Soil & Tillage Research, 19 ( 1991 ) 145-164 145

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Factors and indices regarding excessive

compactness of agricultural soils

A. Canarache
Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Blvd. Marasti 61, Bucharest (Romania)
(Accepted for publication 3 July 1990)

ABSTRACT

Canarache, A., 1991. Factors and indices regarding excessive compactness of agricultural soils. Soil
TillageRes., 19: 145-164.

A conceptual model is presented which includes the main factors and mechanisms of compacting
and loosening processes leading to changes in the state of compactness of agricultural soils. The state
of the art in simulation modelling of various submodels is discussed. A classification of excessive
compaction of agricultural soils according to depth of occurrence in the soil profile and its causes and
mechanisms is discussed, as well as specific techniques to alleviate various types of compaction. A
number of indices now in use to measure the ~tate of compactness are compared and prospects of
selection among these indices, in view of developing a standardized method are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Interest in soil compaction initially developed in engineering, and referred

to the need for building stable foundations, earth embankments or other con-
structions. The maximum state of compactness being the goal, research was
mainly directed towards finding the moisture content at which the maximum
bulk density of a given soil could be obtained and developing suitable imple-
ments and techniques to be used in construction worL
Regarding agxicultural soils, farmers have always known that they need a
moderate state of compactness. Research was carded out to determine the
relationships between bulk density and other indices of the state of compact-
ness and plant response (e.g. Czeratzk~, 1972; Sipo~, 1972), and values for
these indices, optimal for various soil textures, mainly in the seedbed, were
suggested. In most cases only the right-hand part of the yield response curves
expressing such relationships is of practical interest for field soils, and this is

0167-1987/91/$03.50 © 1 9 9 1 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

146 A.CANARACHE

probably the reason why subsequent interest was devoted much more to ex-
cessive compactness than to excessive looseness.
Probably the first type of excessive compactness explicitly referred to in
practice and in the literature was the ploughpan, which developed when the
same depth of ploughing was repeatedly used.
The advent of mechanized agriculture, the permanent trend towards in-
creasing the mass and changing other characteristics of the equipment tilling
the soil or trafficking at its surface, as well as other changes specific to mod-
em, intensive agriculture, led, during the last decades, to a sharp increase in
compaction processes. Interest in research developed accordingly, and re-
sulted in a number of reviews and treatises (Barnes et al., 1971; Chancellor,
1977; Soane, 1983; Taylor and Gill, 1984; Kuipers, 1986; Kravchenko, 1986;
Kushanarev and Matseparo, 1986; H'~kansson et al., 1988), special issues
(Bondarev, 1981; Sudakov, 1982; Kov'0a, 1987) and national or interna-
tional meetings (Halle, German Democratic Republic, 1987, see Ermich,
1980; Avignon, France, 1985, see Monnier and Goss, 1987; Hannover, FRG,
1986, see Drescher et al., 1988; Paris, France, 1988, see Anonymous, 1988),
of which the international Conference in Lublin, Poland, 1989 (see Anony-
mous, 1989) is the last and perhaps the largest.
In this paper we discuss some of the problems presently facing research in
the field of compaction as well as some of the possible ways to proceed in
further research work.

MODELLINGSOIL-CLIMATE-FARMINGSYSTEM-COMPACTIONINTERACTIONS

At present there is sufficient knowledge on compaction processes to de-

velop a comprehensive simulation model involving most of the specific as-
pects pertaining to these processes, and we expect such a development in the
near future. As a preliminary step, a conceptual model is suggested in Fig. 1.
In this model, firstly a list is given of the main factors affecting compacting
and loosening processes, and the possible interactions between these factors.
Secondly, submodels are indicated which refer to changes in soil moisture
content, season of tillage and traffic, trafficability and workability of soils,
soil compactibility and, finally, to compaction and various kinds of loosening
processes~ The final output of the model is the state of compactness, and its
feedback effects on some of the initial factors and submodels.
Most of the climate, soil and farming system factors affecting compacting
and loosening processes have been discussed in the literature, although the
discussion i'g usually restricted to only some of the factors and often to con-
ditions prevailing in specific areas.
Under the heading of soil factors, we have included texture, humus content
and exchangeable cations as more or less permanent soil properties, and dis-
persion and structure as variable soil properties, which characterize a specific
MODELS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL COMPACTNESS | 47

l
e soil
Factors affectingQna. i
compaction
toosening processes

I-cI,mate ~
' ~.~°,, k
I l
=Lie Farming
system

t I
JFarm machinery
drying I Je Evapotrals-J • Clay mineralogy I.C ~Ttltage system

/
• F.... ing/,I ~ H• u m u ~ DFarm transport
tnaving I • ExchangeablecQtior
• Oisper.~lon
• Stru(ture
• Mesofa a

)Trafficabillty
PWorknbility

• Compaction
pro t e s s

Ii Sei li Biological
loosening

State of compaCtneSs

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of factors and processes affecting the state of soil compactness.
148 A.CANARACHE

soil with respect to formation and destruction of aggregates, water regime and
mechanical behaviour. The soil mesofauna (especially earthworms) has also
been included, considering its role in mixing and loosening processes.
The balance between rainfall and evapc,:ranspiration, including, when ap-
propriate, the effects of ir~'igation and/or drainage, are the main climatic fac-
tors affecting the soil water regime. Usually, freezing and thawing have been
considered among the main processes leading to natural loosening of soils,
and this is the reason why Gill ( 1971 ), assessing the intensity of compaction
in the U.S.A., sharply distinguished the areas with and without below-zero
temperatures in the winter time. In areas with heavy soils, the alternation of
wetting and drying, and of swelling and shrinking processes is at least as im-
portant but perhaps not yet well recognized.
Farming system factors are implicit in most literature on compaction, but
are seldom explicitly discussed. Among the factors to be considered are spe-
cific tillage and maintenance operations and field transport required by a given
crop, length of vegetation season and of seasons in-between succeeding crops,
soil moisture content conditions prevailing during these seasons, as well as
number, type and working conditions of farm machinery. To give some ex-
amples, manure spreading has been found to be one of the main causes of
compaction in some Scottish areas (Soane, 1987 ). The effect on compaction
of combine harvesting of maize has been studied in Romania (Florescu and
Canarache, 1965 ). The maize-w'~ter wheat rotation has been ~bund to have
the most negative effect on the soil physical status owing to the short interval
between harvesting maize and sowing wheat (Dumitru et al., 1981 ). In var-
ious climates, wet or dry conditions in spring and autumn focus the attention
on compaction caused either by seedbed preparation for spring crops, or by
harvesting and yield transportation.
A discussion of the various subsystems in Fig. 1 and of the extent to which
each of these subsystems can be treated as a simulation model is necessary.
The soil moisture content subsystem is, probably, the most advanced as re-
lated to simulation modelling. We refer to the well-known SWATRE model
(Feddes et al., 1978 ) and the SIBIL model (Simota, 1984) which is used in
Romania and includes some additional developments compared with
SWATRE. They both take into account climatic parameters, soil physical
properties and crop deveropment stages, and make use of a number of me-
chanistic relationships related to flux of water in the soil-plant-atmosphere
continuum. The CREAMS model (Knisel, 1980) features an additional term
which accounts for surface runoffon sloping lands. The main problem facing
incorporation of these models into the soil compaction system refers to the
need for adapting them to the upper soil layer, where most of the compacting
and loosening processes take place.
At present there are no explicit simulation models available for the tillage/
MODELS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL COMPACTNESS 149

traffic season subsystem, but development of such models should not pose
too many problems.
Trafficability and workability have been extensively studied (Thomasson,
1982; Thomasson and Jones, 1988) and progress has been made in the devel-
opment of simulation models for this subsystem (Wind, 1976; Van Wijk and
Feddes, 1982), but some further development is still necessary. In these
models, climatic and soil pa~-ameters eventually leading to soil moisture con-
tent are the input variables, and the number of days when the land can be
used for tillage and/or traffic in different seasons for a given location is the
output.
Soil compactibility is presently being studied, mainly experimemally, using
various laboratory compressibility tests (Felt, 1965) and a theoretical soil
mechanics approach. Nevertheless, semi-empirical and theoretkal simula-
tion models are now being developed (Blackweil and Soane, 1981; Gupta and
Larson, 1982; Smith, 1987; Nerpin et al., 1988) and, probably, they will soon
be available for incorporation into the compaction model. Input variables
used include most or some of the permanent and moderately variable soil
properties listed at the beginning of this section, but most important are the
rapidly variable soil properties: soil moisture content, which can be modelled,
and state of compactness, which in fact is the ultimate goal of the compaction
model.
Until now there has been less interest in modelling the compaction and
loosening processes themselves, but such modelling should not be very diffi-
cult once the previously discussed subsystems are described as simulation
models. Compaction processes and mechanical loosening through tillage im-
plements have been extensively studied using the basic soil mechanics ap-
proach (Hettiaratchi, 1988 ), as well as in many experimental studies related
to the effects of traffic (e.g. Canarache et ai., 1984). There are only a few
e:~perimental data o n settling and self-loosening under field conditions (Kui-
pets and Van Ouwerkerk, 1963; Dumitru et al., 1989). Biological loosening
under the influence of root system development was discussed, among others,
by Canarache et al. (1983);~.~a there is also experimental evidence of the
effect of earthworms (Pop a:!ldPostoiache, 1985 ).
The output of the entire cdmpaction model is, of course, the state of com-
pactness of the soil. As alreai~.:tystated, it is a result of the two counteracting
processes, compaction and loosening, and it depends on all the factors and
subsystems discussed earlier. The state of compactness is variable over time.
It is influenced by a long-term trend, mainly related to changes in the farming
system and the agricultura~ eqaipment, by annual variations in weaih~i~con-
ditions, and by a variation within each year owing to tillage, other farming
operaP.ons and specific seasonal weather conditions. The state of compact-
ncss a [t'ccts many soil properties and the soil moisture regime. As a conse-
 o o
-'n~
-1 m
r--
e,, L,+m
!
1 i, i 1
j" __ - -
I
!
I
i
I
I I
-.~. ---- u. ""
I
:. ~--< ~_o. ~.
~ ~,~ ~ -
iiiiL • I
I++1o mm
I
i~
N
3H~WaV~V~'V 0~I
MODELSOF AGRICULTURALSOILCOMPACTNESS 15 |

quence it affects crop development and has a feedback effect on compactibil-

ity and on compaction and loosening processes.
More detail of the tillage-compaction system is given in Fig. 2, which is a
development of earlier work by Canarache and Dumitru (1986).
Various tillage operations, such as ploughing and secondary tillage for
seedbed preparation or for soil maintenance, are performed with different
objectives and have different direct effects; loosening, mellowing, mixing, set-
fling, crust breaking and perhaps some others..At the same t:~e, tillage oper-
ations have inevitable side effects. Some of them, such as co~apaction, clod
formation and smearing, are noticeable at the same time as the direct effects.
Others are residual effects, noticeable over a long time. They relate to changes
in basic soil properties, with consequences for dispersion and structure and,
eventually, for compactibility and state of compactness. The feedback refers
to the influence of structure on the immediate side effects of tillage. More-
over, an increase in compactness as well as clod formation and smearing cause
the farmer to perform more tillage operations which, in turn, induce n-tore
negative side effects. We face a kind of vicious circle, and have to break it if
we want to avoid an even more severe deterioration of the physical status of
the soil. Breaking this vicious circle is possible through improving the farm-
ing system, including the crop rotation and the farming equipment, perform-
ing tillage and traffic only under favourable soil moisture conditions, and en-
suring proper fertilization.

CLASSIFICATION O F EXCESSIVE COMPACTNESS C F A G R I C U L T U R A L SOILS

Two main criteria may be used to classify compaction of agricultural soils.

( 1 ) Depth of occurrence of the compact layer (horizon) in the soil profile,
as related to the depth of various tillage operations. Based on a classification
suggested by Kuipers (1986), we have developed the concept of the agro-
physical soil profile (Canarache, 1987c; Fig. 3). Schulte-Karring ( 1981 ) made
a distinction between soil profiles with only shallow individual compact lay-
ers, such as ploughpans ("schichtweise Verdichtung") and fully compact soil
profiles, especially throughout a clay-illuviation horizon ("Allgemein-
verdichtung").
(2) Origin of the compact layer (horizon), either related to specific char-
acteristics of the parent material and soil-forming processes, or to improper
soil management. In the terminology of Hartge (1965), natural compaction
owing to parent material properties and mode of deposition is called "Sedi-
mentationsverdichtung", whereas those related to clay-iiluviation and other
soil-forming processes are called "Einlagerungsverdich~ung", and induced
companion "Sackungsverdichtung". In discussing the various possible ori~ns
of compacted horizons or layers, Hartge stresses the dif'ierences in pore-size
distribution of these different kinds of compaction, which are related mainly
152 A. CANARACHE

NA M ~ FUNCTION LI HI TATION MANAGEMENT

Superficial layer Soil-nfmosphere exchanges Crusting Oisking,culhvating

Seedbed Germination Excessive [oosenipg Disking,cuifivating,
f settling or rnellowl~ rolling
Ploughed layer Hoisfure and nuf,ienfs Structure degradahc~ Ploughing
uptake
Ploughpnn andlor Soil-subsoil~xchQnges Induced compaction Subsoiling.~-a~..ingof
traffic pan improvirig crops, irrtgutio|

Roof zone Moisture uptake Natural compaction Deep ripping

r~ismg o, improving
crops, irrigation
c~ 6o
/
/
Fig. 3;. The agrophysical soil profile.

TABLE I

Types of excessive compaction of agricultural soils and measures to control it

Types of compaction according to depth, causes and mechanisms Measures to control compaction

Type Depth Natural Artificial Prevention Improvement

(cm)
Extremely 0-5 Sandy Soils Raindrops Mulch Secondary
superficial clay with Grazing tillage
Inures degraded
and other structure
Surface 0-10 soils Secondary Limitation Conventional
with non- tillage ofpressure, tillage
balanced mass and
0-25 texture Primary number of
tillage passes
Avoiding
Shallow 20-35 Constant depth traffic/ Subsoiling
depth of ploughing tillage under
(ploughpan) Farm equipment of non-favourable
medium mass (c. 3 t / soil moisture
axle)
Deep > 30 Clay Farm equipment of very Avoiding Deep ripping
illuvial high mass ( > 10 t/axle) very high
horizons mass of
Other farm
heavy equipment
and
dense
soils
MODELSOF AGRICULTURALSOILCOMPACTNESS 153

to filling in of large pores by clay-size soil particles during clay-illuviation

processes. In addition, some authors (Lhotsky et al., 1984) differentiate be-
t~veen primary compaction, either natural or induced, and secondary com-
paction, which is an induced recompaction of a former compact and then
loosened layer. Unger (1984) discussed means of controlling this specific kind
of compaction.
Combination of these two classification criteria resulted in Table 1. For
each combination of depth and origin of compaction, prevailing causes and
mechanisms are shown in the left-hand part of this table. In the right-hand
part of the table, management measures to prevent compaction and to im-
prove already compacted soils are presented, and they are adjusted to specific,
features of each type of compaction.

M E A S U R I N G T H E STATE O F C O M P A C T N E S S

Early research into compaction used bulk density and total porosity as in-
dices of the state of compactness. In fact, for most mineral soils, these two
indices have the same meaning, as they are inversely related.
However, it was soon recognized tha~ interpretation of bulk density or total
porosity would not be the same for all soils, as it is dependent on soil texture.
With increasing clay content, lower bulk densities and higher total porosities
will separate compact from non-compact soils. Czeratzki (1972) was one of
the first authors to develop a system of bulk density data to define compac-
tion for the main three particle-size classes. Recently, a more detailed set of
bulk densities has been presented by Petelkau (1984), who tak,: s into account
not only clay content but also silt and sand contents, and explicitly states that
his data refer to bulk densities restrictive for a high-quality seedbed.
Another approach to the interpretation of bulk density mM to~al porosity
data for soils of different texture makes use of complex indices, some ofwhich
are presented below.
Packing density was defined by Beneke ( 1966 ) and Renger 1970) as:
PD=BD+O.O09 C ( 1)
where PD is packing density (g cm-3), BD is bulk density (gcm -3) and Cis
clay content (%, w/w).
Values of 1.40 and 1.75 g c m -3 of packing density are considered to sepa-
rate non-compact, moderately compact and compact soils, respectively. The
concept of packing density has been included in the official soil survey method
used in the U.K. (Hodgson, 1974).
Jones (1983) suggested that one could calculate bulk density restricting
rooting using:
BDr= 1.52-0.00646 C (2)
154 A.CANARACHE

where BDr is restricting bulk density (gcm -3) and C is clay content (%, w/
w).
Compaction degree was developed by Stfing~ (1978) and is used in the
official soil survey method of Romania (Florea et al., 1987). It is defined as:
CD= ( P T m - P T ) 100/PTm (3)
where CD is compaction degree (%, v/v), P T m is minimal required total
porosity (%, v/v) and PTis actual total porosity (%, v/v).
The minimal required total porosity results from:
PTm=44.9+O. 163 C (4)
where C is clay content (%, w/w).
Compaction degrees of 0, 10 and 18 separate non-compact, slightly com-
pact, moderately compact and severely compact soils, respectively.
Another group of complex indices to evaluate the state of compactness is
based on a standard bulk density, to be determined under conventional lab-
oratory conditions, which is compared with actual bulk densffy values. The
most widely used index in this group is the degree of compactness (H~kans-
son, 1988):
D = 1O0 BD/BDma,, (5)
where D is degree of compaction (%, w/w), BD is actual bulk density (g
cm-3), and BOma,~is maximum bulk density (gcm -3) as determined under
a static load of 200 kPa (Andersson and Hfikansson, 1967).
A different approach was used by Bennie and Van Antwerpen ( 1988 ), who
termed their index the degree of compaction:
DC= ( BD-BD~:,n) / ( B D m ~ - B D ~ i . ) (6)
where DC is degree of compaction (%, w/w), BD is actual bulk density (g
era-3), BDmin is minimum bulk density (g era-3), and BDmax is maximum
bulk density (g era- 3).
In Fig. 4 a comparison of some of these indices is pre~cnted. Packing den-
sity and compaction degree are given in this graph for selected values, the
significance of these values having been given above. Unfortunately, it was
not possible to include in this graph the degree of compactness, or the degree
of compaction, because as yet no way of calculating these indices for various
'~9il textures is available. Riley ( 1988 ) suggested an equation to calculate this,
but entries in the equation do not include clay content and the equation looks
as if it has been adap~.ed to soils with relatively high contents of organic mat-
ter and coarse fragments, which are not widespread in the geographical area
familiar to the author of this paper. Instead, we considered it acceptable to
include data 611 field bt~!k density which, according to our experience, may be
considered maximum for Romanian mineral soils. For data from Petelkau a
MODELSOF AGRICULTURALSOILCOMPACTNESS 155

2.00.
Jones

1.80'
'S',
'~ 1.60 ~ . .-7.. ~ , ~ ....~ L,.Moximum field
bulk density

1./+0•
¢1

1.20 •~-~ ":r- 0- tTs~

.x¢ /
g "'~'°.~ rI ~>Beneke, Renger
100
-" i i
"~~. - pO--l~O J
0.80
0 10 20 30 60 50 60
Cloy content { %, g.g-1 ]

Fig. 4. Bulk densities corresponding to limiting values o f some complex indices o f the state o f
compactness for various clay contents. C D = compaction degree; PD = packing density.

TABLE 2

Comparison of linear regression equations ( log K = a + b. PD ) for various clay contents = (example)

Clay Range (average_+ to.os'Standard deviation)

content
(%, w/w ) Parameters of the equation Calculated log K for specific PD

a b 1.2'0 1.70 2.20

0 3.21-3.56 - !.15..-0.93 2.09-2.i ~) 1.59-1.65 1.13.. 1.27

10 3.18-3.87 -1.72..-1.29 1.65-1.79 0.93-1.05 0.13.. 0.30
20 3.32-4.06 - 2 . 0 6 . . - 1.66 1.52-1.64 0.53-0.59 -0.43..-0.29
30 3.79-4.72 -2.56..-2.02 1.42-1.54 0.30-0.36 -0.90..-0.76
40 4.04-4.74 -2.61..-2.21 1.45-1.55 0.28-0.32 -0.95..-0.87
50 4.25-4.91 -2.69..-2.31 1.53-1.63 0.31-0.33 -0.96..-0.8;/
60 4.56-5.22 -2.83..-2.47 1.66-1.76 0.37-0.41 -0.97..-0.91
7G 4.65-5.17 -2.81..-2.52 1.67-i.75 0.34-0.37 -0.89°.-0.93
20-70 4.32-4.82 - 2 . 3 5 _ -2.63 1.69-1.78 0.44-0.52 -0.79..-0.65
aK=saturated hydraulic conductivity (ram h - J ); P D = packing density (g cm-3 ).

range is presented for each clay content, depending on various amounts of silt
and sand.
From Fig. 4 it may be seen that t.he general trend is the same for the various
indices considered, although there are some differences in interpretation ow-
ing to the authors or to local peculiarities of the geographical areas where
these indices have been defined.
156 A.CANARACHE

TABLE 3

Comparison of goodness of fi~ for various types of regression equations (examples)

Type of regression Correlation coefficients of linearized equations for different

equation variables and clay contents

D P = f (PD) a A M C = f (DP) a
clay content 0%, w/w clay content 10%, w/w

y=a+bx -0.99 0.95

y= l/(a+bx) 0.94 -0.96
y=a+b/x 0.96 -0.71
y= l/(a+b/x) -0.89 0.76
y = a + b logx -0.98 0.85
y = l / ( a + b.logx ) 0.92 -0.89
y = a + b x l/z -0.98 0.91
y = ( a + b x ) I/~ -0.99 0.84
y=ax b -0.95 0.87
y=a bx -0.97 0.96
y=aq-bx-l-cx 2 0.99 b 0.99b

aDP= drainable porosity (%, v/v); PD= packing density (gcm- 3); A M C = available moisture capac-
ity (%, w/w).
bCorrelation index.

~, - 30 0 30 1.20 1.60 2.00

•~ Compncfion d e g r e e [ % , v / v ) Packing density ( g-cm -3 )
o
x!

50 75 100
Relative bulk density ( % )

Fig. 5. Relationships of drainabl~, ~rosity to some indices of the state of compactness.

MODELSOFAGRICULIURALSOILCOMPACTNESS I ~7

ol
; 0 3'0 1120 1.60 2.00'---'~"
Compaction degree{%, v/v) Packing dc~lsity( 9" crn-3 )
._,J

c lay
~= 2/' 1

~ 16 y 16-4 / f , i °

8' ~o

o -1---,, , -7o
50 ?5 100 0 20
Relative bulk density (%) Orainable porosity (%,v/v)

Fig. 6. Relationships of the available moisture capacity to some indices of the state of
compactness.

. ~ ~ iilC
la y

~ 0-

°
E
E- 1 70
- 30 ~ 1o 1.20 1.60 2.00
Compaction degree (%,v/v) Packing densify Io~-cm"3 )
0

2- clay
J1/ f .~ zf~0

~0

-I ' -~o

Relative bulk density (%) Drainable porosity ~%, ,,,/v)

Fig. 7. Relationships of the saturated hydraulic conductivity to some indices of the state of
compactness.
! 58 A.CANARACHE

An indirect way of estimating the intensity of compactness could be to ex-

amine some soil physical properties directly related to both clay content and
bulk density or total porosity. From among such properties we have selected
drainable porosity, available water capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity
and resistance to penetration. It was considered important to find out, when
evaluating the state of compactness, how much these soil properties lead to
an interpretatiu,i similar to some of the complex indices formerly discussed.
Accordingly, graphs were prepared to show relationships between various pairs
of soil properties. Preparation of these graphs was based on estimation meth-
ods now in use in Romania for selected soil physical properties (Canarache,
1987a,b; 1990), which replace actual determinations quite well.
Initially, regressioi~s were calculated separately for each clay content. In
many cases parameters ef these regressions were not significantly different
among themselves; an ex~:mp!e being given in Table 2. In s-~ch cases, data for
various clay contents were merged, and single regressions for the entire group
of clay contents were calculated. Linear and several non-linear relationships
were tested in each case (Table 3) and the best of them was chosen, using
classical statistical evaluation for goodness of fit. In some cases linear regres-

21 21 clay

1 Io-70

;,. O] 0

-1Jr . . . . . . 1~ ""
=, - 30 b '"JO 1J20- 1'.50 2'.00
Compactiondegree1%,v/v ) Packing density( g-cm-]1
2- i
o
:lay
i
~ 1- /o-70 1-

g 0
/ 0-
~ o c~ay
10-70
S0 75 100 ~o Ko
Relative bulk density (%) Drainable porosity(%,v/v)
Fig. 8. Relationships of the resistance to penetration (at field capacity) to some indices of the
state of compactness.
MODELS OF AGRICULTURALSOIL COMPACTNESS 159

TABLE 4

Statistics o f regresgions between several soil physical properties used ~s indices o f compactness

xa ya Clay Regression equation r ty/x

content
(%, w / w )

CD DP 0 y = 3 4 . 5 - 0.347x -0.99 ~
10 y=25.1-0.476x -0.99 b
20-70 y = 1 6 . 7 - 0 . 7 lOx+O.OO664x 2 0.98
PD DP 0 y= 76.8-28.3x -0.99 b
10-70 y = 1 3 1 . 3 - 89.8x+ 13.4x ~ 0.97
BDr DP 0 y= 77.4-0.560x -0.99 b
10 y= 79.4-0.715x --0.99 b
20-60 y = 1 3 0 . 5 - 2.13x+O.OO829x 2 0.99
70 y = 145.7-2.87x+O.O142x 2 0.99
CD AMC 0 y = 5.4-0.173x+O.OO283x 2 0.99
10 y= 11.6-0.136x+0.00156x 2 0.99
20-50 y = 12.5-0.11 l x - O . O O l 4 0 x 2 0.80
60 y = 9.7--0.198x-O.OO243x 2 0.99
70 y = 1 3 . 6 - 0 . 3 6 2 x - 0.00429x 2 0.99
PD .4MC 0 y = 6 9 . 9 - 72.3::+ 19.5x 2 0.99
10 y= 54.1-40.6x+ 9.74x 2 0.99
20-60 y= -3.0+28.3x- 11.5x 2 0.91
70 y = - 0.4 + 3 9 . 0 x - 17.3x 2 0.99

BDr AMC 0 y = 7 1 . 8 - 1 . 4 5 x +0.0762x 2 0.99

i0 y = 50.5 - 0 . 8 2 i x + 0.00403x 2 0.99
20-6b y = 1.7 + 3 . 4 3 3 x - 0 . 0 0 3 9 1 x 2 0.80
70 y = i 7.1 + 0 . 2 8 0 ~ - 0.00444x 2 0.99
DP AMC 0 y=20.6-1.47x +0.296x 2 0.99
10 y = 9.0-- 0.0927x+ 0.00766x 2 0.99
20-60 y= 6.7+0.388x--0.00535x 2 0.75
70 y = 2 . 5 + 1 . 0 5 x --0.0159x 2 0.97
CD logK 0 y = 1.83 ~O.0127x --L/.99 b
10 y = 1 . 1 5 - 0.0203x+ 0.000149x z 0.99
20 y=0.79-0.0239x -0.99 b
30-70 y=0.29-0.0355x -0.96 b

PD iogK 0 y=3.39-1.0-7~, -0.89 b

10 y= 5 . 8 8 - 4 . 5 5 x + 0 . 9 5 6 x : 0.99
20-30 y = 3 . 9 6 - 2.07x - - U.96 b
40-70 y = 4.67 -- 2.54x --0.99 b

BDr !ogK 0 y=4.75-O.O541x+O.OOO204x 2 0.99

10 y= 5.52- 0.0843x+ 0.000353x 2 0.99
20 y = 5 . 3 8 - 0.0858x+0.00032 I x 2 0.99
30-7G y = 3 . 4 2 - 0.042 I x -- 0.96 b

DP logK 0 y= 1 . 6 7 - 0 . 0 3 9 5 x +0.00124x 2 0.99

10 y = 0.56+ 0.0022 I x + 0.00083 Ix 2 0.99
20-40 y = - 0.39 + 0 . 0 5 2 6 x - 0.000140x-" 0.96
50-70 y = - 0 . 9 1 + 0 . 0 8 5 8 x - 0.000889x 2 0.98
160 A. CANARACHE

TABLE 4 (Continued)

x~ y~ Clay Regression equation r ly/x

content
(%, w/w)
CD logRPf 0-70 y=O.39+O.O269x-O.OOO368x 2 0.92
PD IogRPf 0 y = -6.61 ~, 6.92x- !.52x 2 9.99
10-70 y = - 5.35 + 4.92x-0.910x 2 0.98
BDr logRPf 0-70 y = - 4.14 + 0.0858x- 0.000347x 2 0.94
DP logRPf C y = -0.01 +0.119x-9.00313x 2 0.99
10-70 y = 0 . 9 6 - 0.0239x- 0.000408x 2 0.97

~DP= drai nable porosity (%, v / v ); AMC= available moisture capacity (%, w/w ); K= saturated hy-
draulic conductivity (mm h-J); RPf=resistance to penetration at field capacity (MPa);
CD=compaction degree (%, v / v ) ; PD=packing density (g cm-3); and BDr=relative bulk density
(gem-3).
bSignificaniat the 0. i level.

sions were good enough, while in other cases second-de~ee regressions were
found to be a statistically significant better fit and to show better the trend of
these particular regressions which have more gentle slopes towards the
extremities.
The results of the calculations are shown in Figs. 5-8, while parameters of
the ~'gression equations and correlation coc~cients arc ~howa in Table 4.
Examining these data shows that in most cases the regressions, which are all
highly significant, differ for coarse-te~tured soil:, and in some instances also
for fine-textured soils. Only in some cases the same regression proved to be
valid for the entire range of clay contents.

CONCLUSIONS

Various subsystems of the soil compaction mode1 are at present being stud-
ied. Quantitative, mechanistic relationsifips are only available for some of
them. Nevertheless, the conceptual model presented in this paper could be
developed into a simulation model to predict the state of compactness.
Compaction processes and their causes and mechanisms may be quite dif-
ferent, with practical consequences for the selection of appropriate control
techniques.
Various indices used to describe the state of compactness, although in gen-
eral showing the same trend, are not always well correlated, because each of
these indices expresses some kind of specific inforraation. As a consequence,
choosing one of these indices as a unique standardized measure of the state
of compactness does not seem feasible~ and the use of several of these indices
at the same time seems to be necessary.
MODELSOFAGRICULTURALSOILCOMPACTNESS 16 !

A m o n g future research needs in the field o f soil c o m p a c t i o n t h e following

m i g h t be considered: ( 1 ) a systemic a p p r o a c h to t h e factors a n d processes
leading to various states o f c o m p a c t n e s s , a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e
relationships b e t w e e n the various subsystems; ( 2 ) m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e
m e c h a n i s m s , processes a n d practical m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n i q u e s specific to var-
ious k i n d s o f c o m p a c t i o n ; ( 3 ) b e t t e r s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f a selectea n u m b e r o f
indices o f the state o f compactness.

REFERENCES

Andersson, S. and H~kansson, I., 1967. Determination of the volume relationship in the differ-
ent layers of the topsoil. In: M. De Boodt, L. De Leenheer, H. Frese, A.J. Low and P.K.
Peerlkamp (Editors), West-European Methods for Soil Structure Determinations. The State
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghent, VII, pp. 25-29.
Anonymous, 1988. Le tassement des sols agricoles. Probl6mes actuels et perspectives. C. R.
Seances Aead. Agric. Fr., 74, No. l, 62 pp.
Anonymous, 1989, Abstracts. Soil Compaction as a Factor Determining Plant Productivity.
International Conference, 5-9 June 1989, Lublin, Poland, 72 pp.
Barnes, KK.. Car!eton, W.M., Taylor, H.M., Throckmorton, R.I. and Vanden Berg, G.E. (Ed-
itors), 197 i. Compaction of Agricultural Soils. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, MI, 471 pp.
Benecke, P., 1966. Die GeHindeansprachedes Bodengefiigesin Verbindung mit Entnahme von
S!echzyiinderproben~ir D~Jrch!~sio~.citsmessungen.Z. Kultuilech. Flurbereinig., ?: 91-104.
Bennie, A.T.P. and Van Antwerpen, R., 1988. An evaluation of empirical root growth models
to describe root distribution in compacted sandy :oils. In. Proceedings of the I lth Confer-
ence of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization, 11-15 July 1988, Edinburgh,
l, pp. 343-348.
Blackwell, P.S. and Soane, B.D., 1981. A method of predicting bulk density changes in field
soils resulting from compaction by agricultural traffic. J. Soil Sci., 32:51-65.
Bondarev, A.G. (Editor), 1981. Influence of agricultural machines in soils. Nauchn. Tr., Po-
chvennyi Inst. V.V. Dokuchaeva, Moskva, 87 pp (in Russian).
Canarache, A., 1987a. Improved method to estimate soil permeability. Stiinla Solului, No. l,
pp. 14-23 (in Romanian).
Canarache, A., 1987b. Method to estimate available water capacity, drainable porosity, mini-
mvm moisture content for irrigation, and irrigation depth. Stiinla Solului, No. 2, pp. 17-26
(in Romanian).
Canarache, A., 1987c. Models of degradation and improvement of soil physical status under
intensive agriculture. In: Zmeny pudnoko prostredi gai,;acovanim pudy a jejcich vliv na
rostlinnou vyrobu. Dum Techniki SCVTS: Ceske Budejovice, pp. 106-117 (in Czech).
Canarache, A., 1990. A generalized semi-empirical model estimating soil res,.'stanceto penetra-
tion. Soil Tillage Res., 16:51-70.
Canarache, A. and Dumitru, E., 1986. On tile direc: and residual effects of soil tillage on the
physical properties of the soil. Probleme de agrofitotehnie teoreticfi si aplicatfi, 8:195-207
(i:: P.omanian, with English and Russian abstracts).
Canarache, A., Dumitriu, R., Moga, I., Culic~, S., Sipo~, Gh., Handra, M., P~ttru, V., Vasiliu,
M., Dinch, I., Horobeanu, I ; Boeriu, I., Opri.s, M., Vlas, 1. and lancu, M., 1983. Improving
effect on soil physical status of perennial forage crops. Probleme de Agrofitotehnie teoreticfi
si aplicatfi, 4:107-121 (in Romanian, with English and Russian abstracts).
162 A.CANARACHE

Canamche, A., Coliba.s, I., Coliba.s, M., Horobeanu, I., P~tru, V., Simota, H. and Trandafirescu,
T., 1984. Ettect of induced compaction by wheel traffic on soil physical properties and yield
of maize in Romania. Soil T~llage Res., 4:199-213.
Chancellor, W.J., 1977. Compaction of soil by aglicultural equipment. University of California,
Div. Agric. Sci., Bull. No. 1881, 53 pp.
Czeratzki, W., 1972. Die Ansortiche de.,"Pflanzen an den physikalischen Bodenzustand. Land-
bauforsch. Voelkenrode, 22: 29-36.
Drescher, J., Horn, R. and De Boodt, M. (Ed.:tors), 1988. Impact of water and external forces
on soil structure. Selected papers of the First Workshop on Soil Physics and Soil Mechanics,
Hannover i 986. Catena Supplement I l, 171 77
Dumitru, E., Dumilriu, R., Trandafirescu, T., Vasiles~J,!~ P~ Sin. Gh., Bondarev, I. and Canar-
ache, A., 1981. Data on the soil physical status as affected by crop rotation on the typical
leached Chernozem b:. Fundulea. In: Lucrfirile Cc,.nferin~ei natior, aie pentru stiin~a solului,
27 August-l September 1979, Bra.sov, Romania, 19 A: 49-55 (in Remanian with English
abstrac', ).
Dumitru, E., Coliba.s, I., Cordo.s, I., Ludu.san, V., Nicolae, H., Niculescu, R., Ion, P., Popescu,
N., Seitan~ L. ~,~d Canarache, A., 1989. Effects of wheel traffic u~idcr drought conditions on
soil and yield in Romania. In: Abstracts of the Interna6onal Conference on Soil Compaction
as a Factor Detelminlng Plant Production, 5-9 June 1989, Lublin, Poland, pp. 63-64.
Ermich, D. (Editor), 1980. Probleme der Druckbelastung der Ackerbbden in der industriern.~is-
singen Pflanzenproduktion und M6glichkeiten zur Verhinderung der Schadwirkung. Mater-
ialien einer wissenschafllichen Tagt~ng, 7 Juni 1979, Halle/Salle, GDR. Kongress und Ta-
gungsOerischte der Martin Luther Universit~it Halle-Wittenberg, Tell i-3, 199 pp. (in
German ).
Feddes, R.A., Kowaiik, O.J. and Zaradny, H., 1978. Simulation of water use and crop yields.
Simulation Monogr., Pudoc, Wageningen, 189 pp.
Felt, E.J., 1965. Compactibility. In: C.A. Black (Editor), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I.
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, No. 9, pp. 400-412.
F!ore~., N., B~l~ceanu, V., Rfiu~, C. and Canarache, A. (Editors), 1987. Soil Survey Method-
ology, Vol. 1-3. Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Methods, Reports,
Recommendations, No. 20, 766 pp. (in Romanian).
Florescu, C.I. and Canarache, A., 1965. Compaction effect on soils of maize harvesting ma-
chines. Stud. Cercet. Mecanizarea Agric., 1, No. 2; pp. 33-41 (in Romanian).
Gill, W.R., 1971. Economic assessment of soil compaction. In: K.K. Barnes, W.M. Carleton,
H.M. Taylor, R.I. Throckmorton and G.E. Vandenberg (Editors), Compaction of Agricul-
tural Soils. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 431-458.
G~pta, S.C. and Larson, W.E., 1982. Modeling soil mechanical behavior during tillage. In: Pre-
dicting Tillage Effects on Soil Phy~.ical Properties and Processes. Am. Soc. Agron., pp. 151-
178.
Hfikansson, I., 1988. A method for characterizing the state of compactness of an arable soil.
Catena Suppl., I l: l 0 l - 105.
Hfikansson, I., Voorhee~.. W.B. and Riley, H., 1988. Vehicle and wheel factors influencing soil
compaction and crop response in different traffic regimes. Soil Tillage Res., I l: 239-282.
Hartge, K.H., 1965. Fonmen uad Venbreitung den in Boden vonkon:enden Ven dichtungca. Z.
Pfianzenernaehr. Dueng. Bodenkd., 108(I): 8-18 (in German).
Hettiaratchi, D.R.P., t~'88. Theoretical soil meet:antes and implement design. Soil Tillage Res.,
I I: 325-347.
Hodgson, J.M. (Editor), 1974. Soil Survey Field Handbook. Rothamsted Experimental Sta-
tion, Soil Survey, Tech. Monogr. No. 5, 99 pp.
Jones, C.A., 1983. Effect of soil texture on critic~A bulk densities for root growth. Soil Sci. Am.
J., 47:1208-1211.
MODELS OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL COMPACTNESS ! 63

Knisel, W.G. (Editor), 1980. CREAMS: A field-scale model for chemicals, ru,,loff and erosion
from agricultural management systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Re-
search Report No. 26, 643 pp.
Kovda, V.A. (Editor), 1987. Compaction of Arable Soils. Nauka, Moskva, 216 pp. (in Russian).
Kravchenko, V.I., 1986. Compaction of Soils by Machines. Izd. Nauka, Alma-Ata, 96 pp. (in
Russian ).
Kuipers, H., 1986. Soil compaction in arable farming. In: Transactions, XIII Congress of the
International Society of Soil Science, 13-20 August 1986, Hamburg, FRG, 5:310-327.
Kuipers, H. and van Ouwerkerk, C,, 1963. Total pore space estimation in freshly ploughed soil.
Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 11: 45-53.
Kushnarev, A.S. and Matsepuro, V.M., 1986. Diminishing damaging effects on soils of working
tools and traffic systems of machines used to introduce industrial-type techniques of raising
agricultural crops. Vsesoiuznyi selskokhoziaisgvennyi instRut zaochnogo obrazovaniia,
Moskva, 55 pp, (in Russian).
Lhotsky, J., Vachal. J. and Ehdich, P., 1984. System of meas,,~resfor improvement of compacted
soils. Ustav Vedeckotechnickych lnlormaci prc Zemeddstvi, No. 14, 39 pp. (in Czech, with
English and Russian abstracts).
Monnier, G. and Goss, M.J. (Editors), t 997 ~oil Compaction and Regeneration. Proceedings
of the Workshop on Soil Compaction: 17-18 September 1985, Avignon, France. Commis-
sion of the European Communities, Balkema, Rotterdam, 167 pp.
Nerpin, B.S., Nerpin, S.V. and Sudakov, A.V., 1988. The model of Sell compaction dynamics in
the subarable horizons caused by ag:icultural machinery. Vestn Skh. Nauki, No. 8, pp. 11-
17 (in Russian, with English abstract).
Petelkau, H 1984. Effects of harmful compaction on soil properties and crop yields, and meas-
ures ,o reduce compaction. In: Grnndlagen und Veffahren der rationellen Bodenbearbeitung
und Erschliessung des Unterbodens fdr die Pflanzen. Vortriige einer wissensehaftlichen Ta-
gung, 19-20 June 1984, Fiirstenwalde, GDR. Akademie der Landwirtscb~ftswissenschaften
der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Tagungsbericht No. 227, pp. 25-34 (in German,
with English and Russian abstracts).
Pop, V. and Postolache, T., 1985. Giant earthworms build up vermic moumain rendzinas. In-
ternational Symposium on Earthworms. In: A.M. Bonvicini and P. Omodeo (Editors), On
Earthworms. Selected Symposia and Monographs, U.Z.I., 2, Mucchi, Modena, pp. 141-150.
Renger, M., 1970. Uber den Einfluss der Dr/inung auf das Gefldge und die Wasserdurchliissig-
keit bindiger B0den. Mitt. Dtsch. Bodenk. Ges., 11:23-28 (in German).
Riley, H., 1988. Cereal yields and soil physical conditions in relation to the degree of compact-
ness of some Norwegian soils. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the
International Soil Tillage Research Organization, 11-15 July 1988. Edinburgh, 1:109-114.
Schulte-Karring, H., 1981. Das Ahrweiler Meliorationsveffahren, Merkblatt C: Die Durchfldhr-
ung im Obst, Wein Garten- und Landschaftsbau. Landes Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt f'dr
Landwirtschaft, Weinbau und Gartenbau, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, 32 pp. (in German ).
Simota, C., 1984. Mathematical and analogical medelling of soil water dynamics. Research In-
stitute of SOil Science and AgrocnemistD'. Tech. Rep. No. 225/84, 28 pp. (in Romanian).
Sipog S., 1972. Zusammenh~inge zwischen Bodenporenvolumen, Ertrag, Mineraldiinger,vir-
kung und Wassernutzung bei Mais und Winterweizcn. In: Internationale Wissenschafiliche
Konferenz "'Zei~gen~ssisehe R iehtungen in tier Bodenbearbeitung", Warszava-Olsztyn-Pu-
lawy, Poland, pp. 105-185 (in German).
Smith, D.L.O., 1987. Measurement. interpretation and modelling of soil compaction. Soil Use
Manage., 3: 87-93.
Soane, B.D. (Editor), 1983. Compaction by agricultural vehicles: a review. Scottish Institute of
Agricultural Engineering, Technical Report No. 5 (reprinted from Soil Tillage Res., Vol. 1
and 2), 95 pp.
164 A.CANARACHE

Soane, B.D., 1987. Over-compaction of soils on Scottish farms: a survey. Scottish Institute of
Agricultural Engineering, Research Summary, No. 3, 18 pp.
St~ng.~, N., 1978. Contributions to the methodology for the characterization of the total poros-
ity of soils, for the testing, zoning and graduating of the requirements for deep loosening
thereof). Analele ICPA, 43:169-175 (in Romanian, with English and Russian abstracts).
Sudakov, A.V. (Editor)~ 1982. Effect of soil compaction and tillage on soil physical properties
and yields of agricultural crops. Agrofizicheskii Nauchno-issledovatelskii Institut, Bull. No.
47, 52 pp. (in Russian).
Taylor, J.H. and Gill, W.R., 1984. Soil compaction: state-of-the-art ~eport. J. Terramechanics,
21: 195-213.
Thomasson, A.J., 1982. Soil and climate aspects of workability and trafficability. In: Proceeding
of the 9th Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization, June 1982,
Osijek, Yugoslavia, pp. 551-557.
Thomasson, A.J. and Jones, R.J.A., 1989. Computer mapping of soil trafficability in the U.K.
In: RJ.A. Jones and B. Biagi (Editors), Agriculiure, Computerization of Land Use Data.
P, oceeding~ of a Symposium in 'LheCommunity Programme for Coordination of Agricl,,l-
tural Research, 20--22 May 1987, Pisa, Commission of the European Communities, pp. 97-
!09.
Unger, H., 1984. On the function of slits as pathways for roots in compacted layers of plough-
pans in cohesive substrates. In: Grundlagen und Verfahren der rationellen Bodenbearbei-.
tung und Erschliessung des Unterbodens ftir die Ptlanzen. Vortr~ige einer wissenschaftlichen
Tagung, 19-20 Juni 1984, Fiirstenwalde, GDR. Akademie der Landwirtschaflswissenschaf-
ten der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Tagungsbericht No. 227, pp. 185-191 (in
German, with English and Russian abstracts).
Van Wijk, A.L.M. and Feddes, R.A., 1982. A model approach to the ex'aluation of drainage
effects. Institute for Land and Water Management Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
iech. Bull. No. 12, 13i-148.
Wind, G.P., 19/6. Application of analog and numerical models to investigate the influence of
drainage on workability in sprf,ng. Neth. J. Agdc. Sci., 24:155-172.