Elsevier

Geoderma

Volume 56, Issues 1–4, 15 March 1993, Pages 87-104
Geoderma

Contributed paper
A comparison of methods for measuring water-stable aggregates: implications for determining environmental effects on soil structure

https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(93)90102-QGet rights and content

Abstract

This paper describes the effects of different pretreatment conditions and wet-sieving procedures on water-stable aggregate distributions of sandy and clayey textured soils (Cecil, Pacolet, and Hiwassee Series) from the Piedmont of the southern Appalachian mountains of Georgia, USA. Four soil pretreatment procedures were compared: (1) air-dried, capillary wetted (AD-CW), (2) air-dried, tension wetted (AD-TW), (3) air-dried, slaked (AD-SL), and (4) field-moist, capillary wetted (FM-CW). Air-drying soils resulted in a greater quantity of aggregates in the coarser fractions (> 250 μm), as compared to field-moist soils, with a consequent reduction in the finer fractions (> 250 μm). Differences between methods of wetting air-dried soils were more pronounced for the clayey soils where both AD-CW and AD-SL resulted in a greater proportion (22–24%) of the soil mass in the finer fractions (> 250 μm), as compared with AD-TW (4.5%). The FM-CW procedure had the lowest coefficients of variation (2–8%) for repeated measurements.

The AD-CW and FM-CW procedures were also used to compare the effects of cropping systems [conventional tillage (CT) (soybean/fallow), CT (sorghum/fallow), and no-tillage (NT) (sorghum/clover)], erosion classes (slight, moderate, and severe) and irrigation (drip-irrigated or nonirrigated) on water-stable aggregates (> 250 μm). In general, water-stable aggregates increased with decreasing intensity of cultivation, increasing severity of erosion and irrigation. Air-drying soils resulted in less differences in water-stable aggregates between treatments, but provided more detailed information on the interactive effects of cropping system and irrigation as compared with the field-moist condition. Similar differences were observed in aggregate disruption rates that were calculated from the aggregates recovered after wet-sieving for intervals of 1–32 min. Although water-stable aggregates were lower by FM-CW, this procedure showed greater separation of treatment means (e.g. erosion classes) than the AD-CW procedure.

We also compared single versus multiple-sieve techniques for describing the effects of pretreatment conditions on aggregate distributions. For the clayey Pacolet soil, a fine fractionation into eleven aggregate size classes revealed the greatest differences (P > 0.05) between the FM-CW and AD-CW procedures, while a coarse fractionation into macro- (> 250 μm) and micro- (> 250 μm) aggregates showed no differences. However, for the sandy Hiwassee soil differences in aggregate distributions between the FM-CW and AD-CW procedures were found at most levels of fractionation, but were not detected by comparing the calculated mean weighted diameters. In general, our findings emphasize the value of comparing soil specific responses to different pretreatment conditions, particularly those that compare the distributions of aggregates among size classes, as a means for describing environmental influences on soil structure.

References (31)

  • V.V.S.R. Gupta et al.

    Distribution of microbial biomass and its activity in different soil aggregate size classes as affected by cultivation

    Soil Biol. Biochem.

    (1988)
  • R.F. Harris et al.

    Dynamics of soil aggregation

    Adv. Agron.

    (1966)
  • J.M. Lynch et al.

    Microorganisms and soil aggregate stability

  • R.R. Bruce et al.

    Modification of soil characteristics of degraded soil surfaces by biomass input and tillage affecting soil water regime

  • M.S. Bullock et al.

    Soil cohesion as affected by freezing, water content, time and tillage

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1988)
  • E.L. Dickson et al.

    Comparison of four prewetting techniques in wet aggregate stability determination

    Can. J. Soil Sci.

    (1991)
  • A.P. Edwards et al.

    Microaggregates in soil

    J. Soil Sci.

    (1967)
  • E.T. Elliott

    Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in native and cultivated soils

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1986)
  • G.W. Gee et al.

    Particle-size analysis

  • H.T. Gollany et al.

    Aggregate stability of an eroded and desurfaced Typic Argiustoll

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1991)
  • C.D. Grant et al.

    Generation of microcracks in moulded soils by rapid wetting

    Aust. J. Soil Res.

    (1989)
  • E.G. Gregorich et al.

    Carbon mineralization in soil size fractions after various amounts of aggregate disruption

    J. Soil Sci.

    (1989)
  • W.D. Kemper et al.

    Aggregate stability of soils from Western United States and Canada

  • W.D. Kemper et al.

    Soil cohesion as affected by time and water content

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1984)
  • W.D. Kemper et al.

    Aggregate stability and size distribution

  • Cited by (119)

    • Maize cropping degrades soil hydraulic properties relative to grazed pasture in two contrasting soils

      2022, Geoderma
      Citation Excerpt :

      Adjacent smaller intact soil cores (5 cm diameter) were collected at 4–7, 14–17 and 24–27 cm depths for determining SWRCs, from which soil water storage properties, including field capacity (FC), available water capacity (AWC) and its components (readily available water capacity, RAWC, and non-readily available water capacity, NRAWC) (Fu et al., 2021a) were obtained. Samples were also collected at 0–10, 10–20 and 20–30 cm depths for measuring particle size distribution by the pipette method (Claydon, 1989), soil organic carbon (SOC) contents by a Leco CNS-2000 analyser (LECO Corporation, Saint Joseph, Michigan, USA) and water-stable aggregates by a wet-sieving technique adapted from Beare and Bruce (1993) which is detailed in Fu et al. (2021b). Aggregates in six size classes (5–2, 2–1, 1–0.5, 0.5–0.25, 0.25–0.053, and < 0.053 mm) were recovered, and mean weight dimeter (MWD) of water-stable aggregate was calculated.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text