Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingAbstractAcademic

Abstract

The problem of soil compaction in agricultural fields through trampling, drying and wetting processes, and tillage is well known in the Netherlands. It leads to a change in soil structure which impacts soil properties and processes. Consequently, crop yields will reduce causing financial losses to farmers. Therefore, there is a need for cost-effective soil compaction measurement techniques. However, soil compaction cannot be directly assessed by a specific measurement technique. Therefore, a reliable proxy is needed allowing to identify and quantify soil compaction. For this, a field experiment was set up involving 31 persons and four contemporary methods were tested for the estimation of in-situ soil bulk density 1) core sampling, 2) the ‘knife method’, 3) Penetrologger, 4) RhoC.
In this field experiment various sources of error were accounted for using basic statistical analysis, including the uncertainties in the measurement equipment, human error or small-scale variability. Results show that the Penetrologger was capable to identify the start of the compacted layer but was not capable to estimate the depth of the layer and was prone to ‘human’ error. Therefore, the Penetrologger was deemed the least suitable method. Considering the simplicity of the knife method it performed very well, even inexperienced people were able to identify the start of soil compaction. Yet it remains a qualitative and more uncertain method, due to its subjectivity of the human’s perception of changes in bulk density and soil strength. The RhoC was the best alternative method compared to the core samples to quantify bulk density.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationUnderstanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference
Subtitle of host publicationBook of abstracts
Pages56-56
Publication statusPublished - 2019
EventWageningen Soil Conference 2019 - Wageningen, Netherlands
Duration: 27 Aug 201930 Aug 2019

Conference

ConferenceWageningen Soil Conference 2019
CountryNetherlands
CityWageningen
Period27/08/1930/08/19

Fingerprint

bulk density
trampling
soil strength
soil structure
wetting
crop yield
tillage
soil compaction
method
soil property
statistical analysis
sampling
cost
soil
field experiment
loss
need
in situ
soil process
drying

Cite this

Schierholz, R., van Orsouw, T. L., Mulder, V. L., Schoorl, J. M., & Heuvelink, G. B. M. (2019). Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity. In Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference: Book of abstracts (pp. 56-56)
Schierholz, Robert ; van Orsouw, T.L. ; Mulder, V.L. ; Schoorl, J.M. ; Heuvelink, G.B.M. / Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity. Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference: Book of abstracts. 2019. pp. 56-56
@inbook{196bd475c8124c21b8654583571af3d2,
title = "Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity",
abstract = "The problem of soil compaction in agricultural fields through trampling, drying and wetting processes, and tillage is well known in the Netherlands. It leads to a change in soil structure which impacts soil properties and processes. Consequently, crop yields will reduce causing financial losses to farmers. Therefore, there is a need for cost-effective soil compaction measurement techniques. However, soil compaction cannot be directly assessed by a specific measurement technique. Therefore, a reliable proxy is needed allowing to identify and quantify soil compaction. For this, a field experiment was set up involving 31 persons and four contemporary methods were tested for the estimation of in-situ soil bulk density 1) core sampling, 2) the ‘knife method’, 3) Penetrologger, 4) RhoC.In this field experiment various sources of error were accounted for using basic statistical analysis, including the uncertainties in the measurement equipment, human error or small-scale variability. Results show that the Penetrologger was capable to identify the start of the compacted layer but was not capable to estimate the depth of the layer and was prone to ‘human’ error. Therefore, the Penetrologger was deemed the least suitable method. Considering the simplicity of the knife method it performed very well, even inexperienced people were able to identify the start of soil compaction. Yet it remains a qualitative and more uncertain method, due to its subjectivity of the human’s perception of changes in bulk density and soil strength. The RhoC was the best alternative method compared to the core samples to quantify bulk density.",
author = "Robert Schierholz and {van Orsouw}, T.L. and V.L. Mulder and J.M. Schoorl and G.B.M. Heuvelink",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
pages = "56--56",
booktitle = "Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference",

}

Schierholz, R, van Orsouw, TL, Mulder, VL, Schoorl, JM & Heuvelink, GBM 2019, Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity. in Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference: Book of abstracts. pp. 56-56, Wageningen Soil Conference 2019, Wageningen, Netherlands, 27/08/19.

Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity. / Schierholz, Robert; van Orsouw, T.L.; Mulder, V.L.; Schoorl, J.M.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.

Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference: Book of abstracts. 2019. p. 56-56.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingAbstractAcademic

TY - CHAP

T1 - Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity

AU - Schierholz, Robert

AU - van Orsouw, T.L.

AU - Mulder, V.L.

AU - Schoorl, J.M.

AU - Heuvelink, G.B.M.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The problem of soil compaction in agricultural fields through trampling, drying and wetting processes, and tillage is well known in the Netherlands. It leads to a change in soil structure which impacts soil properties and processes. Consequently, crop yields will reduce causing financial losses to farmers. Therefore, there is a need for cost-effective soil compaction measurement techniques. However, soil compaction cannot be directly assessed by a specific measurement technique. Therefore, a reliable proxy is needed allowing to identify and quantify soil compaction. For this, a field experiment was set up involving 31 persons and four contemporary methods were tested for the estimation of in-situ soil bulk density 1) core sampling, 2) the ‘knife method’, 3) Penetrologger, 4) RhoC.In this field experiment various sources of error were accounted for using basic statistical analysis, including the uncertainties in the measurement equipment, human error or small-scale variability. Results show that the Penetrologger was capable to identify the start of the compacted layer but was not capable to estimate the depth of the layer and was prone to ‘human’ error. Therefore, the Penetrologger was deemed the least suitable method. Considering the simplicity of the knife method it performed very well, even inexperienced people were able to identify the start of soil compaction. Yet it remains a qualitative and more uncertain method, due to its subjectivity of the human’s perception of changes in bulk density and soil strength. The RhoC was the best alternative method compared to the core samples to quantify bulk density.

AB - The problem of soil compaction in agricultural fields through trampling, drying and wetting processes, and tillage is well known in the Netherlands. It leads to a change in soil structure which impacts soil properties and processes. Consequently, crop yields will reduce causing financial losses to farmers. Therefore, there is a need for cost-effective soil compaction measurement techniques. However, soil compaction cannot be directly assessed by a specific measurement technique. Therefore, a reliable proxy is needed allowing to identify and quantify soil compaction. For this, a field experiment was set up involving 31 persons and four contemporary methods were tested for the estimation of in-situ soil bulk density 1) core sampling, 2) the ‘knife method’, 3) Penetrologger, 4) RhoC.In this field experiment various sources of error were accounted for using basic statistical analysis, including the uncertainties in the measurement equipment, human error or small-scale variability. Results show that the Penetrologger was capable to identify the start of the compacted layer but was not capable to estimate the depth of the layer and was prone to ‘human’ error. Therefore, the Penetrologger was deemed the least suitable method. Considering the simplicity of the knife method it performed very well, even inexperienced people were able to identify the start of soil compaction. Yet it remains a qualitative and more uncertain method, due to its subjectivity of the human’s perception of changes in bulk density and soil strength. The RhoC was the best alternative method compared to the core samples to quantify bulk density.

M3 - Abstract

SP - 56

EP - 56

BT - Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference

ER -

Schierholz R, van Orsouw TL, Mulder VL, Schoorl JM, Heuvelink GBM. Evaluating different soil compaction measurement techniques: simplicity versus Complexity. In Understanding soil functions, Wageningen Soil Conference: Book of abstracts. 2019. p. 56-56