell, C.A., D. Curtin, S. Brandt & R.P. Zentner. 1993a. Soil aggregation as
influenced by cultural practices in Saskatchewan: II. Brown and dark brown
Chernozemic soils. Can J. Soil Sci. 73:597-612.

Campbell, C.A., A.P. Moulin, D. Curtin, G.P. Lafond & L. Townley-Smith. 1993b.
Soil aggregation as influenced by cultural practices in Saskatchewan: I. Black
Chernozemic soils. Can J. Soil Sci. 73:579-595.
Caron, J., C.R. Espindola & D.A. Angers. 1996. Soil structural stability during rapid
wetting: Influence of land use on some aggregate properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
60:901-908.
Caron, J. & B.D. Kay. 1992. Rate of response of structural stability to a change in
water content: Influence of cropping history. Soil & Till. Res. 25:167-185.
Caron, J., B.D. Kay & E. Perfect. 1992a. Short-term decrease in soil structural
stability following bromegrass establishment on a clay loam soil. Plant & Soil
145:121-130.
Caron, J., B.D. Kay & J.A. Stone. 1992b. Improvement of structural stability of a
clay loam with drying. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1583-1590.
Caron, J., B.D. Kay, J.A. Stone & R.G. Kachanoski. 1992c. Modelling temporal
changes in structural stability of a clay loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56:1597-1604.
Carter, M.R. 1992. Influence of reduced tillage systems on organic matter, microbial
biomass, macro-aggregate distribution and structural stability of a surface soil in a
humid climate. Soil & Till. Res. 23:361-372.
Carter, M.R. 1994. A review of conservation tillage strategies for humid temperate
regions. Soil & Till Res. 31:289-301.
Carter, M.R., D.A. Angers & H.T. Kunelius. 1994. Soil structural form and stability,
and organic matter under cool-season perennial grasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
58:1194-1199.
Carter, M.R. & P.M. Mele. 1992. Changes in microbial biomass and structural stabil-
ity at the surface of a duplex soil under direct drilling and stubble retention in
North-Eastern Victoria. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30:493-503.
Carter, R. & B.A. Stewart (eds). 1996. Structure and organic matter storage in
agricultural soils. Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc.,
Boca Raton, FL.
Cassel, D.K., C.W. Raczkowski & H.P. Denton. 1995. Tillage effects on corn produc-
tion and soil physical conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1436-1443.
Chagas, C.I. & M.C. Grottola. 1994. Erosión entre surcos y estabilidad estructural en
un Argiudol típico. Ciencia del Suelo 12:35-37.
Chan, K.Y. 1995. Enhanced structural stability of a straw amended soil in the pres-
ence of gypsum. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26:1023-1032.
Chan, K.Y. & D.P. Heenan. 1996. The influence of crop rotation on soil structure and
soil physical properties under conventional tillage. Soil & Till Res. 37:113-125.
Chan, K.Y., D.P. Heenan & R. Ashley. 1994. Seasonal changes in surface aggregate
stability under different tillage and crops. Soil & Till Res. 28:301-314.
Chan, K.Y. & S. Sivapragasam. 1996. Amelioration of a degraded hardsetting soil
using an anionic polymeric conditioner. Soil Technol. 9:91-100.
Chaney, K. & R.S. Swift. 1984. The influence of organic matter on aggregate stabil-
ity in some British soils. J. Soil Sci. 35:223-230.
Chaney, K. & R.S. Swift. 1986a. Studies on aggregate stability. I. Re-formation of

soil aggregates. J. Soil Sci. 37:329-335.
Chaney, K. & R.S. Swift. 1986b. Studies on aggregate stability. II. The effect of
humic substances on the stability of re-formed soil aggregates. J. Soil Sci.
37:337-343.
Chenu, C. 1993. Clay-or-sand-polysaccharide associations as models for the inter-
face between micro-organisms and soil: water related properties and microstruc-
ture. Geoderma 56:143-156.
Chiang, S.C., D.E. Radcliffe, W.P. Miller & K.D. Newman. 1987. Hydraulic conduc-
tivity of three southeastern soils as affected by sodium, electrolyte concentration
and pH. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1293-1299.
Childs, E.C. 1940. The use of soil moisture characteristics in soil studies. Soil Sci.
50:239-252.
Chisci, G., P. Bazzoffi & J.S.C. Mbagwu. 1989. Comparison of aggregate stability
indices for soil classification and assessment of soil management practices. Soil
Technol. 2:113-133.
Chorom, M., P. Rengasamy & R.S. Murray. 1994. Clay dispersion as influenced by
pH and net particle charge of sodic soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:1243-1252.
Christensen, B.T. 1986. Straw incorporation and soil organic matter in macro-aggre-
gates and particle size separates. J. Soil Sci. 37:125-135.
Collis-George, N. & B.S. Figueroa. 1984. The use of high energy moisture character-
istics to assess soil stability. Aust. J. Soil Res. 22:349-356.
Cooper, L.R., R.L. Haverland, D.M. Hendricks & W.G. Knisel. 1984. Microtrac
particle-size analyzer: an alternative particle-size determination method for sedi-
ment and soils. Soil Sci. 138:138-146.
Coote, D.R., C.A. Malcolm-Mcgovern, G.J. Wall, W.T. Dickinson & R.P. Rudra.
1988. Seasonal variation of erodibility indices based on shear strength and aggre-
gate stability in some Ontario soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:405-416.
Costantini, A., D. Cosentino & A. Segat. 1996. Influence of tillage systems on
biological properties of a Typic Argiudoll soil under continuous maize in central
Argentina. Soil & Till. Res. 38:265-271.
Coughlan, K.J., D. Mcgarry, R.J. Loch, B. Bridge & G.D. Smith. 1991. The measure-
ment of soil structure. Some practical initiatives. Aust. J. Soil Res. 29:869-889.
Crescimanno, G., M. Iovino & G. Provenzano. 1995. Influence of salinity and sodic-
ity on soil structural and hydraulic characteristics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
59:1701-1708.
Curtin, D., C.A. Campbell, R.P. Zentner & G.P. Lafond. 1994a. Long-term manage-
ment and clay dispersibility in two Haploborolls in Saskatchewan. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 58:962-967.
Curtin, D., H. Steppuhn & F. Selles. 1994b. Effects of magnesium on cation selectiv-
ity and structural stability of sodic soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:730-737.
Curtin, D., H. Steppuhn & F. Selles. 1994c.Clay dispersion in relation to sodicity,
electrolyte concentration and mechanical effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:955-962.
Curtin, D., H. Steppuhn, A.R. Mermut & F. Selles. 1995. Sodicity in irrigated soils in
Saskatchewan: Chemistry and structural stability. Can J. Soil Sci. 75:177-185.
Czurda, K.A., S. Ludwig & R. Schababerle. 1995. Fabric changes in plastic clays by
freezing and thawing. pp. 71-91. In Hartge, K.H. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil
structure. Its development and function. Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publish-
ers, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Dalal, R.C. & B.J. Bridge. 1996. Aggregation and organic matter storage in sub-hu-
mid and semi-arid soils. pp. 263-307. In Carter, M.R. & B. A. Stewart (eds.).
Structure and organic matter storage in agricultural soils. Advances in Soil
Degens, E.P. G.P. Sparling & L.K. Abbott. 1994. The contribution from hyphae, roots
and organic carbon constituents to the aggregation of a sandy loam under long-
term clover-based and grass pastures. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 45:459-468.
Dexter, A.R. 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil & Till. Res.
11:199-238.
Dexter, A.R., R. Horn & W.D. Kemper. 1988. Two mechanisms for age-hardening of
soil. J. Soil Sci. 39:163-175.
Dickson, E.L., V. Rasiah & P.H. Groenevelt. 1991. Comparison of four prewetting
techniques in wet aggregate stability determination. Can. J. Soil Sci. 71:67-72.
Dong, A., G. Chesters & G.V. Simsiman. 1983. Soil dispersibility. Soil Sci.
136:208-212.
Dorioz, J.M., M. Robert & C. Chenu. 1993. The role of roots, fungi and bacteria on
clay particle organization. An experimental approach. Geoderma 56:179-194.
Douglas, J.T. & M.J. Goss. 1982. Stability and organic matter content of surface soil
aggregates under different methods of cultivation and in grassland. Soil Till. Res.
2:155-175.
Du Plessis, H.M. & I. Shainberg. 1985. Effect of exchangeable sodium and phospho-
gypsum on the hydraulic properties of several South African soils. S. Afr. Tydskr.
Plant. Grond 2(4):179-186.
Durgin, P.B. & J.G. Chaney. 1984. Dispersion of kaolinite by dissoluted organic
matter from Douglass-fir roots. Can. J. Soil Sci. 64:445-455.
Edwards, L.M. 1991. The effect of alternate freezing and thawing on aggregate
stability and aggregate size distribution of some Prince Edward island soils. J.
Soil Sci. 42:193-204.
Edwards, A.P. & J.M. Bremner. 1967. Microaggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 18:64-73.
El Rayah, H.M.E. & D.L. Rowell. 1973. The influence of iron and aluminium
hydroxides on the swelling of Na-Montmorillonite and the permeability of a

Na-Soil. J. Soil Sci. 24:137-144.
Elliott, E.T. 1986. Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous in
native and cultivated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:627-633.
Ellsworth, T.R., C.E. Clapp & G.R. Blake. 1991. Temporal variation in soil structural
properties under corn and soybean cropping. Soil Sci. 151:405-416.
El-Swaify, S.A. 1976. Changes in the physical properties of soil clays due to precipi-
tated aluminum and iron hydroxides. II. Colloidal interactions in the absence of
drying. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:516-520.
El-Swaify, S.A. & W.W. Emerson. 1975. Changes in the physical properties of soil
clays due to precipitated aluminum and iron hydroxides. I. Swelling and aggre-
gate stability after drying. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:1056-1063.
Elwell, H.A. 1986. Determination of erodibility of a subtropical clay soil: A laborato-

ry rainfall simulator experiment. J. Soil Sci. 37:345-350.
Emerson, W.W. 1964. The slaking of soil crumb as influenced by clay mineral
composition. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2:211-217.
Emerson, W.W. 1967. A classification of soil aggregates based on their coherence in
water. Aust. J. Soil Res. 5:47-57.
Emerson, W.W. 1977. Physical properties and structure. pp. 78-104. In J.S. Russell &
E.L. Greacen (eds.). Soil factors in crop production in a semi-arid environment.
University of Queenslay Press. St. Lucía, Queenslay.
Emerson, W.W. 1983. Inter-particle bonding. pp. 477-498. In Soils: An Australian
viewpoint. Chapter 31. CSIRO Melbourne and Academic Press. London.
Emerson, W.W. 1991. Structural decline of soils, assessment and prevention. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 29:905-921.
Emerson, W.W. 1994. Aggregate slaking and dispersion class, bulk properties of soil.
Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:173-184.
Emerson, W.W. & D.J. Greenland. 1990. Soil aggregates. Formation and stability.
pp. 485-511. In De Boodt, M.F., M.H.B. Hayes & A. Herbillon (eds.). Soil col-
loids and their associations in aggregates. NATO series. Serie B, Physics; V. 215.
Plenum Press, New York, 1990.
Fortun, C. & A. Fortun. 1989. Diversos aspectos sobre el papel de la materia orgánica
humificada en la formación y estabilización de los agregados del suelo. An.
Edafol. Agrobiol. 48:185-204.
Fortun, A., C. Fortun & C. Ortega. 1989. Effect of farmyard manure and its humic
fractions on the aggregate stability of a sandy-loam soil. J. Soil Sci. 40:293-298.
Frenkel, H., M.V. Fey & G.J. Levy. 1992. Organic and inorganic anion effects on
reference and soil clay critical flocculation concentration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56:1762-1766.
Frenkel, H., J.O. Goertzen & J.D. Rhoades. 1978. Effects of clay type and content
exchangeable sodium percentage and electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion
and soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:32-39.
Frenkel, H. & I. Shainberg. 1980. The effect of hydroxy-Al and hydroxy-Fe poly-
mers on montmorillonite particle size. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:626-629.
Fullen, M.A., A.M. Tye & K.E. Cookson. 1995. Effects of ‘‘Agri-SC’’ soil conditioner
on soil structure and erodibility: Some further observations. Soil Use & Manag.
11:183-185.
Gäth, S. & H.G. Frede. 1995. Mechanisms of air slaking. pp. 159-173. In Hartge, K.H. &
B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil structure. Its development and function. Advances in Soil
Gee, G.W. & J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. pp. 383-409. In Klute, A.
(ed.). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd
ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA AND SSSA, Madison, WI.
Gerard, C.J. 1987. Laboratory experiments on the effects of antecedent moisture and
residue application on aggregation of different soils. Soil & Till. Res. 9:21-32.
Gibbs, R.J. & J.B. Reid. 1988. A conceptual model of changes in soil structure under
different cropping systems. pp. 123-149. In Stewart, B.A. (ed.). Advances in soil
science. Vol. 8. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

Gijsman, A.J. & R.J. Thomas. 1995. Aggregate size distribution and stability of an
oxisol under legume-based and pure grass pastures in the Eastern Colombian
savannas. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33:153-165.
Golchin, A., J.M. Oades, J.O. Skjemstad & P. Clarke. 1994. Soil structure and carbon
cycling. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:1043-1068.
Golchin, A., J.M. Oades, J.O. Skjemstad & P. Clarke. 1995. Structural and dynamic
properties of soil organic matter as reflected by 13C natural abundance, pyrolysis
mass spectrometry and solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy in density fractions of
an oxisol under forest and pasture. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33:59-76.
Goldberg, S. & H.S. Forster. 1990. Flocculation of reference clays and arid-zone soil
clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:714-718.
Goldberg, S. & R.A Glaubig. 1987. Effect of saturating cation, pH and aluminum and
iron oxide on the flocculation of kaolinite and montmorillonite. Clays and Clay
Minerals 35(3):220-227.
Goldberg, S., B.S. Kapoor & J.D. Rhoades. 1990. Effect of aluminum and iron oxides
and organic matter on flocculation and dispersion of arid zone soils. Soil Sci.
150:588-593.
Goldberg, S., D.L. Suarez & R.A. Glaubig. 1988. Factors affecting clay dispersion
and aggregate stability of arid-zone soils. Soil Sci. 146:317-325.
Gollany, H.T., T.E. Schumacher, P.D. Evenson, M.J. Lindstrom & G.D. Lemme.
1991. Aggregate stability of an eroded and desurfaced typic Argiustoll. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 55:811-816.
Graham, R.C., J.O. Ervin & H.B. Wood. 1995. Aggregate stability under oak and
pine after four decades of soil development. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1740-1744.
Grant, C.D. & A.V. Blackmore. 1991. Self-mulching behaviour in clay soils: Its
definition and measurement. Aust. J. Soil Res. 29:155-173.
Grant, C.D. & A.R. Dexter. 1990. Air entrapment and differential swelling as factors
in the mellowing of moulded soil during rapid wetting. Aust. J. Soil Res.
28:361-369.
Grieve, I.C. 1979. Soil aggregate stability tests for the geomorphologists. British
Geomorphological Research Group, Technicl. Bulletin 25.
Gupta, R.K., D.K. Bhumbla & I.P. Abrol. 1984. Effect of sodicity, pH, organic matter
and calcium carbonate on the dispersion behaviour of soils. Soil Sci. 137:245-251.
Gupta, V.V.S.R. & J.J. Germida. 1988. Distribution of microbial biomass and its
activity in different soil aggregate size classes as affected by cultivation. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 20:777-786.
Habib, L., J.L. Morel, A. Guckert, S. Plantureux & C. Chenu. 1990. Influence of root
exudates on soil aggregation. Symbiosis 9:87-91.
Hadas, A., E. Rawitz, H. Etkin & M. Margolin. 1994. Short-term variations of soil
physical properties as a function of the amount and C/N ratio of decomposing
cotton residues. I. Soil aggregation and aggregate tensile strength. Soil & Till. Res.
32:183-198.
Hassink, J. 1995. Decomposition rate constants of size and density fractions of soil
organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1631-1635.
Haynes, R.J. 1993. Effect of sample pretreatment on aggregate stability measured by
wet sieving or turbidimetry on soils of different cropping history. J. Soil Sci.

44:261-270.
Haynes, R.J. & G.S. Francis. 1993. Changes in microbial biomass C, soil carbohy-
drate composition and aggregate stability induced by growth of selected crop and
forage species under field conditions. J. Soil Sci. 44:666-675.
Haynes, R.J. & R.S. Swift. 1990. Stability of soil aggregates in relation to organic
constituents and soil water content. J. Soil Sci. 41:73-83.
Heil, D. & G. Sposito. 1993a. Organic matter role in illitic soil colloids flocculation.
I. Counter ions and pH. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1241-1246.
Heil, D. & G. Sposito. 1993b. Organic matter role in illitic soil colloids flocculation.
II. Surface charge. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1246-1253.
Heil, D. & G. Sposito. 1995. Organic matter role in illitic soil colloids flocculation.
III. Scanning force microscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:266-269.
Helalia, A.M. & J. Letey. 1988a. Polymer type and water quality effects on soil
dipersion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:243-246.
Helalia, A.M. & J. Letey. 1988b.Cationic polymer effects on infiltration rates with a
rainfall simulator. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52: 247-250.
Helalia, A.M. & J. Letey. 1989. Effects of different polymers on seedling emergence,
aggregate stability and crust hardness. Soil Sci. 148:199-203.
Henin, S., G. Monnier & A. Combeau. 1958. Methode pour l’etude de la stabilité
structurale des soils. Ann. Agron. 9:73-92.
Hesterberg, D. & A.L. Page. 1993. Rheology of sodium and potassium illite suspen-
sions in relation to colloidal stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:697-704.
Hole, F.D. 1981. Effects of animals on soil. Geoderma 25:75-112.
Hortensius, D. & R. Welling. 1996. International standardization of soil quality
measurements. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 27:387-402.
Hussein, J. & M.A. Adey. 1995. Changes of structure and tilth mellowing in a
vertisol due to wet/dry cycles in the liquid and vapour phases. Europ. J. Soil Sci.
46:357-368.
Inskeep, W.P. & P.R. Bloom. 1986. Calcium carbonate supersaturation in soil solu-
tions of calciaquolls. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:1431-1437.
Itami, K. & K. Kyuma. 1995. Dispersion behaviour of soils from reclaimed lands with
poor soil physical properties and their characteristics with special reference to
clay dispersion. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 41:45-54.
Jastrow, J.D. & R.M. Miller. 1991. Methods for assessing the effects of biota on soil
structure. Agric., Ecosystems & Environm. 34:279-303.
Kandeler, E. & E. Murer. 1993. Aggregate stability and soil microbial processes in a
soil with different cultivation. Geoderma 56:503-513.
Kaplan, D.I., M.E. Sumner, P.M. Bertsch & D.C. Adriano. 1996. Chemical condi-
tions conducive to the release of mobile colloids from ultisol profiles. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 60:269-274.
Kay, B.D., D.A. Angers, P.H. Groenevelt & J.A. Baldock. 1988. Quantifying the
influence of cropping history on soil structure. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:359-368.
Kay, B.D. & A.R. Dexter. 1990. Influence of aggregate diameter, surface area and
antecedent water content on the dispersibility of clay. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:655-671.
Kay, B.D., C.D. Grant & P.H. Groenevelt. 1985. Significance of ground freezing on
soil bulk density under zero tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:973-978.
Kemper, W.D. & E.J. Koch. 1966. Aggregate stability of soils from western United
States and Canada. USDA-ARS Tech. Bull. 1355. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Wash-
ington, DC.
Kemper, W.D. & R.C. Rosenau. 1984. Soil cohesion as affected by time and water
content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:1001-1006.
Kemper, W.D. & R.C. Rosenau. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution.
pp. 425-442. In A. Klute (ed.). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and
mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Kemper, W.D., R.C. Rosenau & A.R. Dexter. 1987. Cohesion development in dis-
rupted soils as affected by clay and organic matter content and temperature. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:860-867.
Keren, R. 1988. Rheology of aqueous suspension of sodium/calcium montmorillo-
nite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:924-928.
Keren, R. 1991. Adsorbed sodium fraction’s effect on rheology of montmorillonite-
kaolinite suspensions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:376-379.
Keren, R. 1996. Reclamation of sodic-affected soils. pp. 353-374. In Agassi, M.
(ed.). Soil erosion, conservation, and rehabilitation. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New
York.
Keren, R., I. Shainberg & E. Klein. 1988. Settling and flocculation value of sodium-
montmorillonite particles in aqueous media. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:76-80.
Keren, R. & M.J. Singer. 1989. Effect of low electrolyte concentration on hydraulic
conductivity of clay-sand-hydroxy polymers systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:
349-355.
Keren, R. & M.J. Singer. 1990. Effect of pH on permeability of clay-sand mixture
containing hydroxy polymers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1310-1315.
Keren, R. & M.J. Singer. 1991. Hydroxy-aluminum’s effect on permeability of clay-
sand mixtures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:61-65.
Kosmas, C. & N. Moustakas. 1990. Hydraulic conductivity and leaching of an
organic saline-sodic soil. Geoderma 46:363-370.
Kretzschmar, R., W.P. Robarge & S.B. Weed. 1993. Flocculation of kaolinitic soil
clays: Effects of humic substances and iron oxides. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:
1277-1283.
Lal, R. & F.J. Pierce. 1991. The vanishing resource. pp. 1-5. In Lal, R. & F.J. Pierce
(eds.). Soil management for sustainability. Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Ankeny, Iowa.
Larney, F.J., C.W. Lindwall & M.S. Bullock. 1994. Fallow management and over-
winter effects on wind erodibility in Southern Alberta. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
58:1788-1794.
Lax, A. & F. Garcia-Orenes. 1993. Carbohydrates of municipal solid wastes as
aggregation factor of soils. Soil Technol. 6:157-162.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1988. Comportement d’agrégates terreux soumis à l’action de
l’eau: Analyse des mécanismes de désagregation. Agronomie 8:915-924.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1989. Analyse des processus de microfissuration des agrégats à
l’humectation. Science du Sol. 27:187-199.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1990. Experimental study and modeling of soil surface crusting
processes. In Bryan, R.B. (ed.). Soil erosion-experiments and models. Catena

Supplement 17:13-28.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1996a. Soil characteristics and aggregate stability. pp. 41-60. In
Agassi, M. (ed.). Soil erosion, conservation, and rehabilitation. Marcel Dekker,
Inc. New York.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1996b. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and
erodibility: I. Theory and methodology. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 47:425-437.
Le Bissonnais, Y, A. Bruand & M. Jamagne. 1989. Laboratory experimental study of
soil crusting: Relation between aggregate breakdown mechanisms and crust struc-
ture. Catena 16:377-392.
Le Bissonnais, Y. & M.J. Singer. 1992. Crusting, runoff and erosion response to soil
water content and successive rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1898-1903.
Lebron, I. & D.L. Suarez. 1992a. Electrophoretic mobility of illite and micaceous
soil clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1106-1115.
Lebron, I. & D.L. Suarez. 1992b. Variations in soil stability within and among soil
types. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1412-1421.
Lebron, I., D.L. Suarez & F. Alberto. 1994. Stability of a calcareous saline-sodic soil
during reclamation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1753-1762.
Lee, K.E. & R.C. Foster. 1992. Soil fauna and soil structure. Aust J. Soil Res.
29:745-746.
Lehrsch, G.A. & M.J. Brown. 1995. Furrow erosion and aggregate stability variation
in a portneuf silt loam. Soil Technol. 7:327-341.
Lehrsch, G.A. & P.M. Jolley. 1992. Temporal changes in wet aggregate stability.
Transactions of the ASAE 35:493-498.
Lehrsch, G.A., R.E. Sojka, D.L. Carter & P.M. Jolley. 1991. Freezing effects on
aggregate stability affected by texture, mineralogy, and organic matter. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 55:1401-1406.
Lentz, R.D. & R.E. Sojka. 1994. Field results using polyacrylamide to manage
furrow erosion and infiltration. Soil Sci. 158:274-282.
Le Souder, C., Y. Le Bissonnais & M. Robert. 1991. Influence of a mineral condition-
er on the mechanisms of disaggregation and sealing of a soil surface. Soil Sci.
152:395-402.
Letey, J. 1991. The study of soil structure: Science or art. Aust J. Soil Res.
29:699-707.
Letey, J. 1994. Adsorption and desorption of polymers on soil. Soil Sci. 158:244-248.
Levy, G.J. 1996. Soil stabilizers. pp. 267-299. In Agassi, M. (ed.). Soil erosion,
conservation, and rehabilitation. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Levy, G.J., M. Agassi, H.J.C. Smith & R. Stern. 1993. Microaggregate stability of
kaolinitic and illitic soils determined by ultrasonic energy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
57:803-808.
Levy, G.J., H. Eisenberg & I. Shainberg. 1993. Clay dispersion as related to soil
properties and water permeability. Soil Sci. 155:15-22.
Levy, G.J. & J.R. Torrento. 1995. Clay dispersion and macroaggregate stability as
affected by exchangeable potassium and sodium. Soil Sci. 160:352-358.
Levy, G.J., J. Vevin, M. Gal, M. Ben-Hur & I. Shainberg. 1992. Polymers’ effects on
infiltration and soil erosion during consecutive simulated sprinkler irrigations.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:902-907.

Levy, G.J. & H.V.H. Van Der Watt. 1990. Effect of exchangeable potassium on the
hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate of some South African soils. Soil Sci.
149:69-77.
Lobry De Bruyn, L.A. & A.J. Conacher. 1990. The role of termites and ants in soil
modification. Aust. J. Soil Res. 28:55-93.
Loch, R.J. 1994a. A method for measuring aggregate water stability of dryland soils
with relevance to surface seal development. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:687-700.
Loch, R.J. 1994b. Effects of fallow management and cropping history on aggregate
breakdown under rainfall wetting for a range of Queensland soils. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 32:1125-1139.
Loch, R.J. & J.L. Foley. 1992. Effects of plot size on size distributions of water-stable
material at the soil surface under simulated rain. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30:113-118.
Loch, R.J. & J.L. Foley. 1994. Measurement of aggregate breakdown under rain:
Comparison with tests of water stability and relationships with field measure-
ments of infiltration. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:701-720.
Lynch, J.M. & E. Bragg. 1985. Microorganisms and soil aggregate stability. Ad-
vances in Soil Sci. 2: 133-171.
Mahboubi, A.A., R. Lal & N.R. Faussey. 1993. Twenty-eight years of tillage effects
on two soils in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:506-512.
Malik, M. & J. Letey. 1991. Adsorption of polyacrylamide and polyssacharide poly-
mers on soil materials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:380-383.
Matkin, E.A. & P. Smart. 1987. A comparison of tests of soil structural stability. J. Soi
Sci. 38:123-135.
Mbagwu, J.S.C. & A. Piccolo. 1989. Changes in soil aggregate stability induced by
amendment with humic substances. Soil Technol. 2:49-57.
Mbagwu, J.S.C., A. Piccolo & M.O. Mbila. 1993. Impact of surfactants on aggregate
and colloidal stability of two tropical soils. Soil Technol. 6:203-213.
McKenzie, B.M. & A.R. Dexter. 1985. Mellowing and anisotropy induced by wet-
ting of moulded soil samples. Aust J. Soil Res. 23:37-47.
McNeal, B.L. & N.T. Coleman. 1966. Effect of solution composition on soil hydrau-
lic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30:308-312.
McNeal, B.L., D.A. Layfield, W.A Norvell & J.D. Rhoades. 1968. Factors influenc-
ing hydraulic conductivity of soils in the presence of mixed-salt solutions. Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:187-190.
McNeal, B.L., W.A. Norvell & N.T. Coleman. 1966. Effect of solution composition
on the swelling of extracted soil clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30:312-317.
Metzger, L., D. Levanon & U. Mingelgrin. 1987. The effect of sewage sludge on soil
structural stability: Microbiological aspects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:346-351.
Meyer, L.D. & W.C. Harmon. 1984. Susceptibility of agricultural soils to interrill
erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:1152-1157.
Miller, W.P. & M.K. Baharuddin. 1986. Relationship of soil dispersibility to infiltra-
tion and erosion of Southeastern soils. Soil Sci. 142:235-240.
Miller, W.P. & M.K. Baharuddin. 1987. Interrill erodibility of highly weathered soils.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 18:933-945.
Miller, W.P., H. Frenkel & K.D. Newman. 1990. Flocculation concentration and
sodium/calcium exchange of kaolinitic soil clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:346-351.
Miller, W.P. & D.E. Radcliffe. 1992. Soil crusting in the Southeastern United States.
pp. 233-266. In Sumner, M.E. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil crusting: Chemical and
physical processes. Advances in Soil Sci. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc.,
Boca Raton, FL.
Minhas, P.S. & D.R Sharma. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and clay dispersion as
affected by application sequence of saline and simulated rain water. Irrig. Sci.
7(3):159-167.
Mitchell, J.K. 1960. Fundamental aspects of thixotropy in soils. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 86:19-52.
Molope, M.B., I.C. Grieve & E.R. Page. 1985a. Thixotropic changes in the stability
of molded soil aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:979-983.
Molope, M.B., I.C. Grieve & E.R. Page. 1987. Contributions by fungi and bacteria to
aggregate stability of cultivated soils. J. Soil Sci. 38:71-77.
Molope, E, M.B., E.R. Page & I.C. Grieve. 1985b. A comparison of soil aggregate
stability tests using soils with contrasting cultivation histories. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 16:315-322.
Monroe, C.D. & E.J. Kladivko. 1987. Aggregate stability of a silt loam soil as
affected by roots of corn, soybeans and wheat. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
18:1077-1087.
Morgan, R.P.C., J.N. Quinton & R.J. Rickson. 1993. EUROSEM: A user guide.
Silsoe College, Silsoe-Bedford (UK).
Morin, J. & J. Van Winkel. 1996. The effect of raindrop impact and sheet erosion on
infiltration rate and crust formation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1223-1227.
Mulla, D.J., L.M. Huyck & J.P. Reganold. 1992. Temporal variations in aggregate
stability on conventional and alternative farms. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1620-1624.
Murer, E.J., A. Baumgarten, G. Eder, M.H. Gerzabek, E. Kandeler & N. Rampazzo.
1993. An improved sieving machine for estimation of soil aggregate stability
(SAS). Geoderma 56:539-547.
Nadler, A., G.J. Levy, R. Keren & H. Eisenberg. 1996a. Sodic calcareous soil recla-
mation as affected by water chemical composition and flow rate. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 60:252-257.
Nadler, A., E. Perfect & B.D. Kay. 1996b. Effect of polyacrylamide application on
the stability of dry and wet aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:555-561.
Naidu, R., S. McClure, N.J. McKenzie & R.W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Soil solution
composition and aggregate stability changes caused by long-term farming at four
contrasting sites in South Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res. 34:511-527.
Nearing, M.A., L.J. Lane, E.E. Alberts & J.M. Laflen. 1990. Prediction technology
for soil erosion by water: Status and research needs. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54:1702-1711.
Oades, J.M. 1984. Soil organic matter and structural stability: Mechanisms and
implications for management. Plant Soil 76:319-337.
Oades, J.M. 1993. The role of biology in the formation, stabilization and degradation
of soil structure. Geoderma 56:377-400.
Oades, J.M. & A.G. Waters. 1991. Aggregate hierarchy in soils. Aust. J. Soil Res.
29:815-828.
Oster, J.D., I. Shainberg & J.D. Wood. 1980. Flocculation value and gel structure of
sodium/calcium montmorillonite and illite suspensions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
44:955-959.
Ouessar, M., R. Hartmann & J. De Smet. 1993. Modification of the aggregate stabil-
ity indices for the wet sieving method and the water drop technique. Soil Technol.
6:329-336.
Perfect, E. & B.D. Kay. 1990. Relations between aggregate stability and organic
components for a silt loam soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:731-735.
Perfect, E., B.D. Kay & W.K.P. Van Loon. 1990a. Factors influencing soil structural
stability within a growing season. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:173-179.
Perfect, E., W.K.P. Van Loon, B.D. Kay & P.H. Groenevelt. 1990b. Influence of ice
segregation and solutes on soil structural stability. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:571-581.
Perfect, E., B.D. Kay, W.K.P. Van Loon, R.W. Sheard & T. Pojasok. 1990c. Rates of
change in soil structural stability under forages and corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54:179-186.
Piccolo, A. & J.S.C. Mbagwu. 1989. Effects of humic substances and surfactants on
the stability of soil aggregates. Soil Sci. 147:47-54.
Pierson, F.B. & D.J. Mulla. 1989. An improved method for measuring aggregate
stability of a weakly aggregated loessial soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1825-1831.
Pierson, F.B. & D.J. Mulla. 1990. Aggregate stability in the Palouse region of Wash-
ington: Effect of landscape position. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1407-1412.
Pikul, J.L., Jr. & J.F. Zuzel. 1994. Soil crusting and water infiltration affected by
long-term tillage and residue management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1524-1530.
Pinheiro-Dick, D. & U. Schwertmann. 1996. Microaggregates from Oxisols and
Inceptisols: dispersion through selective dissolutions and physicochemical treat-
ments. Geoderma 74:49-63.
Poier, K.R. & J. Richter. 1995. Earthworm burrows as a structural element on inten-
sively used arable loess soils. pp. 175-195. In Hartge, K.H. & B.A. Stewart (eds.).
Soil structure. Its development and function. Advances in Soil Sci. Lewis Publish-
ers, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Pojasok, T. & B.D. Kay. 1990a. Assessment of a combination of wet sieving and
turbidimetry to characterize the structural stability of moist aggregates. Can.

J. Soil Sci. 70:33-42.
Pojasok, T. & B.D. Kay. 1990b . Effect of root exudates from corn and bromegrass on
soil structural stability. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:351-362.
Pratt, P.F. & D.L. Suarez. 1990. Irrigation water quality assessments. pp. 220-236. In
Tanji, K.K. (ed.). Agricultural salinity assessment and management. ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 71. ASCE, New York.
Puget, P., C. Chenu & J. Balesdent. 1995. Total and young organic matter distribu-
tions in aggregates of silty cultivated soils. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 46:449-459.
Quirk, J.P. 1986. Soil permeability in relation to sodicity and salinity. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. A 316:297-317.
Quirk, J.P. & R.S. Murray. 1991. Towards a model for soil structural behaviour. Aust.
J. Soil Res. 29:829-867.

Quirk, J.P. & R.K. Schofield. 1955. The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil
permeability. J. Soil Sci. 6:165-178.
Rasiah, V. 1994. Equations to predict measures of structural stability at minimum
strength. Soil Sci. 158:170-173.
Rasiah, V. & B.D. Kay. 1994. Characterizing changes in aggregate stability subse-
quent to introduction of forages. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:935-942.
Rasiah, V., B.D. Kay & T. Marin. 1992. Variation of structural stability with water
content: Influence of selected soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56: 1604-1609.
Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and
conventional farming systems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3:144-155.
Reganold, J.P., L.F. Elliott & Y.L. Unger. 1987. Long-term effects of organic and
conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature 330:370-372.
Reichert, J.M. & L.D. Norton. 1994. Aggregate stability and rain-impacted sheet
erosion of air-dried and prewetted clayey surface soils under intense rain. Soil Sci.
158:159-169.
Reichert, J.M. & L.D. Norton. 1996. Fluidized bed combustion bottom-ash effects on
infiltration and erosion of variable-charge soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:275-282.
Reid, J.B. & M.J. Goss. 1981. Effect of living roots of different plant species on the
aggregate stability of two arable soils. J. Soil Sci. 32:521-541.
Reid, J.B., M.J. Goss & P.D. Robertson. 1982. Relationship between the decreases in
soil stability as affected by the growth of maize roots and changes in organically
bound iron and aluminium. J. Soil Sci. 33:397-410.
Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool & D.C. Yoder. 1993. Pre-
dicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the revised
universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). USDA-ARS Agric. Handb. 703. U.S. Gov.
Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Rengasamy, P. 1983. Clay dispersion in relation to changes in the electrolyte com-
position of dialysed red-brown earths. J. Soil Sci. 34:723-732.
Rengasamy, P., R.S.B. Greene, G.W. Ford & A.H. Mehanni. 1984. Identification of
dispersive behaviour and the management of red-brown earths. Aust. J. Soil Res.
22:413-431.
Rengasamy, P. & K.A. Olsson. 1991. Sodicity and soil structure. Aust. J. Soil Res.
29:935-952.
Roberson, E.B. 1991. Extracellular polysaccharide production by soil bacteria:

Environmental control and significance in agricultural soils. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of California, Berkeley. 98 pp.
Roberson, E.B., S. Sarig & M.K Firestone. 1991. Cover crop management of poly-
saccharide-mediated aggregation in an orchard soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:734-739.
Roberson, E.B., S. Sarig, C. Shennan & M.K Firestone. 1995. Nutritional manage-
ment of microbial polysaccharide production and aggregation in an agricultural
soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1587-1594.
Roth, C.H. & T. Eggert. 1994. Mechanisms of aggregate breakdown involved in
surface sealing, runoff generation and sediment concentration on loess soils. Soil
& Till. Res. 32:253-268.
Schrader, S., M. Joschko, H. Kula & O. Larink. 1995. Earthworm effects on soil
fabric with emphasis on soil stability and soil water movement. pp. 109-133. In
Hartge, K.H. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil structure. Its development and function.
Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Schulten, H.R., P. Leinweber & C. Sorge. 1993. Composition of organic matter in
particle size fractions of an agricultural soil. J. Soil Sci. 44:677-691.
Shainberg, I. 1992. Chemical and mineralogical components of crusting. pp. 33-53.
In Sumner, M.E. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil crusting. Chemical and mineralogi-
cal processes. Lewis Publishers. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Shainberg, I. & J. Letey. 1984. Response of soils to sodic and saline conditions.
Hilgardia 52(2):1-57.
Shainberg, I. & G.J. Levy. 1994. Organic polymers and soil sealing in cultivated
soils. Soil Sci. 158:267-273.
Shainberg, I., J.D. Rhoades & R.J. Prather. 1981a. Effect of low electrolyte con-
centration on clay dispersion and hydraulic conductivity of a sodic soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 45:273-277.
Shainberg, I., J.D. Rhoades, D.L. Suarez & R.J. Prather. 1981b. Effect of mineral
weathering on clay dispersion and hydraulic conductivity of sodic soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 45:287-291.
Shainberg, I. & M.J. Singer. 1990. Soil responses to saline and sodic conditions. Ch. 5.
In Tanji, K.K. (ed.). Agricultural salinity assessment and management. ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 71, Am. Soc. Civil Eng., New
York.
Shainberg I., Singer M.J. & Janitzky P. 1987. Effect of aluminum and iron oxides on
hydraulic conductivity of sandy loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1283-1287.
Shainberg I., D.N. Warrington & P. Rengasamy. 1990. Water quality and PAM
interactions in reducing surface sealing. Soil Sci. 149:301-307.
Shainberg I., G.J. Levy, P. Rengasamy & H. Frenkel. 1992a. Aggregate stability and
seal formation as affected by drops’ impact energy and soil amendments. Soil Sci.
154:113-119.
Shainberg I., D. Warrington & J.M. Laflen. 1992b. Soil dispersibility, rain properties,
and slope interaction in rill formation and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56:278-283.
Shanmuganathan, R.T. & J.M. Oades. 1983. Influence of anions on dispersion and
physical properties of the A horizon of a red-brown earth. Geoderma 29:257-277.
Sharma, P.P. 1996. Interrill erosion. pp. 125-152. In Agassi, M. (ed.). Soil erosion,
conservation, and rehabilitation. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Shipitalo, M.J. & R. Protz. 1988. Factors influencing the dispersibility of clay in
worm casts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:764-769.
Singer, M.J., R.J. Southard, D.N. Warrington & P. Janitzky. 1992. Stability of syn-
thetic sand-clay aggregates after wetting and drying cycles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56:1843-1848.
Singer, M.J. & D.N. Warrington. 1992. Crusting in the Western United States.
pp. 179-204. In Sumner, M.E. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil crusting. Chemical and
mineralogical processes. Lewis Publishers. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Skjemstad, J.O., L.J. Janik, M.J. Head & S.G. McClure. 1993. High energy ultravio-
let photo-oxidation: A novel technique for studying physically protected organic
matter in clay-and silt-sized aggregates. J. Soil Sci. 44:485-499.

Smettem, K.R.J., A.D. Rovira, S.A. Wace, B.R. Wilson & A. Simon. 1992. Effect of
tillage and crop rotation on the surface stability and chemical properties of a
red-brown earth (Alfisol) under wheat. Soil & Till. Res. 22:27-40.
Smith, G.G., J.L. Foley & R.J. Loch. 1992. Effects of electrical conductivity of water
used in wetting and in wet sieving on measured aggregate water stability. Soil
Technol. 5:177-184.
So, H.B. & L.A.G. Aylmore. 1993. How do sodic soils behave? The effects of
sodicity on soil physical behaviour. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31:761-777.
Soane, B.D., J.W. Dickson & D.J. Campbell. 1982. Compaction by agricultural
vehicles: a review. 3. Incidence and control of compaction in crop production. Soil
& Till. Res. 2:3-36.
Sojka, R.E. & R.D. Lentz. 1994. Time for yet another look at soil conditioners. Soil
Sci. 158:233-234.
Sojka, B. & R. Lentz. 1996. Polyacrylamide for furrow-irrigation erosion control.
Irrigat. J.46:8-11.
Soulides, D.A. & F.E. Allison. 1961. Effect of drying and freezing soils on carbon
dioxide production, available mineral nutrients, aggregation and bacterial popula-
tion. Soil Sci. 91:291-298.
Sparling, G.P., T.G. Shepherd & H.A. Kettles. 1992. Changes in soil organic C,
microbial C and aggregate stability under continuous maize and cereal cropping,
and after restoration to pasture in soils from the Manawatu region, New Zealand.
Soil & Till. Res. 24:225-241.
Staricka, J.A. & G.R. Benoit. 1995. Freezing-drying effects on wet and dry soil
aggregate stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:218-223.
Suarez, D.L., J.D Rhoades, R. Lavado & C.M. Grieve. 1984. Effect of pH on satu-
rated hydraulic conductivity and soil dispersion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:50-55.
Sullivan, L.A. 1990. Soil organic matter, air encapsulation and water-stable aggrega-
tion. J. Soil Sci. 41:529-534.
Sun, H., F.J. Larney & M.S. Bullock. 1995. Soil amendments and water-stable
aggregation of a desurfaced dark brown Chernozem. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75:319-325.
Tarchitzky, J., Y. Chen & A. Banin. 1993. Humic substances and pH effects on
sodium- and calcium-montmorillonite flocculation and dispersion. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 57:367-372.
Ternan, J.L., A.G. Williams, A. Elmes & R. Hartley. 1996. Aggregate stability of
soils in central Spain and the role of land management. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 21(2):181-193.
Thomas, R.S., R.L. Franson & G.J. Bethlenfalvay. 1993. Separation of vesicular-ar-
buscular mycorrhizal fungus and root effects on soil aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 57:77-81.
Tisdall, J.M. 1991. Fungal hyphae and structural stability of soil. Aust. J. Soil Res.
29:729-743.
Tisdall, J.M. 1996. Formation of soil aggregates and accumulation of soil organic
matter. pp. 57-96. In Carter, M.R. & B.A. Stewart (eds.). Structure and organic
matter storage in agricultural soils. Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publishers,
CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Tisdall, J.M., B. Cockroft & N.C. Uren. 1978. The stability of soil aggregates as
affected by organic materials, microbial activity and physical disruption. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 16:9-17.
Tisdall, J.M. & J.M. Oades. 1982. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in
soils. J. Soil Sci. 33:141-163.
Truman, C.C. & J.M. Bradford. 1995. Laboratory determination of interrill soil
erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:519-526.
Truman, C.C., J.M. Bradford & J.E. Ferris. 1990. Antecedent water content and
rainfall energy influence on soil aggregate breakdown. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54:1385-1392.
Unger, P.W. 1992. Infiltration of simulated rainfall: Tillage system and crop residue
effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:283-289.
Unger, P.W. 1995. Organic matter and water-stable aggregate distribution in ridge-
tilled surface soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1141-1145.
Utomo, W.H. & A.R. Dexter. 1982. Changes in soil aggregate water stability induced
by wetting and drying cycles in non-saturated soil. J. Soil Sci. 33:623-637.
Van Den Broek, T.M.W. 1989. Clay dispersion and pedogenesis of soils with an
abrupt contrast in texture, a hydro-pedological approach on subcatchment scale.
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam. 109 pp.
Van Olphen, H. 1977. An introduction to clay colloid chemistry. 2nd ed. Interscience
Publ. Nueva York. 318 pp.
Velasco-Molina, H.A., A.R. Swoboda & C.L. Godfrey. 1971. Dispersion of soils of
different mineralogy in relation to sodium adsorption ratio and electrolytic con-
centration. Soil Sci. III(5):282-287.
Visser, S.A. & M. Caillier. 1988. Observations on the dispersion and aggregation of
clays by humic substances. I. Dispersive effects of humic acids. Geoderma
42:331-337.
Wace, S.A. & C.T. Hignett. 1991. The effect of rainfall energy on tilled soils of
different dispersion characteristics. Soil & Till. Res. 20:57-67.
Wander, M.M., S.J. Traina, B.R. Stinner & S.E. Peters. 1994. Organic and conven-
tional management effects on biologically active soil organic matter pools. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1130-1139.
Watts, C.W., A.R. Dexter, E. Dumitru & J. Arvidsson. 1996a. An assessment of the
vulnerability of soil structure to destabilization during tillage. Part I. A laboratory

test. Soil & Till. Res. 37:161-174.
Watts, C.W., A.R. Dexter & D.J. Longstaff. 1996b. An assessment of the vulnerabili-
ty of soil structure to destabilization during tillage. Part II. Field trials. Soil & Till.
Res. 37:175-190.
Weill, A.N., C.R. De Kimpe & E. McKyes. 1988. Effect of tillage reduction and
fertilizer on soil macro- and microaggregation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:489-500.
Wenke, J.F. & C.D. Grant. 1994. The indexing of self-mulching behaviour in soils.
Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:201-211.
Williams, B.G., D.J. Greenland, G.R. Lindstrom & J.P. Quirk. 1966. Techniques for
the determination of the stability of soil aggregates. Soil Sci. 101:157-163.
Wischmeier, W.H. & J.V. Mannering. 1969. Relation of soil properties to its erodibil-
ity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33:131-137.
Wollenhaupt, N.C., A.H. Bosworth, J.D. Doll & D.J. Undersander. 1995. Erosion
from alfalfa established with oat under conservation tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
59:538-543.
Yadav, J.S.P. & I.K. Girdhar. 1981. The effect of different magnesium-calcium ratios
and sodium adsorption values of leaching water on the properties of calcareous
soils versus non-calcareous soils. Soil Sci. 131:194-198.
Yoder, R.E. 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the
physical nature of erosion losses. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 28:337-351.
Young, R.A. 1984. A method of measuring aggregate stability under waterdrop
impact. Trans. ASAE 27:1351-1354.
Yousaf, M. 1983. Clay dispersion and hydraulic conductivity characteristics of soil
as influenced by electrolyte concentration, exchangeable cation composition and
clay mineralogy. Ph. D. Thesis. University of California. Riverside, 163 p.
Yousaf, M., O.M. Ali & J.D. Rhoades. 1987. Dispersion of clay from some salt-af-
fected arid land soil aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:920-924.
Zahow, M.F. & C. Amrhein. 1992. Reclamation of a saline sodic soil using synthetic
polymers and gypsum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1257-1260.
Zhang, H. 1994. Organic matter incorporation affects mechanical properties of soil
aggregates. Soil & Till. Res. 31:263-275.
Zhang, X.C. & W.P. Miller. 1996. Polyacrylamide effect on infiltration and erosion in
furrows. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:866-872.
RECEIVED: 04/20/98
REVISED: 10/29/98
ACCEPTED: 11/10/98

Amézketa Aggregate Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amézketa Aggregate Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

ISSN: 1044-0046 (Print) 1540-7578 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Soil Aggregate Stability: A Review

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v14n02_08

Published online: 22 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2810

View related articles

Citing articles: 281 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

ABSTRACT. Soil aggregate stability is a crucial soil property affecting

soil sustainability and crop production. A broad outline of the processes

KEYWORDS. Aggregate formation, aggregate stabilization, soil ag-

E. Amézketa, Unidad de Suelos y Riegos, Servicio de Investigación Agroalimen-

AGGREGATE FORMATION AND STABILIZATION

Soil aggregation is the process by which aggregates of different sizes are

bonds at each stage. In their model, the stages of aggregation or aggregate

different hierarchical orders, such as macro-aggregates, and clay- and silt-

FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL AGGREGATE STABILITY

mineralogy, CaCO3 and gypsum, organic matter, and Fe and Al oxides on

It has been shown that wet aggregate stability (macro-aggregate stability)

It has been suggested that disintegration of the soil macro-aggregates into

effects of these factors on the hydraulic conductivity and/or infiltration rate

oped by entrapped air is released by swelling. However, fissuring of mont-

Moreover, previous investigations concluded that the dispersion of soil

CaCO3 and Gypsum

The beneficial effect of calcite dissolution on the structural stability of

aggregates (colloidal stability) was not caused by electrostatic mechanisms

organic matter at different soil aggregate size fractions (Christensen, 1986;

anisms: (1) the blocking of positively charged edges of clay minerals by

The influence of sesquioxides on soil aggregation is still a matter of

spherical shape of the Fe polymers; what means a higher touching surface, so

minimized slaking stresses. Le Bissonnais and Singer (1992) also observed

conditions, whereas the properties of uncompacted and highly saturated soils

Time is another soil-forming factor, which also influences aggregate sta-

This thixotropic age hardening of clays also contributes to stabilize soil

The biological system is another soil-forming factor. It includes plant

They are considered as temporary binding agents by Tisdall and Oades

structural stability (decrease in WSA and increase in dispersible clay) follow-

Live and/or dead bacteria, hyphae, particular vesicular-arbuscular mycor-

adsorption of water by the organisms and the growth of living organisms

Tisdall and Oades (1982) suggested that water stability of macro-aggre-

of tomato. Significant differences in macro-aggregate stability were found

Tillage is one of the principal soil management techniques used for a

which is reflected by a decrease in the stability of aggregates (Tisdall et al.,

the organic-matter-rich surface horizons with horizons low in organic matter.

For successful adoption of conservation tillage practices, attention to cli-

fill up the pores in the immediate surface, forming a depositional crust.

Organic Matter Amendments

there was also a moderate tendency to increase dispersion of clay.

number and size of water-stable macro-aggregates (Metzger et al., 1987; Lax

lyte concentration at SAR 10.

Crop Type and Crop Rotation

Diverse plant species may contribute to soil aggregation in different ways,

Chemical amendments are materials that supply divalent cations (usually

10-20 kg ha 1 are sufficient for controlling surface sealing and crusting

formation. For predicting the behavior of synthetic polymers on soils, adsorp-

in water and lower viscosity of PS (Ben-Hur, 1994).

METHODS OF LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS

Our purpose is to provide an overview of methods for measuring soil

(1984), the aggregate hierarchy infers three main levels of aggregation in

Kay (1990a) emphasized the importance of making stability measurements at

Macro-Aggregate Stability Methods

Many different methods exist for measuring soil macro-aggregation; some