This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign]
On: 29 January 2015, At: 20:20
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Soil Structure and

Sustainability
a
Rattan Lal
a
Director , Carbon Mgmt and Suquestration
Center, Columbus, OH, 43210-1086,
lal.1@osu.edu
Published online: 26 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Rattan Lal (1991) Soil Structure and Sustainability, Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture, 1:4, 67-92, DOI: 10.1300/J064v01n04_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v01n04_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
 proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

conditions
 Soil Structure and Sustainability
Rattan La1
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

ABSTRACT. Sustainability of agriculture and natural resources is a

popular theme among researchers, financiers and policy makers.
This enthusiastic response is partly due to emphasis on technology
rather than production, on environmental quality rather than eco-
nomic profit, and on long-term use of resources rather than their
exploitation for short-term gains. Soil structure is a crucial soil prop-
erty that affects several processes important to soils productive ca-
pacity, environmental quality, and agricultural sustainability. De-
cline in soil structure can set-in-motion the onset of degradative
rocesses e.g., compaction, accelerated erosion, water and salt im-
Ealance, and soil fertility depletion. Through these processes, detri-
oration in soil structure has local, regional and global effects on
economic, environmental quality and resource sustainability. How-
ever, both soil structure and sustainability are often treated as quali-
tative and subjective concepts. There is a need to develop quantita-
tive measure of these concepts, and establish empirical and
conceptual relationships among them. Practical-oriented, and prob-
lem-solving research undertaken in diverse benchmark soils and
ecological environment can help address the problem of resource
management and sustainability.

INTRODUCTION
The overwhelming interest in agricultural sustainability observed
in late 1980s and in the 1990s is due to several challenges related to
excessive energy use (Stout, 1989), environmental pollution (Dutt-
weiler and Nicholson, 1983; El-Hinnawi and Hashmi, 1987), ero-
sion of genetic resources (Stewart, 1990), reduction in farm profit
(Poincelot, 1986), and excessive degradation of soil and water re-

Rattan Lal is affiliated with the Ohio State University, Department of Agron-
omy, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086. his paper was pres;nted
in the plenary session of the 81st Annual meeting of the American Society of
Agronomy, 15-20 October, 1989, Las Vegas.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. l(4) 1991
O 1991 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 67
 68 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

sources. In fact, soil degradation is a global issue and is becoming a

major threat to sustaining agricultural production and acceptable
environmental quality (Lal and Stewart, 1990). In addition to off-
site effects on water quality and damages to waterways and reser-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

voirs, soil degradation has severe on-site effects in terms of reduced

crop yields, high energy consumption due restorative use of fertil-
izer amendments and ameliorative tillage operations, and added
hazards of pollution of groundwater due to agrichemicals and other
farm-related pollutants (Poincelot, 1990).
While there is a growing concern about the effects of non-sus-
tainable practices on agricultural production and environmental
quality, the causative factor(s) responsible for soil degradation by
different processes have not been given the attention they deserve.
Why do soils degrade under a set of farming practices? What sets-
in-motion the downward trend of soil degradation, low crop yields,
accelerated erosion, pollution of surface and groundwaters, and
even the global warming due to the so called "greenhouse effect?"
Although the driving force in most cases can be traced to socioeco-
nomic and anthropogenic factors and the high demographic pres-
sure beyond the carrying capacity of land, a crucial bio-physical
factor that sets the degradative trend in motion is decline in "soil
structure." If the degradative trend is to be reversed, important is-
sues to be addressed include: (i) are our agricultural practices sus-
tainable?, and (ii) what role does soil structure play in agricultural
sustainability?
The objective of this report is to define soil structure and agricul-
tural sustainability, and assess possible relation among them. In
addition, an important objective is to outline researchable priorities
in soil structure especially in relation to sustainability of agricultural
practices. Specific examples of degradative processes in relation to
soil structure will be cited from USA.

SOIL STRUCTURE
Basic Concepts
Although soil structure has been extensively studied, it is still the
least understood of those physical characteristics that have signifi-
cant effects on crop production, agricultural sustainability, and en-
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 69

vironmental quality. In fact, soil structure is such a complex attri-

bute that it is difficult to study. In the recent past, there has been
several reviews related to soil structure and cultural practices affect-
ing it (Russell, 1971; Hamblin, 1985). However, there is a need to
explain structural attributes in relation to agricultural sustainability.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

In simple terms, soil structure implies "size, shape, arrangement

and packing of soil particles into indentifiable units." However,
this definition ignores the most important facet of soil structure-
the voids or pores. Soil pores are essential to transmission, diffu-
sion and retention of water, gases, and plant nutrient elements. Soil
pores also provide the pathways for root growth and development.
In fact a soil devoid of voids would cease to be a soil. It is appropri-
ate, therefore, that a definition of soil structure addresses all mani-
festations related to pores and voids. Soil structure may thus be
defined as "size, shape, and arrangement of solids and voids, and
.. these characteristics."
forces that affect
The above definitions of soil structure are pedological concepts
related to genesis and formation of structural attributes. In contrast,
agricultural production is related to "edaphological" properties that
affect plant growth and development. An important edaphological
function of pores is to facilitate plant growth. Furthermore, pores
and voids are useful only if they are continuous and stable. Edapho-
logically speaking soil structure may therefore be defined as "size,
shape, arrangement, and continuity of pores and voids; their ca-
pacity to retain and transmit fluids and organic and inorganic sub-
stances, and ability to support vigorous root growth and develop-
ment." This is a functional definition of soil structure especially in
relation to crop production.
There is also a need to differentiate between pores and voids.
Functionally, pores and voids may be identical as long as they have
similar size, shape, tortuosity and continuity. A major difference
perhaps lies in their origin or formation. In the context of this report
"pores" are channels created by the biotic activity of soil flora and
fauna e.g., roots, earthworms, termites, etc. Voids, on the other
hand, are created by other non-biotic factors of soil formation e.g.,
cracks formed by swelling and shrinkage, wettingldrying or freez-
indthawing cycles; inter-agregate pores between domains or micro-
agregates formcd by inter-particles and inter-domain forces of cohe-
sion and adhesion.
 70 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Relationship to Other Disciplines

Having defined soil structure from an agricultural perspective, it
is important to indicate that it is not a property important exclu-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

sively to agronomic objectives. In fact, soil structure is a property

of interest to a wide range of disciplines. This inter-disciplinary
importance of soil structure is depicted in Figure 1. Among basic
sciences, soil structure is of interest to civil enginecrs concerned
with soil mechanics, geologists and climatologists. Interest of cli-
matologists in soil structure is for a complex set of reasons. Agro-
climatologists are concerned with consumptive water use and plant-
water requirements, processes directly affected by soil structure.
Soil structure, as will be demonstrated later, is also linked to the
greenhouse effect, and therefore, is of a major interest to climatolo-
gists.
Agricultural engineers are concerned with soil structure because
of their interests in drainage or irrigation of agricultural land, and
soil com~action.Needless to sav that structural attributes are of
principal'interest to soil scientists concerned with genesis and soil
formation, mineralogy, chemistry and biochemistry, and of course
soil physics. ~ e c a u s eof its major impact on crop and livestock
production, soil structure is also of interest to agronomists, plant
breeders, economist and social scientists.
Assessment o f Soil Structure
Assessing soil structure is as hard and complex as defining it.
Just as there is no single definition that can satisfy all disciplines
and their needs so there is no unique method of measurement that
can satisfy requirements of all objectives for structural assessment.
More often than not, assessment of soil structure is subjective, qual-
itative, visual and arbitrary, indirect, fragmentary and piecemeal,
and on the whole confusing and frustrating. Referring to soil tilth,
Russell (1971) lamented that "it is that soil quality that any farmer
can feel by the kick of his boot but no soil scientist can quantify."
There are several methods, and the suitability or even desirability
of a method depends on the objectives. To pedologist, assessment
of soil structure involves "qualitative" description of shape, size
and packing arrangement of structural units observed in the field.
To civil engineers concerned with transmission of water, assess-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015
 72 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

ment of soil structure involves a "quantitative" measure of hydrau-

lic flux and its spatial and temporal variitions. To agricultural engi-
neers concerned with soil compaction, assessment of soil structure
involves measuring soil strength, matrix rigidity, and a criteria to
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

assess trafficability. To agronomist, soil structure assessment

means evaluation of its ability to facilitate adequate growth and
development of root system. To soil physicist, a useful measure of
soil structure involves assessment of diffusion and movement of
water and gases through inter-connected voids and pores. Some
methods to assess soil structure for these varied characteristics are
described in several texts (Burke et al., 1986; Larinov, 1982).

Commonly Used Structural Indices

Direct measurement of soil structure is difficult. Structural stabil-

ity of soil aggregates is a property widely used by soil scientists,
agronomists, geologists among others. Structural stability of a soil
refers to "soil's ability to conserve arrangement of solids and void
space, and their functional characteristics relative to the natural
state." Attempts have also been madc to relate structural stability to
the mechanism responsible to stabilizing structural aggregates e.g.,
quality and quantity of colloidal material and its temporal and spa-
tial variation. For example, commonly used structural indices in-
clude percent aggregation based on wet- (Yoder, 1936) or dry-siev-
ing (Chepil, 1951) technique. The results are expressed in terms of
percent aggregation, MWD or mean weight diameter (Van Bavel,
1949) of aggregates. Gther indices used are instability index (De
Leenheer and DeBoodt, 1959; Henin et al., 1958), and thc kinetic
energy needed to disrupt or crush an aggregate (McCalla, 1944;
Bruce-Okine and Lal, 1975; Boyd et al., 1983). Heat of wetting is
also related to structural stability (Collis-George and Lal, 1971).
Several functional properties are used to assess structural charac-
teristics. Important among these are infiltration capacity and related
parameters (e.g., soil-water sorptivity and transrnissivity), avail-
able water capacity, air capacity, aeration porosity, macroporosity,
pore size distribution and total porosity. Composition of soil con-
stituents, particle size distribution and soil organic matter contcnt,
are also related to structural characteristics. Thermal properties of
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 73

soil, including heat conductivity and capacity, are often linked to

structural attributes.
On the basis of their work on soils of Canada, Kay et al. (1988)
proposed an index of structural stability based on the rate of change
in the level of the stabilizing material:
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

where C is the stabilizing constituent (humic fraction or organo-

mineral complexes) representing original (C,) and the final (Ci)con-
centration, ti is the time and y is the decomposition constant.
There are two indices related to plant available water reserves
that are prominent among functional attributes of soil structure. One
is non-limiting water range proposed by Letey (1985). It refers to
"the range of water content in which neither 0, nor H,O nor soil
strength. limit crop growth." Apparently, the wider the range the
more favorable the soil structure. The other index is that proposed
by Thomasson (1971). Similar to Letey's index, Thomasson's in-
dex also defines the range of moisture content in which crop growth
is optimum.
It goes without saying that there exists an urgent need to develop
a comprehensive index of soil structure that can be widely used to
serve different objectives of multi-disciplinary nature. No such in-
dex exists, and it may be difficult to develop one. Furthermore, it
may not be even desirable especially if the objectives are simple and
direct and an index is complex based on several inter-related vari-
ables. Nonetheless, a widely applicable "Structural Index" would
be a function of several parameters (Eq. 2).

where I, is Structural Index, emis macroporosity, V, is effective root

volume, On, is the nonlimiting water reserve proposed by Letey
(1985), i, is infiltration capacity, A, is aggregation stability ex-
pressed as MWD, a is the presstire exerted on growing root or the
compression behavior. Such an index would apparently be a dy-
namic entity subject to temporal variation reflecting the effect of
management and natural factors. The index, must therefore, be re-
lated to time-t.
 74 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL SVSTAlNABZLITY
Basic Concepts
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Sustainability is at least as difficult to define as soil structure. It is

equally complex, has subjective values, and conceptual understand-
ing depends on the believer's immediate and futuristic concerns. To
be cynical "it is the latest twist in scientific community's continuous
eflort to attract funding for pursuing other important researchable
topics because in itself sustainability does not easily translate into
operational research." Cynicism aside, there is a growing concern
about putting this idealistic concept into an operational research.
A static concept of sustainability would imply "keeping an eflort
going continuously or the ability of a property orprocess to last out
and keep from falling." From agricultural and environmental per-
spective, however, sustainability is a dynamic concept. In fact "it
is a system's productive performance over time." There is a time-
dimension built into this concept. It implies "meeting needs of
present, while sustaining the future potential."
There are several definitions, and most are equally acceptable.
Profusion of definition is indicative of an enthusiastic response of
scientists, environmentalists and policy makers challenged by some
serious global issues. One of the commonly referred definitions is
that used by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Con-
sultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
According to this definition, "Sustainability refers to successful
management of resources for agriculture to satisfy changing human
needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environ-
ment and conserving natural resources" (TAC, 1988).
Putting Sustainability into an Operational Framework
Definitions, such as those presented above, are concepts and
thoughts. Putting these concepts into operational research is a chal-
lenge. Considering ideals of the stewardship of land for generations
to come, it is also important to address the problem in terms of
"holistic," "system," "integrated," "multi-disciplinary" or "in-
ter-disciplinary" approach relevant to "anthropological" and "so-
cial" values/incentives, addressing the issues of "family farm" and
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 75

"profit margin," and solving the problems related to "environmen-

tal quality," "excessive use of nun-renewable resources," "ero-
sion of biological diversity" and "global warming." These are
very nice concepts, but difficult to translate into operational tech-
nology, and functional topics that can be researched. Maybe we
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

need to do research on how to research issues related to sustainable

agriculture.
To make some headway, we must identify a "handle," define a
point-of-entry, address an easily recognizable constraint that can be
alleviated through meaningful research. If not, "sustainability" is
headed for the same fate as did the "farming systems" research of
the 1970s-nice idea but difficult to put into practice.

Criteria of Sustainability

To be operational, this concept must have tangible criteria - soil

and water conservation, productivity restoration, improvement in
water quality in relation to dissolved and suspended loads, air qual-
ity, profitability, reduction in use of off-farm purchased input, etc.
All these criteria are quantifiable but also have a time dimension.
Over what period of time are these changes desired or achieved? Do
we wish to achieve the desired goals in months, years, decades or
centuries? Is the system that we desire to achieve dynamic, steady
state or static? If so, what are the energy fluxes involved in terms of
output: input, and what is the carrying capacity of such a system?
Furthermore, what,are the indirect costs of achieving these criteria?
Indirect costs are an important issue to be considered. For example,
reducing the use of off-farm input may necessitate bringing addi-
tional land into production. It is estimated that if US. farmers were
still harvesting the same annual yield per hectare in the 1980s as
they did in the 1930s, an additional 170 million hectares would be
required to yield the same volume of agricultural crops, plus addi-
tional land to fuellfeed much of the animal draft power required in
the 1930s (Barrons, 1988). The latter may be marginal and subject
to severe problems of accelerated erosion. Substitution of inorganic
fertilizers with organic amendments or green manure may equally
endanger the quality of surface and groundwaters. Substitution of
input by management may have serious social implications. In the
 76 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

present era of inter-dependence and globalism, can we consciously

justify to cutdown production and permit famine and malnutrition in
other ~oorlv-endowedDarts of the world?
~ h i is
; a; era of gloda~ismand interdependence. In the context of
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

fulfilling present and future needs of the growing world population,

it is important to realize that sustainable agriculture is not necessar-
ily synonymous with "low input" or "organic" farming. The
world is rapidly running out of potentially arable land. If the pres-
ently cultivated world's arable land area is maintained at about 1.45
billion hectares, the per capita arable land will progressively decline
from about 0.3 ha now to 0.23 ha by the year 2000, 0.15 has by
2050, and 0.14 ha by 2100. The greatest challenge facing sustain-
able agriculture in the world during the 21st century will be to pro-
duce the basic necessities of food, feed, fiber, fuel and raw materi-
als from per capita land area of about 0.14 ha or less. An important
strategy will be to intensify landuse or prime agricultural lands
through judicious use of off-farm inputs. Buringh (1989) showed
that average per capita land required depends on input, ranging
from 2.85 ha for shifting cultivation to only 0.05 ha for specialized,
high-input technology.

Sustainability Indices

There is no question that sustainability is important concept in

use and management of natural resources. Several ancient cultures
and societies that did not consider sustainability of their natural re-
source vanished (Olson, 1981). The issue is no longer whether
"sustainability" is important. The important concern is how to use
this concept in practical and operational terms to alleviate the press-
ing problems and production constraints of modern agriculture, and
how to transform this concept into a workable tool? We may con-
sider, for the sake of argument, an ecological approach to sustaina-
bility. Accordingly we may define sustainability "an increasing
trend in production overtime per unit consumption of the non-re-
newable or the limiting resource, or per unit degradation of soil
and environmental characteristics." It implies, that we are not con-
cerned with production for the sake of production but production
with a mission. The mission may be to maximize production per
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 77

unit soil loss, per unit MJ of energy input, per unit change in con-
centration of nitrates in the groundwater, per unit decline in soil
content of organic carbon, or per unit efflux of the radiatively active
gases form soil-related processes. These are, indeed, achievable
criteria.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

If we accept the above approach, it is indeed logical to develop a

coefficient or a criterion that is a quantifiable measure of sustain-
ability. Similar to soil structure, it is difficult to develop an index of
sustainability that can address all problems and issues. While realiz-
ing the importance of simplicity of such an index, it is equally rele-
vant that "sustainability coefficient" (C,) is dynamic and is prob-
lem-or mission-oriented. One such coefficient is proposed in
Equation 3.

C, = f(Oi, O,, 0,)t

where Oi is the output per that unit input that maximizes the per
'capita productivity or profit, 0, is the output per unit decline in the
most-limiting or non-renewable resource, 0, is the minimum as-
sured output, t is the time. Similar to the I,, the exact nature of the
C function is a researchable priority. The exact nature of the func-
tion may be site-specific and will need input from local empirical
research data.

RELA TION BETWEEN SOIL STRUCTURE

AND AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Structural effects on agricultural production can be felt at differ-
ent scales (Figure 2). Among predominant local effects of decline in
soil structure are those primarily felt at the farm level: reduction in
soil's productive capacity, increased cost of production, lack of sus-
tainability, and reduction in profit margin jeopardizing economic
well being the farm family. Important regional effects of deteriora-
tion in soil structure are deterioration of the quality of surface and
groundwaters, disturbance of landscape due to gully formation and
land slides, and damages to waterways and other civil structures.
Global impact of adverse changes in soil structure can be far reach-
ing and impinging upon global water and energy balance, cycles of
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Effects of Soil Structure

- Global water and energy

--
Soil productivity Water quality
Cost of production Landscape balance
.Greenhouse effect
Standard ol living
Sustainability
Inira-dmcture
. Global economy

Fig. 2. Effects of Decline in Soil Structure

 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 79

carbon and other nutrient elements leading to the possible green-

house effect, and of course on the global economy. Maintenance of
a favorable level of soil structure, therefore, is a necessary pre-
requisite to agricultural sustainability at local, regional and global
scale..
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

There are few data, if any, describing direct relationship between

soil structure and agricultural sustainability or environmental qual-
ity. There is, thus, an urgent need to develop a function relationship
between structural Index (I,) and Sustainability Coefficient (CJ.

The exact nature of the function, to be determined empirically,

depends on soil and climatic characteristics, croppinglfarming sys-
tems, level of input and several socio-political and anthropological
factors. The function is very site-specific, and the result can be
extrapolated to regions with similar ecological attributes.

SOIL STRUCTURAL PROCESSES

AND AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Mismanagement of soil resources causes deterioration in struc-

tural attributes of soil. The latter influences soil's life support pro-
cesses and its ability to regulate environmental quality. Economic
and environmental impact of soil structure, with direct bearing on
agricultural sustainability are outlined in Figure 3. Soil structure is
influenced by anthropogenic activities e.g., farming operations,
agrochemicals, waste disposal and change in land use. These activ-
ities trigger various soil processes that affect agronomic productiv-
ity and environmental quality. Controlling these inter-related activ-
ities and processes is the basis of sustainability concept. Farming
operations that enhance structural attributes are agronomically and
environmentally sustainable. On the contrary, operations that de-
grade soil structure are agronomically and environmentally unsus-
tainable (Parr et al., 1989). The objective of soil and crop manage-
ment is to achieve a judicious combination of on-farm and off-farm
input to enhance structural attributes of a soil.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

-.San imbalance
Anaerobiosis
Disruption in cycles of C . N. P. S
Change in water and energy balance

- I Processes

Water polution
- Surface ..Soil erosion
- Groundwater soit Structure A
--
Loss of water and agmchemicals
Fertility depletion
- Sedimentation
Flooding
Greenhouse elfed
Environment Produclivity
High cost ol production

Activities

Vehicular traffic
..
Tillage
Agrochemicals
Waste disposal
Change in landuse

Fig. 3. Soil Structure and Its Economic and Environmental Impact

 Research, Reviews, Pracfices and Technology 81

Decline in Soil Structure and Degradative Processes

Decline in soil structure eventually leads to: (a) compaction,

crusting and hard-setting, (b) accelerated soil erosion, (c) excessive
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

wetness and anaerobiosis, (d) drought, and (e) salt imbalance. Most
of these processes have profound economic and environmental im-
pact (Figure 4), nationally and globally.
(i) Soil compaction: Soil compaction is a serious problem both in
temperate and tropical environments (Raghavan et al., 1990). In
USA, on-farm yield reduction due to soil compaction are estimated
at $2 billion annually. In Canada, annual economic loss due to soil
compaction is estimated to be $800 million. Compaction of the sur-
face layer can cause a significant reduction in crop yield. Allevia-
tion of surface soil compaction is easier and more manageable than
that of the sub-soil compaction. Reducing compaction of the sur-
face layer is achievable through proper tillage, growing soil amelio-
rating crops, and encouraging biological activity of soil fauna e.g.,
earthworms. Soil compaction can also be prevented through (i) re-
ducing weight of equipment, (ii) applying heavy load when traffic-
ability is good and soil is dry, (iii) reducing number of farm opera-
tions, (iv) using special tires with wider surface area, and (v) using
guided traffic system.
(ii) Accelerated soil erosion: Accelerated soil erosion is a global
threat (Lal, 1990). In USA, rates of sheetlrill and wind erosion
exceed the tolerable limit (T-value) on more than 116 million ha of
non-federal land and 70 million ha of cropland. Sheet and rill ero-
sion move annually about 3.4 billion tons of soil, and wind erosion
moves an additional 2 billion tons of soil on non-federal rural land
(Larson et al., 1981; USDA-Resource Inventory Assessment, 1987;
CAST, 1988). The loss of plant nutrients (N and P) alone is a major
economic setback. Larson et a]. (1983) estimated the national yield
loss due to erosion to be about 2% in 100 years. I think, this is an
under-estimate.
A major off-site effect of accelerated erosion is the flooding and
sedimentation. These processes affect suststainability of water re-
sources. Severe floods in 1990 caused untold damages in southeast-
ern Ohio, resulting in miseries and hardships to survivors of these
disasters. Annual cost of such floodings in USA is estimated at $5
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

I Erosion Management
I
Preventive measures Control measures
(soil and crop (runoff management)
management)

Mulch farming
Cover crops and planted -
G r a d e d channel terraces
Engineering structures
fallows

-.
Conservation tillage
Agroforestry
-Watenvays
Water reservoirs and surface
ponds
Multiple cropping

Fig. 4. Technological Options for Erosion Management

 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 83

billion, and the estimate is expected to increase to $9 billion by the

year 2030 (Duttweiler and Nicholson, 1983). In addition, water
runoff and erosion from agricultural land costs off-site damages be-
tween $3 billion and $13 billion. Above all, damages due to sedi-
mentation and associated contaminants are estimated at $5 billion
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

annually.
Prevention of soil erosion is a better and more sustainable option
than control. There are several technological options available for
erosion prevention and control (Figure 4). Erosion preventive mea-
sures are based on biological measures of using mulches. Different
types of mulch materials are outlined in Figure 5. Crop manage-
ment is another sustainable option for erosion prevention which
minimizes erosion through provision of an early and an adequate
ground cover. There is a wide range of crop management options
for reducing risks of soil erosion (Figure 6). Nutrient management,
for enhancing crop growth and canopy cover, is an integral part of
erosion control. Sustainable options of nutrient management for
low-resource farmers are listed in Figure 7.
(iii) Soil structure and groundwater quality: Deterioration in soil
structure lead to transport of pollutants to groundwater. Water man-
agement is crucial to soil structure and water quality. There are
several alternative technologies for water management (Figure 8).
Plow-based conventional tillage operations have harmful effect on
soil structure in comparison with a no-till system of soil manage-
ment. Are plow-based systems, therefore, sustainable? On the other.
hand, are no-till systems based on intensive use of herbicides sus-
tainable? Depending .on soil and environmental characteristics, a
significant amount of herbicides applied to agricultural crops can
eventually find their way into the groundwater.
(iv) Wetness and anaerobiosis: Deterioration in soil structure,
leading to compaction and reduction in volume of macropores, in-
hibits free transport of water through the soil profile. consequently,
soil becomes excessively wet and unsuitable for a satisfactory crop
growth. In USA, there are about 10 million ha of non-irrigated
cropland and 1.1 million ha of irrigated cropland in need of im-
proved drainage (USDA, 1987). It is estimated that 47% of all wet
soils are prime lands. Yield losses in corn and soybean due to ex-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Mulch

I
I I

I/ Brought-In

1 lnorganlc plants

Synthetic

.
Gravels .Soil .
Crop
..
Manure - Planted - Sod -Alley .
Plantation
Water
.conditioners
Polyethylene .residue
Induslrial
Compost
Kralling
lallows
Cover crops
Live mulch
seeding
.cropping
Tangua

Ley farming

Fig. 5. Different Types of Mulch Materials and Cultural Practices to Procure Them
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Crop Management for

Continuous Ground Cover

Cultural practices Planted fallows Cropping systems

Time of planting
High qualily seed
lmproved wnivar
-Cover crops
Live mulch
G r e e n manure .
Rotations and sequential
cropping
Mixed cropping
Pest control Ley farming Relay cropping
Fertilizer use Agrolorestry
Residue management Mixed farming

Fig. 6. Cultural Practices for Improved Crop Management Systems

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

G Nutrient Management

Off-farm input Nutrient recycling Decreasing losses

Chemical fertilizers Crop residue management Conservation tillage

Organic manures Mulch farming Time of application
Agroforestry e.g. alley cropping
Ley farming
Legume-based rolation
- Feflilizer placement
Slow-release formulation

Fig. 7. Soil and Crop Management for Nutrient Enhancement

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Water Management

Ir--l
Water conservation Runoff management

Water harvesting
Reservoirs

Irrigation

Conservation tillage Ground water

Mulch farming Small dams
Cropping systems

Fig. 8. Alternative Technologies for Water Management

 88 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

cessive wetness may be 5 to 10% (Fausey and Lal, 1989). The

magnitude of yield loss depends on the degree of stress factor due to
wetness.
(v) Drought: While crops may suffer from lack of air during peri-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

ods of excessive rains, decline in soil structure reduces plant-avail-

able water reserves in soil through decrease in the proportion of
retention pores. Furthermore, effective rooting volume is also re-
duced. Drought stress, as a severe constraint to crop and forage
production, is a serious problem in arid and semiarid-arid regions of
the world. Arid and semiarid regions of the world, a total of 55% of
the arable land area of the world, are particularly vulnerable to re-
curring drought stress. Rainfall effectiveness can be enhanced by in
situ conservation of water by increasing infiltration and reducing
runoff, by increasing soil-water retention in the root zone, and by
decreasing evaporation. Supplementary irrigation is another option.
Management of large-scale irrigation schemes is highly capital-in-
tensive. For low-resource farmers of the tropics, small scale irriga-
tion schemes are appropriate and await development and expansion.
(v!) Salt imbalance: In addition to drought stress, soils of arid and
semiarid regions are also vulnerable to salinization. In the world,
salt-affected soils cover 7% of the total land area, and about 33% of
the potentially arable land area, A total of about 1 billion ha are
affected around the world (USDA, 1987; Gupta and Abrol, 1990).
In USA, saline/sodic soils affect productivity on about 10% of crop-
land and pastureland including about 25% of irrigated.

Application of Principles of Soil Structure

Management to Alleviate
Soil-related Constraints

Restoration and improvements in soil structure has important ap-

plications in (i) soil erosion management, (ii) kind and timings of
soil operations, (iii) water management including drainage and/or
irrigation, (iv) land restoration, and (v) management in water qual-
ity. Management of soil surface for structure enhancement can al-
leviate constraints due to compaction, erosion, water and salt im-
balance, and poor root growth development. Some technological
options to achieve these exist, although local adaptation is often
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 89

necessary. In fact, this is the era of applied soil physics devoted to

addressing the problems of sustainability through the management
of soil structure. Soil physicists around the world are now at cross-
roads in extending the knowledge of quantitative processes ob-
served under laboratory conditions to the real world problems.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

CONCLUSIONS

Soil structure plays a major role in sustainability of agricultural

production, and in maintenance and enhancement of productive ca-
pacity and environmental mental quality of natural resources. Meth-
ods of assessment of soil structure, a difficult task indeed, should be
linked to the objectives. With a logical and systematic approach, it
is possible to establish a cause-effect relation between soil proper-
ties and soil structure-related degradative processes (e.g., compac-
tion, erosion, water and salt imbalance) and crop performance. It
may, however, be difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship
between soil structureperse on the one hand and crop performance,
water quality or the greenhouse effect on the other. Soil scientists
should, however, continue the endeavor to establish a direct rela-
tion between soil structure and agronomic or environmental issues.
Sustainability is a concept that is often used vaguely. There is a
need to establish a quantitative measure of sustainability on the ba-
sis of easily identifiable parameters that can be precisely measured.
Sustainability concepts embody the idealistic themes of stewardship
of land and water resources, and must be observed. These concepts
should, however, be rendered operational for both research and
practitioners. Some researchable topics of high priority include:

Develop a quantifiable measure of soil structure.

Translate sustainability concept into operational packages for
technology adoption, and quantifiable research topics.
Evaluate cropping/farming systems in terms of soil structure
and total productivity both present and future.
Develop a quantifiable measure of sustainability.
Initiate long-term croppinglfarming systems experiments in
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

different agro-ecological regions and evaluate their sustain-

ability in relation to soil structure.
Soil physicists to take an active part in these endeavors in
translating emotional considerations to objective measure-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

ments.

REFERENCES
Barrons, K.C. 1988. Body Building of Soils. Science of Food and Agriculture
6:22-26.
Boyd, D.W., Skidmore E.L. and Thompson, J.G. 1983. A Soil-aggregate Crush-
ing Energy-meter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:313-316.
Bruce-Okine, E. and Lal, R. 1975. Soil Erodibility as Determined by Raindrop
Technique. Soil Sci. I I9:149-l57.
Buringh, P. 1989. Availability of Agricultural Land for Crop and Livestock Pro-
duction. In: D. Pimentel and C. Hall (eds) "Food and Natural Resources,"
Academic Press, San Diego, CA: 70-85.
Burke, D., Gabriels, D. and Bouma, J. 1986. Soil Structure Assessment. A.A.
Balkema. Rotterdam, Holland, 92 vv.
Chepil, W.S. 1951. properties of soii which Influence Wind Erosion. Soil Sci.
72:387-401, 465-478.
Collis-George, N. and Lal, R. 1971. Infiltration and Structural Changes as Influ-
enced by Initial Moisture Content. Aust. I. Soil Res. 9:107-116.
Council for Agricultural Science Technology (CAST) 1988. Effective Use of Wa-
ter in Irrigated Agriculture. Report No. 113, Ames, Iowa.
De Leenheer, L. and De Boodt, M. 1959. Determination of Aggregate Stability
by the Change in Mean Weight Diameter. Meded. Landb. Gent 24:290-351.
Duttweiler, D.W. and Nicholson, H.P. 1983. Environmental Problems and Issues
of Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution, In: F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bai-
ley (eds) "Agricultural Management and Water Quality." Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames, IA: 3-16.
El-Hinnawi, E. and Hashmi, M.H. 1987. The State of the Environment. But-
terworth, London, 182 pp.
Fausey, N.R. and Lal, R. 1989. Drainage-tillage Effects on Crosby-Kokomo Soil
Association in Ohio. I. Effects on Stand and Corn Grain Yield. Soil Technol-
ogy 2:359-370.
Fausey, N.R. and Lal, R. 1990. Soil Wetness and Anaerobiosis. Adv. Soil Sci.
11:173-186.
Gupta, R.K. and Abrol, I.P. 1990. Salt-affected Soils: Their Reclamation and
Management for Crop Production. Adv. Soil Sci. 11:223-288.
Hamblin, A.P. 1985. The Influence of Soil Structure on Water Movement, Crop
Root Growth and Water Uptakc. Adv. Agron. 38:95-158.
 Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 91

Henin, S., Monnier, G. and Combeau, A. 1958. Methode Pour L'ttude de la

Stabilitt Structurale des Sols. Anales Agronomiques 1:71-90.
Kay, B.D., Angers, D.A., Groenevelt, P.H. and Baldock, J.A. 1988. Quantify-
ing the Influence of Cropping History on Soil Structure. Can. I. Soil Sci.
68:359-368.
Lal, R. 1990. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation: The Global Risks. Adv. Soil
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

Sci. 11:129-172.
Lal, R. and Stewart, B.A. 1990. Soil Degradation. Adv. Soil Sci. Vol. 11.
Springer Verlaag, 344 pp.
Larinov, A.K. 1982. Methods of Studying Soil Structure. USDA-NSF Publica-
tion, Amerind Publishing Co., New Delhi, India, 193 pp.
Larson, W.E., Walsh, L.M., Stewart, B.A. and Boelter, D.H. 1981. Soil and
Water Resources Research Priorities for the Nation. Soil Sci. Soc. America,
Madison, WI.
Larson, W.E., Pierce, F.J. and Dowdy, R.H. 1983. TheThreat of Soil Erosion to
Long-term Crop Productivity. Science 218:458-465.
Letey, J. 1985. Relationship Between Soil Physical Properties and Crop Produc-
tion. Adv. Soil Sci. 1:277-294.
McCalla, T.M. 1944. Water-drop Mcthod of Determining Stability of Soil Struc-
ture. Soil Sci. 58:117-121.
Olson, G.W. 1981. Archaeology: Lessons on Future Soil Use. J. Soil Water Con-.
sew. 36:261-264.
Parr, J.F., Papendick, R.I., Hornick, S.B. and Colacicco, D. 1989. Use of Or-
ganic Amendments for Increasing the Productivity of Arid Lands. Arid Soil
Research and Rehabilitation 3:149-170.
Poincelot, R.P. 1986. Towards a More Sustainable' Agriculture. AVI Publishing
Co.,Westport, Connecticut, 241 pp.
Poincelot, R.P. 1990. Agriculture in Transition. J. Sustainable Agriculture 1:9-
40.
Raghavan, G.S.V., Alvo, P. and McKyes, E. 1990. Soil Compaction in Agricul-
ture: A View Toward Managing the Problem. Adv. Soil Sci. 11:l-36.
Russell, E.W. 1971. Soil Structure: Its Maintenance and Improvement. J. Soil
Sci. 22:137-151.
Stewarl, W.D.P. 1990. Importance to Sustainable Agriculture of Biodiversity
Among Invertebrates and Microorganisms. In Workshop on the "Ecological
Foundations of Sustainable Agriculture." CAB International, 26-27 July
1990, London.
TAC. 1988. Sustainable Agricultural Production: Implications for International
Agricultural Research. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Thomasson, A.J. 1971. Soils of the Melton Mowbray District. Memoins Soil
Survey of England and Wales.
USDA. 1987. The Second RCA Appraisal: Soil, Water and Related Resources on
Non-federal Land in the United States, Analysis of Conditions and Trends.
Govt. Printer, Washington, D.C.
 92 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Van Bavel, C.H.M. 1949. Mean Weight Diameter o f Soil Aggregates as a Statis-
tical Index o f Soil Aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 14:20-23.
Yoder, R.E. 1936. A Direct Method o f Aggregate Analysis o f Soils and a Study
o f the Physical Nature o f Erosion Losses. 1. Am. Soc. Agron. 28:337-351.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 20:20 29 January 2015

RECEIVED: 8/21/90
REVISED: 12/10/90
ACCEPTED: 113191

lor faculty/prolessionals wilh journal subscriplion recommendalion

.
aulhorily for their inslilulional library. .
If you have read a reprint or photocopy of lhis adicle, would
you like l o make sure lhal your library also subscribes lo
lhis journal? If you have the aulhority lo recommend sub-
scriplions lo your library, we will send you a free sample
copy for review wilh your librarian. Just fill out Ihe form below-and make
sure that you type or wrlte out clearly both tho name 01 the journal and
your own name and address.
( ) Yes, please send me a complimentary sample copy of this journal:

(please wrile in complele journal lille here-do not leave blank)

I will show this journal lo our inslilulional or agency library for a possible
subscription.
The name of my inslitulionallagency library is:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

Relurn lo. Sample Copy Department, The Haworlh Press. Inc..
10 Alice Slreet, Binghamlon. NY 13904-1580