Geoderma 120 (2004) 215 – 225

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Soil physical quality: Part II. Friability, tillage,

$
tilth and hard-setting
A.R. Dexter *
Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (IUNG), ul. Czartoryskich 8, 24-100 Pulawy, Poland

Received 4 October 2002; received in revised form 8 August 2003; accepted 5 September 2003

Available online 26 November 2003

Abstract

The index of soil physical quality, S, which was introduced in Part I is applied to problems of agricultural soil mechanics,
especially soil tillage and hard-setting. S is equal to the slope of the water retention curve at its inflection point. The retention curve
must be plotted as the logarithm (to base e) of the water potential against the gravimetric water content (kg kg
1). The use of S is
illustrated with examples of soils with different friabilities, tillage at different water contents and the aggregate size distribution
resulting from tillage. It is shown that friability, and hence the ease of working of the soil, is linearly and positively correlated with
S. It is also shown in a short theoretical study that S can be used in a simple equation for estimation of the hard-setting behaviour of
soil on drying. In combination with pedo-transfer functions, this enables the hard-setting behaviours of soils of different textures to
be predicted and shows how hard-setting may be expected to increase with soil compaction. However, the predictions of hard-
setting should be considered as speculative until they have been tested experimentally.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Friability; Compaction; Hard-setting; Tillage; Tilth; Water retention curve

1. Introduction Dexter and Bird (2001) identified the soil water

Soil physical quality has many aspects. The aspect,
which forms the focus of this paper, is workability.
Good soil workability is when the soil can be tilled
easily to produce a seedbed for a crop. Additionally,
the phenomenon of hard-setting is considered because
this is commonly observed as a key feature of
degraded soils.
$
PII of original articles S0016-7061(03)00289-1, S0016-
7061(03)00291-X.
* Tel.: +48-81-8863421; fax: +48-81-8864547.
E-mail address: tdexter@iung.pulawy.pl (A.R. Dexter).
content at the inflection point of the water retention
curve with the optimum water content for tillage. The
optimum water content for tillage can be defined as the
water content at which tillage produces the greatest
number of small aggregates or, conversely, the smallest
numbers of large aggregates or clods. This is important
because a fine seedbed is better agronomically than a
coarse, cloddy seedbed. Knowledge of the optimum
water content for tillage, however, gives no information
about how fine or how coarse will be the resulting soil
structure.
The water retention curve, when plotted as the
logarithm of the water potential against the water
content, has only one characteristic point –the inflec-

0016-7061/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.005
216 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225

tion point. At the inflection point this curve has only

two properties: its position (hi, ln hi) and its slope,
S = tanx = dh/d(ln h). This is illustrated in Fig. 1 of Part
I of this series. For mathematical convenience, natural
logarithms (ln h) are used in equations giving basic
definitions. However, graphs, regression equations and
derived quantities use logarithms to base 10 (log h), for
ease of comprehension.
This paper explores the use of the index of soil
physical quality, S, to predict soil friability and work-
ability as measured by the resulting aggregate size
distribution or tilth.
Friability has been defined as the tendency of a
mass of soil to crumble into a certain size range of
smaller fragments under the action of an applied stress
(Utomo and Dexter, 1981; Dexter and Watts, 2001).
The friability depends on the presence in the soil of Fig. 1. Example of a water retention curve and the corresponding
curve of S against gravimetric water content for a degraded soil in
flaws or microcracks. Stereology shows that only
Grabów, Poland. It can be seen that the inflection point of the
arrays of pores, which appear as elongated on planar retention curve is where S is maximum.
sections, can divide the volume into incipient sub-
volumes, which can subsequently become aggregates mathematical advantage that they are positive in
when the soil crumbles. Linear pores, such as root unsaturated soil.
channels, do not have this property of dividing a A theory for soil friability has been presented by
volume into subvolumes. Linear pores have been Watts and Dexter (1998) and by Dexter and Watts
quantified and their importance has been discussed (2001). The theory will not be presented here, but
by Pagliai and Vignozzi (2002). only the relevant equations and conclusions. The
theory is based on the concept that the tensile strength
and the crumbling of soil are controlled by the
2. Theory distributions of flaws or weakest links within the soil.
These flaws may be identified with structural pores or
An example of a water retention curve of soil is microcracks. Under mechanical stress (especially ten-
shown in Fig. 1. If a soil sample is drained progres- sile), these flaws can elongate and join up to make
sively from saturation, the largest pores empty first larger cracks, which form the boundaries of the frag-
and this is followed by the emptying of progressively ments produced by crumbling during operations such
smaller pores. At any given water potential, w, the as tillage.
water menisci are in pores with an effective cylindri- As a consequence of the statistical theory of the
cal radius, r, of strength of materials, the friability can be determined
in three ways:
2r
r¼
; ð1Þ
w (a) from the variation in the tensile strength of
or in microcracks (planar pores) with an effective aggregates of a given size which gives rise to a
width, t, of measure of friability, F1,
(b) from the way that the strengths of replicate
r
t¼
; ð2Þ aggregates are ranked which gives rise to a
w measure of friability, F2, and
where r is the surface tension of the water menisci. (c) from the dependence of the tensile strength of soil
In the remainder of this paper, water suctions, h, fragments (aggregates) with aggregate size which
are used such that h =
w. Values of h have the gives rise to a measure of friability, F3.
 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225 217

Methods for measurement of tensile strength and 3. Tillage of Urrbrae loam (17% clay content)
the three different methods for measurement and
calculation of friability are described in detail in Ojeniyi (1978) and Ojeniyi and Dexter (1979) did
Dexter and Watts (2001) and will not be reproduced tillage experiments on Urrbrae sandy loam in South
here. Ideally, the values obtained for F1, F2 and F3 Australia (17% clay content) at a range of water
should all be the same. However, real soil does not contents. Tillage was done with a tined implement
meet all the assumptions of the theory: especially the to a depth of 10 cm. After each tillage operation, the
assumption that the largest flaw or microcrack in a soil macrostructure was quantified at one-half the
sample is much smaller than the sample size. There- depth of tillage. Soil structure was quantified on
fore, values of F1, F2 and F3 obtained experimentally transects cut through resin-impregnated blocks of
are different. Watts and Dexter (1998) found experi- the soil using the statistical analysis method described
mentally that F1 and F2 were related approximately by Dexter (1976) and Dexter and Hewitt (1978). This
as: showed that the proportion of small aggregates (here
defined as P4 = the proportion of aggregates with
lnðF1Þc0:929lnðF2Þ: ð3Þ intercepted lengths smaller than 4 mm) at that depth
varied with the gravimetric water content at the time
Chan et al. (1999) found that for an Australian soil, of tillage as:


2
h h
F1c2F3: ð4Þ P4 ¼
0:50 þ 1:88
0:91 ; r2 ¼ 0:54;
PL PL
In this paper, most of the values reported were ð5Þ

1
measured as F1. However, experimental values from where PL = 0.195 kg kg is the plastic (or lower
different sources are converted to ‘‘F1 equivalent Atterberg) limit of the soil. Values of the plastic limit
approximate values’’ using Eqs. (3) and (4) above. were measured according to British Standard 1377
This enables them to be compared and discussed on a (1975). Values of gravimetric water content, h, here
common basis. are ‘‘normalized’’ by expressing them as proportions
of the plastic limit, PL, because this greatly reduces
2.1. Soil structures produced by tillage differences between soil samples and usually soil
types. Eq. (5) shows a maximum at around h = 1.0PL,
Soil workability can be defined in terms of the which in this case is the optimum water content for
sizes of the soil aggregates that exist after tillage. At tillage.
the optimum water content for tillage, the proportion Using the same Urrbrae sandy loam, Utomo (1980,
of large aggregates or clods produced is smallest and, p. 140) and Utomo and Dexter (1981) measured how
conversely, the proportion of small aggregates pro- the friability, F (as introduced above), varied with
duced is largest. water content. They measured friability, F3, from the
It is often noted that the soil structure produced by decrease in tensile strength of aggregates with increas-
tillage depends much more on the physical properties ing sample size and obtained:
of the soil than on the details of the tillage implement

2
that is used. This emphasizes the need to be able to h h
F3 ¼
0:32 þ 1:06
0:54 ; r2 ¼ 0:64
quantify the soil physical condition. PL PL
The optimum soil water content for tillage has been ð6Þ
identified with the inflection point of the water reten-
tion curve plotted as log h against h (Dexter and Bird, or taking account of Eq. (4):
2001). Although this tells us the optimum water
conditions for tillage, it still does not tell us whether

2
h h
the result of tillage will be a coarse or a fine structure. F3c
0:63 þ 2:12
1:08 ; r2 ¼ 0:64:
PL PL
To investigate this question, it is useful to refer back
to the results of field experiments. ð7Þ
218 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225

The curves that correspond with Eqs. (5) and (7) Table 1
are shown in Fig. 2. Comparison of values predicted Parameters of the van Genuchten (1980) water retention equation as
used for the cropped Evesham clay, the Highfield (arable) silt loam
by Eqs. (5) and (7) shows that the ratio P4/F1 remains and the Urrbrae sandy loam
remarkably constant at 1.12 F 0.05 over the range of
Parameter Evesham Highfield (arable) Urrbrae
water contents from 0.60 < h/PL < 1.12. This strongly
hsat (kg kg
1) 0.5908 0.2568 0.2238
suggests that friability, F1, is a good predictor of the
hres (kg kg
1) 0 0 0
soil structure resulting from tillage. a (h Pa
1) 0.0519 0.0070 0.00562
Measurements of the water retention curve for this n 1.092 1.150 1.238
same Urrbrae soil were made by Grant (1989, pp. 175 S 0.0404 0.0258 0.0315
and 265) and the author (unpublished). The results for S is the modulus of the slope at the inflection point.
cropped soil have been averaged and fitted to the van
Genuchten equation. This gave the parameters shown
away from the inflection point because the shape of
in Table 1. The slope, S, of the water retention curve
the curve of S against h/PL is different.
was calculated using the Eq. (A7) from the Appendix
Measurements of the effects of water content on
to Part I. This is plotted as 10S in Fig. 2 so that it can
be shown on the same scale. It can be seen that the the friability of another Australian soil (Strathalbyn)
having a clay content of 12% were reported by Utomo
peaks of the curves occur at similar water contents (h/
(1980) and Utomo and Dexter (1981). This also
PL of about 0.9 for S and h/PL of about 1.0 for P4 and
showed a maximum of F at h/PL of about 1.0.
F1). However, such comparisons are only approxi-
However, the water retention characteristics of that
mate because the tillage experiments (giving P4), the
soil were not measured and so those data cannot be
friability experiments (giving F1) and the water re-
used here.
tention measurements (giving S) were all measured on
different samples by different people and at different
times.
4. Friability of Evesham clay
Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude that S is not
well correlated with either P4 or F1 at water contents
Soil samples were collected from Boot field at the
Silsoe Research Institute, England. The soil is classi-
fied as Evesham clay and has a very high clay content.
Some properties of the samples that were studied are
shown in Table 2. The values of F1 are for aggregates,
which were collected moist, and were then oven dried.
The arable plots were managed with conventional
machinery. The zero-traffic plots had not had any

Table 2
Some properties of the Evesham clay samples from Boot field,
Silsoe
Land use Clay Silt PL OM S F1
Arable 73 18 41 3.2 0.0404 0.557
Zero-traffic 73 17 39 3.5 n.d. 0.617
Wheelway 69 20 39 3.1 n.d. 0.337
Meadow 66 20 44 4.2 n.d. 0.702
Fig. 2. Experimental results for Urrbrae sandy loam showing how Hedgerow 61 29 47 5.9 n.d. 0.932
the friability, F1, the proportion of small aggregates produced by PL and OM are the plastic limit and the organic matter content in kg
tillage, P4, and 10 times the slope of the water retention curve, 10S, (100 kg)
1.
vary with the soil water content h. Here, the water contents have S is the modulus of the slope of the water retention curve at the
been normalized by dividing by the plastic (or lower Atterberg) inflection point. Values of friability, F1, were measured on oven-
limit, PL. dried samples.
 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225 219

traffic for about 10 years. The wheelways were

permanent and had been used for all wheel traffic
for all field operations for the same period of time.
More information about the soil, the treatments and
the measurements is given in Watts and Dexter (1998)
and in Chamen et al. (1990, 1992).
The samples of aggregates for measurement of
friability were collected on different dates during the
year when the soil was at different, naturally occurring
water contents, hc. These samples were oven-dried to
produce a standard drying procedure. The friability,
F1, was then measured. The measured values were
then fitted to the quadratic equation:


2
hc hc Fig. 3. Experimental results for Evesham clay showing how the
F1 ¼ a þ b þc : ð8Þ
PL PL friability, F1, and 10 times the slope of the water retention curve,
10S, vary with the soil water content h. Here, the water contents
Values obtained for the coefficients of Eq. (8) are have been normalized by dividing by the plastic (or lower
Atterberg) limit, PL. Note that F1 was measured on oven-dried
given in Table 3. Also given in Table 3 are the values
soil and the water content in this case was the water content in the
of hc/PL that give the maximum values of F1. field at the time of sample collection, hc.
It should be noted that results rather similar to
these were already published in Watts and Dexter
(1998). However, some small errors were found in the bility experiments (giving F1) and the water reten-
earlier calculations. The corrected results presented tion measurements (giving S) were measured on
here were recalculated from the original data. different samples and at different times. Again, it is
The results for the arable treatment are shown in possible to conclude that S is not well correlated
Fig. 3. There are two interesting points. Firstly, with F1 at water contents away from the inflection
although the soil used for measurement of friability, point because the shape of the curve of S against h/
F1, had been dried, it still retained some of the PL is different.
structure that it had in the field. This ‘‘memory effect’’ Results of experiments also showing a maximum in
gave rise to the dependence of F1 on the water content friability as a function of water potential have recently
at the time of sample collection, hc. Secondly, the been presented by Munkholm and Kay (2002).
water content for maximum F1 is similar to that at the
inflection point of the water retention curve.
As with the Urrbrae loam discussed above, such 5. Correlation between soil friability and the water
comparisons are only approximate because the fria- retention curve

Table 3 With published data, it is possible to compare

Coefficients of Eq. (8) giving friability, F1, of oven-dried Evesham values of friability, F1, measured on dry soil with
clay as a function of water content at the time of sample collection
values of the slope of the water retention curve at the
expressed as hc/PL, where PL is the plastic limit of the soil
inflection point, S. Although F1 is measured on dry
Land use a b c r2 (hc/PL)max
soil and S is measured on moist soil, both properties
Arable 0.215 0.722
0.330 0.831 1.09 depend on the soil microstructure.
Zero-traffic 0.238 0.851
0.407 0.947 1.05
Wheelway 0.133 0.583
0.299 0.947 0.97
The data used are:
Meadow 0.359 1.198
0.730 0.995 0.82
Hedgerow 0.570 1.305
0.839 0.952 0.78 (a) for Urrbrae sandy loam (17% clay content):
(hc/PL)max is the normalised water content at which maximum F2 = 1/a from Table 2 of Braunack et al. (1979)
friability occurred. and S from Table 1, above.
220 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225
(b) for Highfield soil (25% clay content): F1 from
Table 2 above and S from the parameters of the
van Genuchten equation as given by Watts and
Dexter (1997) and Dexter and Bird (2001).
(c) for Evesham clay (73% clay content): F1 from
Table 2 above and S from the parameters of the
van Genuchten equation given in Table 1
(previously unpublished).
The regression line for the three soils shown in
Fig. 4 is:
F1 ¼
0:018 þ 15:5 S;
ðF 0:089ÞðF 2:6Þ
r2 ¼ 0:88; p ¼ 0:0019
In Eq. (9), the intercept is not significantly different
from the origin. If the line is passed through the
origin, it becomes:
F1 ¼ 15:00S; r2 ¼ 1:00; p < 0:0001
ðF0:06Þ
These results show that the friability of dry soil,
which is a measure of its ease of working, is
positively and significantly correlated with the
slope, S, at the inflection point of the water reten-
tion curve.
Fig. 4. Values of friability, F1, for the Highfield soil (triangles), the
Urrbrae soil (square) and the Evesham clay (circle) plotted as a
function of S. All of the values were measured and not estimated.
It is interesting to note that the value of S = 0.035,
which was proposed in Part I as being a boundary
between ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘poor’’ soil physical condi-
tions corresponds to a value of F1 = 0.5 according to
Eq. (10).
6. Prediction of friability using pedo-transfer
functions
It is possible to predict likely trends in soil
behaviour using pedo-transfer functions that give
ð9Þ estimates of the parameters of a water retention
equation in terms of soil particle size distribution,
content of organic matter and bulk density. From
these parameters, the slope at the inflection point, S,
can be calculated and then F1 can be estimated using
Eq. (10), above. In this way, the effects of soil
composition and density on friability can be inves-
tigated. This will not be done here because a graph
of F1 against bulk density for the 12 different FAO/
ð10Þ
USDA texture classes will look exactly the same as
Fig. 6 in Part I of this series of papers. The only
difference being that the values on the y-axis would
be larger by a factor of 15.0.
If the ratio P4/F1 = 1.12, which was found for
Urrbrae loam, is valid for other soils too, then, by
implication, it is possible to predict the amount of
small or large aggregates produced by tillage of any
soil. Another implication of this is the prediction that
soil, which is more dense, will produce more clods
when it is tilled. Considerable field experimentation
will be required to explore these hypotheses.
7. Other factors which may affect soil friability
and S
Because of the apparent direct proportionality
between friability, F1, and S shown in Eq. (10), the
regression can be written in its inverse form as:
S ¼ 0:067F1; r2 ¼ 1:00; p < 0:0001 ð11Þ
ðF0:001Þ
Therefore, some factors that have been found
experimentally to affect friability are discussed below
briefly in terms of their likely effects on S.
 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225
7.1. Liming
Chan et al. (1999) found that, for an Australian sodic
vertisol, additions of lime or lime + gypsum increased
the friability. Unfortunately, water retention data are
not available for this soil so values of S cannot be
calculated directly. Improved workability after gypsum
treatment was reported in sodic vertisols by McKenzie
and So (1989). Similarly, lime (as chalk) has been
added to improve the physical properties of British
clay soils for hundreds of years. The observed
benefits include reductions in implement draft
forces, increases in friability and increases in the
number of days when the land can be worked after
rain (Gardner and Gardner, 1953). The implication
is that additions of lime or lime + gypsum may
increase the soil physical quality as measured by
the index S. This can form the basis for an
hypothesis for future experimental testing.
7.2. Dispersible clay
The clay component of the soil plays an impor-
tant role in controlling soil physical properties.
When the arrangements of clay particles are stable
in water, then the whole soil will be stable in water.
However, if the clay particles disperse in the pres-
ence of water, then the soil will be unstable in water.
Shanmuganathan and Oades (1982) found that fria-
bility decreased with increasing content of readily
dispersible clay in the soil. Clay dispersion always
prevents the formation of stable structural arrange-
ments with the associated microstructure and results
in a homogeneous structureless mass. Clay disper-
sion has been found to be greater when the soil
organic matter content is smaller (Czyz et al., 2002)
and when mechanical energy has been applied to
soil when it is wetter than the plastic limit (Watts et
al., 1996a,b). It would be logical to expect, there-
fore, that loss of soil organic matter and increased
inputs of mechanical energy to wet soil would both
result in reduced friability and correspondingly re-
duced values of S.
7.3. Machinery impacts
It is interesting to consider results from Kepa in
Pulawy, Poland. Here, the same alluvial soil with 18 kg
221
(100 kg)
1 clay content has received two different
treatments. Firstly, conventional mechanized agricul-
ture in the field which gave a value of S = 0.027.
Secondly, experimental plots which have not been
subjected to machinery impacts but have only been
hand-dug for the last 120 years which gave a value of
S = 0.058.
In Boot field in Silsoe, England on the same
Evesham clay as discussed above, soil which had
not experienced wheel traffic for about 8 years
produced a much finer tilth with fewer clods when
tilled as compared with soil which experienced
conventional wheel traffic (Chamen et al., 1992).
The non-wheeled soil was less dense by typically
100 kg m
3 than conventionally wheeled soil
(Chamen et al., 1990). Application of Eq. (11) to
the value of F1 for the intensively wheeled perma-
nent wheelways given in Table 3 yields a predicted
value of S = 0.023, which is consistent with the very
poor physical conditions observed there. These
observations are consistent with the concept that
compaction of moist soil by wheeling reduces
friability, F, and the value of the index of soil
physical quality, S.
7.4. Other factors affecting friability and S
Utomo (1980) and Utomo and Dexter (1981)
used soil that had been moulded to destroy all pre-
existing structure. They found increased friability
after treatments involving wetting and drying cycles,
freezing and thawing cycles, and ageing after the
moulding. Changes in the water retention data were
consistent with increases of S being induced by these
processes (Utomo, 1980). However, insufficient val-
ues of h were used to enable water retention curves
to be drawn or fitted with sufficient accuracy to
enable meaningful values of S to be obtained from
these data. The hypotheses that these treatments
increase the values of S could be tested in future
studies.
8. Hard-setting
Many soils exhibit the phenomenon of hard-set-
ting. This can be the cause of problems for crop
emergence and also for tillage. This effect is due
222 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225

mainly to the water bridges, which remain between
soil particles when soil dries. The water bridges pull
the particles towards each other as a result of two
phenomena: the negative pore water pressure in the
bridges and the surface tension of the water forming
the bridges. Many theories have been developed to
account for this. A relatively simple but still useful
one is that of Towner and Childs (1972). According to
this theory, when an external mechanical stress, r, is
applied to soil, then the effective stress, re, can be
estimated from
Z 1
re ¼ r þ Hp h þ 0:3 h:dH ð12Þ
Hp
where the second term on the right-hand side is
generated by the pore water pressure and the third
term is generated by the surface tension forces.
In Eq. (12), H is the effective degree of saturation
given at any water content, h, by


h
hres
H¼ ; ð13Þ
hsat
hres
and Hp is the prevailing value of H.
This effective stress increases the shear strength, ss,
of soil as predicted by the Mohr – Coulomb equation:
Greacen (1960) and Mullins and Panayiotopoulos
(1984) used this approach in their studies of the
influence of effective stresses on soil strength.
In Appendix A, a simple equation is developed for
a measure or index of hard-setting, H. This is based on
the rate of change of effective stress (here estimated as
Hh) with unit change of gravimetric water content, h,
at the inflection point, hi. The assumption is that a soil
which exhibits a greater degree of hard-setting at hi
exhibits greater hard-setting at other water contents
also. The inflection point is used because it is a unique
and readily identifiable reference point. H is given in
Eq. (A5) by



hi hi
H¼ 1þ ; ð15Þ
hsat S
where hi is the suction of the pore water in hPa at the
inflection point, and hi and hsat are in kg kg
1.
Typical values of the measure of hard-setting, H,
for the 12 FAO/USDA soil texture classes are shown
in Fig. 5. These were calculated using Eq. (15) with
the data given in Table 1 of Part I of this series of
papers and the pedo-transfer functions of Wösten et
al. (1999).
Whereas Fig. 5 shows a single, typical value of H for
each texture class, H should not be thought of as being
constant for a given soil. With the pedo-transfer func-

ss ¼ Cs þ re tan/; ð14Þ

where Cs here is the shear cohesion and / is the angle

of internal friction of the soil. For most agricultural
soils, / is around 35j. It can be seen in Eq. (14) that
increases in the effective stress, re, give rise to
increases in the strength, s.
Vepraskas (1984) has shown that, for most soils,
when H>0.4, the hydrostatic pressure term dominates
and the surface tension term can be ignored. When the
soil is drier than about H < 0.3, then the surface
tension term dominates and the hydrostatic pressure
term may be ignored. For a set of 25 Polish soils, the
mean value of H at the inflection point is 0.68. As the
inflection point of the water retention curve is usually
at H>0.4, the additional stress due to the pore water Fig. 5. Predicted mean values of the measure of hard-setting, H,
may be safely estimated as Hh. calculated for the 12 FAO/USDA soil texture classes.
 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225
Fig. 6. Predictions of the effects of compaction, as quantified by soil
bulk density (Mg m
3), on the measure of hard-setting, H, for clay.
Here, H is plotted on a logarithmic scale because of its large range.
tion approach, it is possible to investigate the effects of
compaction (as measured by bulk density) on H. The
results for clay are shown in Fig. 6 where it can be seen
that the measure of hard-setting, H, is predicted to
increase rapidly with increasing soil bulk density.
Predictions such as those shown in Fig. 6 can be
made for different soil textures or soil texture
classes. For all texture classes, the theory predicts
that hard-setting increases with increasing bulk den-
sity. This dependency on bulk density, q, was
quantified by fitting the predicted values to a qua-
dratic equation. For example, in the case of clay, this
produced:
log10 H ¼ 7:16
6:34q þ 3:02q2 : ð16Þ
Experimental evidence for a positive correlation
between hard-setting and bulk density has been pre-
sented by Fabiola et al. (2003).
The values of H used in Figs. (5) and (6) are in hPa
per unit change in gravimetric water content of the
soil (kg kg
1). To convert them into kPa per 1%
change in water content (i.e. per 1 kg (100 kg)
1),
these values must be divided by 1000.
The pedo-transfer function approach as at present
developed predicts only small effects of organic
matter in reducing hard-setting, H. Testing the extent
to which this is true could form the subject of a future
experimental study.
223
9. Conclusions
The index of soil physical quality, S, which is
proposed is strongly and positively correlated with
measured values of soil friability. The reason is
that both depend on the soil microstructure which
forms the common basis for many important soil
physical properties (Dexter, 1988). The fact that a
single regression line in Fig. 4 fits the results for
soils with 17%, 25% and 73% clay contents to
within experimental error supports the view that
different soils can be compared directly using
values of S.
The index of soil physical quality, defined as S, can
be easily and unambiguously measured. Nearly every
soil laboratory has the equipment necessary to deter-
mine the water retention curve of soil samples. In
contrast, standardized equipment and methods for
determination of friability are not available every-
where. Therefore, the possibility of predicting the
friability from water retention data is quite an attrac-
tive alternative.
Some determinations, such as the soil structures
produced by tillage at different water contents, are
extremely costly in both time and money. Clearly,
easier methods for predicting this, such as that illus-
trated above, have considerable potential benefits.
This work has shown that there is a serious lack of
published data in which the soil structures resulting
from tillage, friability measurements and accurate and
complete water retention curves have all been mea-
sured on the same soils at the same time. This fact
should be considered when tillage experiments are
being planned.
Consideration of the subject matter of this paper
has thrown-up several interesting hypotheses, which
could form the bases of future research projects aimed
at improving our understanding of soil behaviour and
the factors that influence it. It seems that the proposed
index of soil physical quality, S, could provide a
unifying principle in such studies.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Chris Watts of the
Silsoe Research Institute, England for his assistance
with the data for the Evesham soil.
224 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225

Appendix A Czyz, E.A., Dexter, A.R., Terelak, H., 2002. Content of readily-
dispersible clay in the arable layer of some Polish soils. Ad-
vances in GeoEcology, vol. 35. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen,
As described in the main text, a measure of hard- pp. 115 – 124. 598 pp.
setting can be written as: Dexter, A.R., 1976. Internal structure of tilled soil. J. Soil Sci. 27,
267 – 278.
dðhHÞ Dexter, A.R., 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure.
H¼ ; ðA1Þ
dh Soil Tillage Res. 11, 199 – 238.
Dexter, A.R., Bird, N.R.A., 2001. Methods for predicting the opti-
at the inflection point. mum and the range of water contents for tillage based on the
Here, the degree of saturation is simplified to water retention curve. Soil Tillage Res. 57, 203 – 212.
H = h/hsat and all the h are gravimetric water contents Dexter, A.R., Hewitt, J.S., 1978. The structure of beds of spherical
particles. J. Soil Sci. 29, 146 – 155.
(kg kg
1).
Dexter, A.R., Watts, C.W., 2001. Tensile strength and friability. In:


 Smith, K.A., Mullins, C.E. (Eds.), Soil Analysis: Physical Meth-
1 dðhhÞ ods, 2nd ed. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 405 – 433.
H¼ ðA2Þ Fabiola, N., Giarola, B., Pires da Silva, A., Imhoff, S., Dexter, A.R.,
hsat dh
2003. Contribution of natural soil compaction to hardsetting



 behaviour. Geoderma 113, 95 – 108.
1 dh Gardner, H.W., Gardner, H.V., 1953. The Use of Lime. Farmer and
¼ hþh ðA3Þ Stockbreeder Publications, London, pp. 25 – 40.
hsat dh
Grant, C.D., 1989. Soil structure and tensile strength in relation to




 the microtopography of soil fracture surfaces. PhD thesis, Uni-
1 dlnh dh versity of Adelaide. 303 pp.
¼ hþh : ðA4Þ Greacen, E.L., 1960. Water content and soil strength. J. Soil Sci. 11,
hsat dh dlnh
313 – 333.
McKenzie, D.C., So, H.B., 1989. Effect of gypsum on Vertisols of
But S = dh/dln h and dh/dln h = h. Gwydir Valley, New South Wales: 2. Ease of tillage. Aust. J.
Therefore, at the inflection point: Exp. Agric. 29, 63 – 67.
Mullins, C.E., Panayiotopoulos, K.P., 1984. The strength of unsa-


 turated mixtures of sand and kaolin and the concept of effective
hi hi
H¼ 1þ ; ðA5Þ stress. J. Soil Sci. 35, 459 – 468.
hsat S Munkholm, L.J., Kay, B.D., 2002. Effect of water regime on ag-
gregate tensile strength, rupture energy and friability. Soil Sci.
where the suffix i refers to the inflection point. Soc. Am. J. 66, 702 – 709.
Ojeniyi, S.O., 1978. Tilth structure and soil physical conditions.
PhD thesis, University of Adelaide, 309 pp. + appendices.
References Ojeniyi, S.O., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Soil factors affecting the macro-
structures produced by tillage. Trans. ASAE 22, 339 – 343.
Braunack, M.V., Hewitt, J.S., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Brittle fracture of Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N., 2002. The soil pore system as an indica-
soil aggregates and the compaction of aggregate beds. J. Soil tor of soil quality. In: Pagliai, M., Jones, R. (Eds.), Sustainable
Sci. 30, 653 – 667. Land Management – Environmental Protection—A Soil Physical
British Standard 1377, A.R., 1975. Methods for Testing Soils for Approach, Advances in GeoEcology, vol. 35. Catena Verlag,
Civil Engineering Purposes. British Standards Institution, Lon- Reiskirchen, pp. 71 – 82. 598 pp.
don. 134 pp. Shanmuganathan, R.T., Oades, J.M., 1982. Modification of soil
Chamen, W.C.T., Chittey, E.T., Leede, P.R., Goss, M.J., Howse, physical properties by manipulating the net surface charge on
K.R., 1990. The effect of tyre-soil contact pressure and zero colloids through addition of FeIII polycations. J. Soil Sci. 33,
traffic on soil and crop responses when growing winter wheat. 451 – 465.
J. Agric. Eng. Res. 47 (1), 1 – 21. Towner, G.D., Childs, E.C., 1972. The mechanical strength of un-
Chamen, W.C.T., Watts, C.W., Leede, P.R., Longstaff, D.J., 1992. saturated porous granular materials. J. Soil Sci. 23, 481 – 498.
Assessment of a wide span vehicle (gantry) and soil and cereal Utomo, W.H., 1980. The effects of wetting and drying on soil
crop responses to its use in a zero traffic regime. Soil Tillage physical properties. PhD thesis, University of Adelaide. 251 pp.
Res. 24, 359 – 380. Utomo, W.H., Dexter, A.R., 1981. Soil friability. J. Soil Sci. 32,
Chan, K.Y., Dexter, A.R., McKenzie, D.C., 1999. Categories of soil 203 – 213.
structure based on mechanical behaviour and their evaluation van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting
using additions of lime and gypsum on a sodic soil. Aust. J. Soil the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Res. 37, 903 – 911. Am. J. 44, 892 – 898.
 A.R. Dexter / Geoderma 120 (2004) 215–225
Vepraskas, M.J., 1984. Cone index of loamy sands as influenced by
pore size distribution and effective stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
48, 1220 – 1225.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1997. The influence of organic matter in
reducing the destabilization of soil by simulated tillage. Soil
Tillage Res. 42, 253 – 275.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1998. Soil friability: theory, measure-
ment and the effects of management and organic matter. Eur. J.
Soil Sci. 49, 73 – 84.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Dumitru, E., Arvidsson, J., 1996a. An
225
assessment of the vulnerability of soil structure to destabilisation
during tillage: Part I. A laboratory test. Soil Tillage Res. 37,
161 – 174.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Longstaff, D.J., 1996b. An assess-
ment of the vulnerability of soil structure to destabilisation
during tillage: Part II. Field trials. Soil Tillage Res. 37,
175 – 190.
Wösten, J.H.M., Lilly, A., Nemes, A., Le Bas, C., 1999. Develop-
ment and use of a database of hydraulic properties of European
soils. Geoderma 90, 169 – 185.