Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322

Review

Disruptive methods for assessing soil structure

M. Daz-Zoritaa,b,*, E. Perfectc, J.H. Groveb
a
EEA INTA General Villegas, CC 153 (B6230 ZBA), General Villegas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
b
Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091, USA
c
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Tennesse, Knoxville, TN 37996-1410, USA

Abstract

The description and quantication of soil structure is very important because of the many agronomic and environmental
processes related to the arrangement of secondary soil units (aggregates, peds or clods) and their stability. The purpose of this
review is to present and discuss methods and indices used to characterize soil structure based on the size distribution and stability
of fragments produced by breaking apart the soil matrix. The size of fragments is inversely related to the mechanical stress
applied. Thus, the selection of an appropriate fragmentation procedure is critical if information on soil structure is to be recovered,
and often depends upon the soil process of interest. Soil fragmentation starts at sampling in the eld and continues during
laboratory separation of soil units by sieving. It is useful to characterize the fragment mass-size distribution with parameters from
a model, such as the log-normal distribution function. Fractal theory provides a physically based link between the size distribution
and stability of fragments. Structural stability is based on the ratio of fragment mass-sizes measured before and after low and high
mechanical stresses, respectively. Thus, an adequate description of the applied stress conditions is essential for the parameteriza-
tion of structural stability as well as the fragment mass-size distribution. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil structure; Structural stability; Fragmentation; Sieving; Aggregates; Fragments

1. Introduction aggregate adhesion, cohesion or stability (Agriculture

There is no universally accepted way to measure
soil structure. Furthermore, the term soil structure is
not completely objective, and expresses a qualitative
concept that can only be evaluated using direct or
indirect measurement procedures. Different approa-
ches have been used to directly describe the structural
status of a soil. The characterization of soil structure
can be qualitatively performed on the basis of size,
shape and grade, i.e. degree of distinctiveness of the
secondary soil units, and depends on inter- and intra-
* 1995). Direct methods based on X-ray tomography
Corresponding author. Present address: EEA INTA General
Villegas, CC 153 (B6230 ZBA), General Villegas, Buenos Aires,
Argentina. Tel./fax: 54-3388-421284.
E-mail address: zorita@inta.gov.ar (M. Daz-Zorita).
Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987; Soil
Science Society of America, 1997). The boundaries
between structural units are somewhat arbitrary and
contribute to a certain degree of confusion. Manichon
(1987) proposed a direct method for describing and
quantifying soil structure in cultivated soil layers
based on the morphology of structural units created
by tillage operations.
Direct observation and image analysis of soil thin
sections using resin or wax impregnated samples is
widely used to measure the size, shape and distribution
of voids and aggregates (Dexter, 1988; Babel et al.,
and 3D analysis have also been employed (Dexter,
1979; Perret et al., 1997). Image analysis has the
advantage of describing and also quantifying the soil

0167-1987/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 1 9 8 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 5 4 - 9
4 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
matrix in a relatively undisturbed state, but it requires
specic and sophisticated equipment and training.
This method has not been widely applied to describe
the distribution of soil aggregates.
Soil structure can be indirectly quantied in the
laboratory by measuring the liquid (mercury or water)
displacement of air within the pore space (Danielson
and Sutherland, 1986; Dexter and Bird, 2001) or in
the eld by determining the movement of water in the
soil (Wilson and Luxmoore, 1988). Another indirect
approach to characterizing soil structure is based on
the fragmentation of the soil after applying mechan-
ical stresses. There is a positive relationship between
the sizes of aggregates determined using image ana-
lysis and those measured using fragmentation proce-
dures (Sandri et al., 1998; Aubertot et al., 1999).
Fragmenting the soil matrix and estimating the dis-
tribution of secondary soil units by sieving is easier to
perform than image analysis. The focus of this review
article is on disruptive procedures and associated
indices for assessing soil structure, based on the size
distribution and stability of soil fragments after
mechanical disruption.
2. Soil aggregation and fragmentation
Soil aggregation is the process whereby primary
soil particles (sand, silt, clay) are bound together into
secondary units, usually by natural forces and sub-
stances derived from root exudates and microbial
activity (Soil Science Society of America, 1997). Soil
structure can be viewed as the arrangement of primary
soil particles into hierarchical structural units identi-
ed on the basis of failure zones of different strengths
(Hadas, 1987; Kay, 1990). The combination and
arrangement of secondary soil units and voids forms
a continuous spatial network known as the soil matrix,
soil fabric or soil structure (Oades, 1984; Soil Science
Society of America, 1997).
Denitions of soil structural features are ambiguous
and based on a combination of formative processes
and size. Dexter (1988) dened soil structure as the
spatial heterogeneity of different components or prop-
erties of the soil. Soil particles that cohere to each
other more than to other surrounding particles are
called aggregates or peds and their boundaries are
dened by planes of weakness surrounding a unit of
soil without internal shrinkage. Soil pores are regarded
as aws or microcracks inherent within the soil matrix
(Aluko and Seig, 2000). Soil aggregates are also called
crumbs; a crumb is a soft porous, more or less rounded
ped from 1 to 5 mm in diameter (Soil Science Society
of America, 1997).
Soil fragmentation is the opposite of soil aggrega-
tion and refers to the process of breaking soil apart
into incomplete pieces or fragments. Fragmentation
can be performed under a range of soil water contents
and it rarely implies complete disruption of aggre-
gates into their constituent primary particles. Arshad
et al. (1996) dened soil fragments as result of the
rupture of a soil mass across natural planes of weak-
ness. When fragments are the result of plowing,
digging or other anthropogenic or articial processes
resulting in compact and coherent masses of soils
formed by compression, compaction or breaking off
from larger soil units, the resultant structural units are
called clods. Clods are transient secondary units with
a size greater than fragments (McKeague and Wang,
1982; Arshad et al., 1996).
Although the presence of aggregates and fragments
indicates the occurrence of different and opposing soil
processes (building-up and breaking-down), these
terms are generally used synonymously to describe
soil structure. In agricultural soils, the processes of
building-up and breaking-down of secondary soil units
occur simultaneously, resulting in the combined pre-
sence of clods, crumbs and peds (Fig. 1). Regardless of
their origin, all soil structural units can be character-
ized by their size, shape and surface roughness. Size is
commonly used in relation to agronomic and environ-
mental processes. Another measurement used to char-
acterize the soil matrix is structural stability or the
ability of the soil to retain its arrangement of solids
and void space after the application of a mechanical
stress. Structural stability is often measured as the
stability of soil fragments exposed to stresses. Soil
structural stability and aggregate or fragment stabi-
lity are often considered synonymous. However,
aggregates are normally more stable than the bulk
soil (Horn, 1990).
In order to characterize and compare soil fragment
mass-size distributions, an adequate and standard
selection of size fractions and fragmentation processes
is required (sampling, handling, sieving method, etc.).
It is also important to avoid the inclusion of primary
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the processes of building-up and breaking-down soil structure.
textural particles (i.e. sand, gravel, etc.) or products
from processes different than fragmentation like
abrasion. The amount of gravel or coarse sand in
the samples should be determined by dispersion in
hexametaphosphate or hydrogen peroxide solutions
or using ultrasonic energy and resieving. When a
piece of soil does not break down under a rubber-
tipped rod or a jet of water from a wash bottle it is
called a concretion (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986).
Concretions are extremely stable and will not break
down under normal cultivation practices. Since con-
cretions have some porosity, appreciable internal
surface area and ion exchange characteristics, Kem-
per and Rosenau (1986) suggest that they be treated
as stable fragments unless the investigator has spe-
cic reasons for considering them to be primary
particles.
Table 1
Biological, chemical and physical processes inuenced by soil structure
Processesa
Biological
Microbial and mesofauna protection
Nutrient cycling and storage (denitrification,
C sequestration, etc.)
Water imbibition by seeds and crop emergence
Shoot and root growth
a
Listed in non-particular order of importance.
5
3. The importance of adequate characterization of
soil structure
Soil structure is a complex condition that is related
to many agronomic and environmental processes
(Table 1) and has been the subject of a number of
review articles (Braunack and Dexter, 1989a,b; Dexter,
1997; Kay and Angers, 1999). Biogeochemical pro-
cesses rarely function in isolation. For example, the
distribution of soil structural units controls the avail-
ability of oxygen, water and the resistance to penetra-
tion by roots and shoots in seedbeds created by tillage
(e.g.,SchneiderandGupta,1985;NasrandSelles,1995).
Seedsoil contact, consequent imbibition of water,
and germination all depend on the size and packing of
soil fragments (Brown et al., 1996). Measurements of
fragment mass-size distribution are most relevant to
Chemical Physical
Sorptiondesorption of inorganic Wind and water erosion
and organic compounds
Solute transport Infiltration and water movement, aeration
Crusting
Soil water retention, evaporation
6 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
seed placement, germination and early growth of
plants in agricultural soils (Kay and Angers, 1999;
Reuss et al., 2001).
The formation of surface seals also has relevance
for crop establishment and productivity, being par-
tially dependent on aggregate stability. The presence
of unstable soil structural units favors the detachment
of soil particles and the formation of crusts that
impede normal shoot elongation and establishment
of seedlings (Rathore et al., 1983).
Soil structure exerts a strong inuence upon soil
hydraulic and solute transport processes. Total poros-
ity can be theoretically and experimentally related to
pore connectivity and then to dynamic properties such
as saturated hydraulic conductivity (Sahimi, 1993;
Gimenez et al., 1997). The size distribution of soil
structural units has been proposed as a parameter to
predict pore-size distribution and soil water retention
(Wu et al., 1990; Nimmo, 1997). In general, the
adsorption of agricultural chemicals increases as the
size of structural units decreases (Davidson and
Chang, 1972; Linquist et al., 1997). Sorption and
desorption reactions are related to fragment mass-size
not only because differences in surface area, but also
because of compositional differences (Lima and
Anderson, 1997). The dispersion of non reactive
solutes within a porous medium during saturated ow
depends upon the pore-size distribution (Perfect and
Sukop, 2001). The biodegradation of herbicides and
wastes has also been related to soil structure. Mott et al.
(1990) concluded that waste oil bioremediation is
inversely proportional to the size of structural units
before the application of the waste.
Soil microbial processes are directly and indirectly
inuenced by soil structure. The presence of small
pores reduces accessibility of organic materials to
decomposers, causing the physical protection of
C and a reduction in N mineralization (Seech and
Beauchamp, 1988; Van Veen and Kuikman, 1990).
The spatial distribution of microbes and soil meso-
fauna has been shown to be partially associated with
the size distribution of aggregates (Jastrow and Miller,
1991). Bacteria in soil are distributed in different
sized pores and within soil aggregates (Hattori and
Hattori, 1976; Winding, 1994). Indirect effects occur
as a result of soil structural controls on aeration and
water content. High soil denitrication rates have
been measured in the presence of small aggregates.
This can be partially attributed to the presence of
anaerobic microsites near the center of the aggregates
(Sextone et al., 1985).
Soil erodibility, susceptibility of the soil to erosion,
is mainly a function of soil structural stability. The
susceptibility of the soil to erosion processes is
reduced where structural stability is high because
the formation of crusts and the separation of soil
particles are reduced. In the presence of coarse soil
structural units runoff and sediment losses are gen-
erally reduced (Deizman et al., 1987). Wind erosion is
directly inuenced by the size, shape, density and
mechanical stability of surface soil structural units
(Skidmore et al., 1994). Increasing the cloddiness of
the soil surface reduces wind erodibility. Resistance to
wind erosion is positively related to the percentage of
dry soil structural units greater than 0.84 mm (Chepil,
1953).
Distinctions among the processes affected by soil
structure are not abrupt and suggest that the selection
of an appropriate procedure to describe soil structure
will depend upon the objectives of the research. This is
because soil structure is not easily quantied and
aspects of the most frequently used procedures involve
subjective judgments (Jastrow and Miller, 1991; Topp
et al., 1997). The range in size scales involved in soil
structure is enormous (Kay, 1990), so it is unlikely that
a single experimental method will be applicable over
the entire range. Different methods are required to
study the relationship between aggregate size classes
and different soil processes. These methods provide
different types of information, the usefulness of which
depends on the purpose of the study (Dexter, 1997;
Elliott et al., 1999).
4. Using fragmentation to characterize aggregate
size distribution and stability
4.1. General considerations
In soils where structure follows a hierarchical
arrangement, the more common indirect methods
for measuring soil structure are based on the size
distribution and stability of soil fragments after appli-
cation of mechanical stress. The stress can be applied
externally (tillage, drop-shatter, etc.) or internally
(wetting, slaking, etc.), fracturing the soil units by
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322 7

Fig. 2. Idealized changes in soil fragment mass-size distribution as a function of applied mechanical stress. P is the median particle size, F the
median fragment mass-size, A the median aggregate size, and SS the structural stability.

shear and/or tensile failure. Soil tensile failure is
probably more common in the eld and it is most
efcient in the sense that less energy is required to
produce new surface area (Dexter, 1988). Failure
zones in the soil matrix reect the characteristics of
both the void and the solid phases (Kay and Angers,
1999). The application of stress to soil fractures the
soil matrix in zones where the bonds between particles
are weaker than the force of the applied stress. Con-
sequently, the size of the fragments will depend upon
the applied stress; increasing the energy input will
cause the resulting soil pieces to be smaller and
consequently further removed from their size in the
undisturbed state (Fig. 2).
Aggregate size and stability are two interrelated
concepts that cannot be ignored in the description of
soil structure using fragmentation procedures. Based
on the separation of aggregates along planes of
weakness surrounding coherent structural units, the
application of a mechanical stress results in disrup-
tion of the soil into pieces or fragments with greater
stability than the applied stress (Fig. 2). The internal
bonds in microaggregates are more stable than the
bonds formed between adjacent microaggregates.
The strength of macroaggregates (high level hier-
archical units) is mainly determined by the presence
and stability of large pores (Tisdall and Oades,
1982). With application of low energy stress, the
size of soil fragments will be similar to the size of
soil aggregates as they exist in the eld. However,
with increasing energy input, the rate of reduction in
the fragment mass-size will be related to the stability
of the soil structure, based on the bonding energy
between structural units (clay packages, microaggre-
gates, etc.). With application of intense mechanical
stress, the resulting fragment mass-size distribution
will be independent of further increments in stress
and closely related to the properties of primary soil
particles (Fig. 2).
It is commonly accepted that the term aggregate
also describes structural units resulting from fragmen-
tation of the soil matrix after the application of a
mechanical stress, in the eld or in the laboratory.
Because soil fragmentation is used to break a large
unit of soil into pieces or fragments not necessarily
resulting in clods, peds or aggregates, we prefer to use
the term fragment to refer to soil units after fragmen-
tation. The size distribution of soil aggregates, as they
exist in the eld, is similar to the distribution of
fragments only when the energy input is low enough
to avoid signicant changes in the size of the aggre-
gates (Fig. 2).
8 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Fragmentation procedures for determining soil
structure (size distribution and stability) are based
on both dry and wet methods for breaking down the
soil matrix, followed by sieving. However, the dis-
ruption of soil is a continuous process that starts at
sampling and involves multiple steps with particular
features that can affect the size distribution of soil
fragments measured after sieving. These different
steps will be discussed separately.
4.2. Sampling and sample preparation
The fragmentation process starts at the moment the
sample is taken, so the sampling procedure must be
clearly described in terms of the tool used and the soil
conditions (water content, management, etc.) at sam-
pling. The depth of sampling should be determined
according to the process of interest. For example, if the
purpose of the study is to predict wind erosion, then
the top layer of the soil is all that need be sampled.
However, if the measurement is to be related to water
movement or root growth a deeper soil volume must
be characterized.
The use of large rectangular sampling boxes
(Andersson and Hakansson, 1967; Hooker and Vyn,
2000) has the advantage of taking relatively undis-
turbed samples representative of the arable surface
but it is more time consuming than other sampling
procedures. A shovel or a soil core sampler are
better than an auger for sample collection because
compression is minimized (McIntyre, 1974a; Kem-
per and Rosenau, 1986). In wet soils, friction along
the sides of samplers and vibrations due to hammer-
ing can result in compression of the sample (Kemper
and Rosenau, 1986). Compression also occurs in
dry soils if they are very loose (Blake and Hartge,
1986).
The diameter of a core inuences the risk of com-
pression, with small diameter samples being more sus-
ceptible to compaction (McIntyre, 1974a; McIntyre,
1974b; Campbell and Henshall, 1991). The least
distortion, compression or other damage to the soil
samples occurs when the sampler is forced steadily
into the soil, as opposed to being hammered in, and
when the sampler walls are thin and provide a modest
clearance within the sampler core (Freitag, 1971;
Campbell and Henshall, 1991). Sampler designs that
minimize the wall surface area to volume ratio will
reduce friction and decrease the likelihood of compac-
tion under wet conditions.
After the samples are taken, the bulk soil is often
broken into small pieces by ``gentle'' hand manipula-
tion (e.g., Clement and Williams, 1958; Douglas and
Goss, 1982; Martens, 2000) or using a rubber hammer
(MacRae and Mehuys, 1987). Alternatively, the drop-
shatter technique can be used for subdividing a large
soil unit along planes of weakness into smaller natural
units by dropping the soil from various heights onto a
hard surface (Marshall and Quirk, 1950; Hadas and
Wolf, 1984). This procedure can also be used to
determine the strength of soil aggregates but it is slow
and produces results that are difcult to interpret
(Dexter, 1975). While it may not work well for all
soil types and moisture contents, use of the drop-
shatter approach for the initial breakdown of the
sample can reduce operator-induced variability asso-
ciated with hand manipulation.
The stability of aggregates decreases with increas-
ing soil water content at sampling (Perfect et al.,
1990). Because of this phenomenon some researchers
prefer to avoid the confounding effects of antecedent
moisture content by air or oven drying samples before
hand separation of macroaggregates (e.g., Christensen,
1986; Chan and Heenan, 1999). However, air-drying
aggregates can result in irreversible changes in
bonding between aggregate constituents that can alter
stability and create anomalous behavior in soils
which do not normally air-dry (Harris et al., 1966;
Reid and Goss, 1981). The interaction between aggre-
gate strength and soil water content is a complex
process, dependent on the amount and distribution
of organic matter, clay mineralogy, the total porosity
and the pore-size distribution among aggregates.
Some researchers maintain samples in an undisturbed
(structured) state during the drying process, avoiding
fragmentation until sieving (e.g., Schulten et al., 1995;
Aubertot et al., 1999). To be comparable, samples
should be treated in the same manner and measure-
ments should be made on samples with the same water
content/potential (Gollany et al., 1991).
Compression and fragmentation of samples can
occur during transportation and storage, so rigid stable
are required. It is important to maintain a constant
environment during conditions of storage (tempera-
ture, humidity, etc.). It is also worth noting that the
cohesion of soils increases with time during storage
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
(Kemper and Koch, 1966; De Boodt et al., 1967;
Kemper and Rosenau, 1984). Thus, it is recommended
that analyses be made as soon as feasible after air-
drying is completed (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986).
4.3. Dry sieving procedures (soil water potential,
c ! 0)
The separation of dry fragments can be achieved
with a set of rotary sieves (Chepil and Bisal, 1943;
Chepil, 1962; Lyles et al., 1970; Fryrear, 1985) or with
a nest of at sieves (e.g., Cole, 1939; Coughlan et al.,
1978; Perfect and Blevins, 1997). The shaking move-
ment of at sieves can be produced manually (McCoy
and Cardina, 1997) or mechanically with horizontal
(Njos, 1979), vertical (Sort and Alcaniz, 1999), or
simultaneous vertical and horizontal vibratory move-
ments (Braunack and McPhee, 1991; Daz-Zorita
et al., 2000). In general dry sieving is performed on
air or oven dried samples but some researchers report
sieving eld moist samples (e.g., Carter et al., 1998).
The rotary sieve technique is generally accepted as
the standard procedure to determine dry aggregate size
distributions for wind erosion assessment (Zobeck,
1991; Skidmore et al., 1994). In this case it is recom-
mended that samples be taken with a square-corned
spade when the soil is dry and that major fragmenta-
tion be avoided before placing the samples in the feed
bin of the rotary sieve (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986).
The amount of abrasion is related to the length of the
screens, which varies depending on the design
employed. A limitation of this procedure is that the
rotary sieve is normally operated until separation is
complete. This can result in different sieving times,
and thus different energy inputs, for different samples.
The duration of sieving is also a major factor in
obtaining accurate results with at sieves. The
mechanism of sieving using at sieves can be divided
into two distinctly different regions with a transition
between them. In the rst region, most of the frag-
ments are much smaller than the screen size and the
sieving rate depends on the loading rate and the mesh
opening. In the second region, most of the fragments
have a size similar to or greater than the mesh size and
it has been found that the percentage of fragments
passing through the sieve follows a log-normal law
(Whitby, 1959). When soil fragments are near the
mesh they require many encounters with the sieve
9
to pass through (Gupta et al., 1975). Near mesh
fragments are dened as fragments that will pass
through the sieve openings in only a limited number
of ways and the ultimate fragment is the one that will
only pass through the aperture in one particular orien-
tation (Allen, 1997). Allen (1997) suggested that the
end-point of sieving must be when most of the sample
has passed through the sieve and the near-mesh frag-
ments are starting to pass. Abrasion during sieving
increases as the duration of the process increases and,
in the case of sandy soils, fragments can disappear
during sieving (Skidmore et al., 1994). Cole (1939)
described the development of well-rounded fragments
due to abrasion after only 102 s of shaking soils with
different textures.
For at sieves there is no standard guide as to how
long to continue the sieving operation. This introduces
a degree of subjectivity that may affect the consistency
and reproducibility of the results obtained using this
method (White, 1993). The duration of dry sieving
using at sieves, when reported, varies from 5 s (Cole,
1939) to 6000 s (Perfect et al., 1992). For many soils,
sieving for 30 s is often enough for adequate frag-
mentation with low abrasion (Braunack and McPhee,
1991; Aubertot et al., 1999). Fig. 3 shows the change
in fragment mass-size distribution, as parameterized
by the geometric mean diameter as a function of
sieving duration for two soils using at sieves and
vibratory shaking. The two regions discussed by
Whitby (1959) are clearly visible.
The loading rate of the sieves has a direct effect on
the duration of sieving. However, Daz-Zorita et al.
(2000) concluded that loading the uppermost sieve to
30% of its volume did not signicantly affect the
geometric mean diameter of fragments from different
tillage practices using a vibratory sieve with 30 s of
shaking as compared to loading to 15% by volume.
The number and size of sieves used also inuences
the amount of fragmentation. It is advisable to have the
same number and aperture sizes of sieves in all
comparable tests (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986). A
wide range of sieve sizes is recommended when the
fragment mass-size distribution is to be parameterized
using a distribution function.
Dry structural stability measurements consider the
ratio between the outcomes of short and long sieving
durations, assuming that the size of soil fragments
after a short sieving time is equivalent to the size of
10 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Fig. 3. Changes in the GMD of fragments due to different dura-
tions of dry sieving using a nest of at sieves (data from Daz-
Zorita et al., 2000).
natural aggregates. For example, the resistance of
aggregates to abrasion using rotary sieves is deter-
mined by measuring the change in aggregate size
distribution after sieving and repeatedly weighting a
sample (Chepil, 1952). Skidmore and Layton (1988)
reported that the results of dry aggregate stability
measurements made using various models of rotary
sieves did not agree well. Toogood (1979) and
Buschiazzo et al. (1994) determined dry aggregate
stability using at sieves. Climatic and cultural effects
on the soil are complex and the measurement of
changes in structural stability over time could provide
a measure of the capability of the soil to resist external
forces of destabilization under eld conditions. For
example, Siddoway (1963), using a rotary sieve, cal-
culated the mechanical stability of dry aggregates
from the ratio of aggregates greater than 0.84 mm
between fall and spring sampling dates. The dry
stability of structural units has also been characterized
by determining the energy input required for their
reduction in size using the drop-shatter method
(Berntsen and Berre, 1993) or crushing procedures
(Skidmore and Powers, 1982).
4.4. Wet sieving procedures (soil water potential,
c  0)
Wet sieving refers to separation of soil fragments in
the presence of free water or other liquids. Methods
used to characterize the size distribution of water
stable fragments can be separated into procedures
based on sieving an undisturbed sample under water,
and approaches where a single size fraction (pre-
viously separated out by dry sieving) is disrupted
under water (Vershinin, 1971). As with dry sieving,
wet sieving subjects the soil to forces that are rarely
experienced in the eld and that cannot be easily
quantied.
One of the more commonly used wet sieving tech-
niques is to determine the distribution of water stable
fragments using Yoder's procedure (Yoder, 1936),
where by a nest of sieves is suspended in a container
of water. Air dried, eld moist or remoistened soil is
placed on the top sieve and the amount of soil retained
on each sieve is determined after lowering and raising
the nest of sieves through a distance of 31.8 mm at a
rate of 30 cycles per minute for 30 min. Yoder (1936)
recommended more than 10 g of soil be loaded to the
top sieve in order to determine the water stable frag-
ment mass-size distribution. Wet sieving the whole
soil can be also performed using a 2 mm sieve with a
30 mm stroke at a rate of 25 cycles per minute for
2 min. The slurry that passes through the 2 mm sieve
is collected and transferred to smaller sieves to
determine its size distribution (Elliott et al., 1999).
Wet structural stability measurements have the
objective of comparing the behavior of soil constitu-
ents in relation to their disaggregation and dispersion
by water (Burke et al., 1986). They are frequently
determined by comparing fragment masses obtained
using two wetting procedures for submerging the soil
units, procedures that modify the disruption processes
during wet sieving. When air-dried soils are rapidly
immersed in water, the maximum level of disruption
occurs because of the rapid build up of air pressure
(Kemper and Rosenau, 1984). In contrast, minor dis-
ruption of aggregates is observed with capillary rewet-
ting before sieving (Hofman and De Leenheer, 1975).
A simple and quick method to determine wet frag-
ment stability is the single sieve method where wet
sieving (stroke of 13 mm at a frequency of 35 cycles
per minute) is performed using presieved fragments
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
in the 1 and 2 mm size range (Kemper and Rosenau,
1986). Although results from different size fractions
have been shown to be correlated (Kemper and Rose-
nau, 1986), the choice of the initial size range of
fragments can greatly affect the sensitivity of the
analysis in nding differences between treatments.
Pojasok and Kay (1990) developed a wet structural
stability procedure based on a combination of sieving
and turbidimetry using rewetted fragments from the
1 to 2 mm fraction. In this method, the sample is
shaken end-over-end in test tubes and fragments larger
than 0.25 mm and the dispersed clay content are
measured. Turbidimetric methods for measuring
structural stability are simple, rapid, relatively repro-
ducible and closely related to the single sieve method,
but are not suitable for comparisons among soils with
different particle size distributions (Douglas and Goss,
1982).
The soil water content prior to immersion is a major
factor in determining the wet stability of most soils
(Panabokke and Quirk, 1957; Kemper and Koch,
1966). Use of ``eld moist'' samples introduces
another variable factor that may lead to erroneous
conclusions (Yoder, 1936), particularly if the purpose
of the research is something other than the description
of soil structure as it exists in the eld at sampling.
Based on the wetting procedure, different mechanisms
of aggregate breakdown can be identied: (1) slaking
due to fast wetting of dry aggregates, (2) microcrack-
ing after slow wetting, and (3) mechanical breakdown
of pre-wetted aggregates (Le Bissonnais, 1996).
The strength of aggregates is often partially related
to the amount and distribution of organic materials
within the soil matrix. Thus, fractionation of the soil
can also be produced by submerging aggregates in
solvents with different wetting characteristics, such as
water, ethanol and benzene (Henin et al., 1958).
Procedures based on a single size range of frag-
ments are sometimes preferred because they are less-
time consuming than fragmentation methods invol-
ving several sieve sizes. However, the results are
strongly dependent on the size fraction chosen, and
no information on the size distribution of fragments is
obtained. Furthermore, the percentage of total mass
contained in the selected fragment mass-size is not
generally reported, and as a result it is not possible to
establish how representative of the total soil mass the
selected mass was.
11
Because intra-aggregate bond strength increases
with each subdivision of soil structural units (Gillman
and Bell, 1976), ultrasonic energy has been used for
soil dispersion and fragment and/or particle size dis-
tribution measurements. Ultrasonic vibration provides
good soil dispersion (disruption of bonds holding
together individual particles) in the absence of oxidiz-
ing or dissolving agents. The principle behind ultra-
sonic dispersion is the transmission of vibrating sound
waves in the soil suspension producing microscopic
bubbles inducing break down of the soil structural
units. Gregorich et al. (1988) reported that the amount
of clay recovered increased with increasing sonic
energy. Increasing the duration of sonication increases
the breakdown of microaggregates (Watson, 1971).
Measurement of the masses of soil structural units
retained on a sieve after the application of different
sonic energy levels has been used to determine soil
structural stability (Carolino de Sa et al., 1999; Cerda,
2000).
5. Indices to quantify the size distribution and
stability of soil fragments
5.1. Soil fragment mass-size distributions
The literature contains a variety of indices to para-
meterize the mass-size distribution of soil fragments
produced by drop-shatter and multiple-sieve techni-
ques. Some authors characterize the mass-size distri-
bution of fragments by indices derived from tting a
distribution function to the data (Marshall and Quirk,
1950; Gardner, 1956). Other researchers have pro-
posed indices based on the selection of a single size
class for comparative studies (Chepil, 1952; Bryan,
1968). Single size class indices have been related to
soil processes like wind erosion (Chepil, 1952) or
water erosion (Lal and Elliott, 1994), but are not
useful to describe the fragment mass-size distribution.
In the past, the use of multiple sieve techniques and
calculation of the geometric mean diameter or other
indices was considered a disadvantage because of time
and computational requirements; many scientists pre-
ferred to express structure in terms of single fractions.
Actually, little time is saved because larger numbers of
replications are required for accuracy. Schaller and
Stockinger (1953) observed that as aggregate size
12 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322

increased the replicability of single size indices
decreased because the amount of soil collected in
each sieve decreased. Recent advances in the avail-
ability of high-speed computers have facilitated the
rapid and routine calculations of indices such as the
geometric mean diameter.
Puri and Puri (1939) rst suggested that the struc-
tural state of soils be expressed using ``single values''
derived from distribution curves. Their weighted mean
size is analogous to the mean weight diameter (MWD)
or the arithmetic mean size (Stirk, 1958) and is equal
to the sum of the products of the mean diameter of
each size fraction and the proportion of the total
sample weight occurring in the corresponding size
fraction divided by the sum of the proportions of
sample weights, usually normalized in terms of per-
centage (Puri and Puri, 1939). The summation is
carried out over all size fractions, including the one
that passes through the nest sieve.
Van Bavel (1949) proposed determining the MWD
graphically by measuring the area above the cumula-
tive mass-size distribution curve. A close relationship
between MWD values determined using this proce-
dure and those calculated using the Puri and Puri
(1939) method is to be expected, and the disparity
between the two estimates can be diminished by
increasing the number of sieves. When a few broad
size fractions are used the actual MWD compared with
the graphic estimation of MWD is overestimated
because the curvilinear relationship between mass
fractions and sieve sizes is assumed to be linear
between two consecutive sieve sizes. As dened by
Van Bavel (1949), the MWD is equivalent to the rst
moment in moment analysis.
Statistically, the use of any single parameter such as
the MWD to characterize a distribution of fragments is
incomplete. Even relatively symmetrical distributions
require some complementary measure of spread to
adequately dene the distribution. Singh et al. (1992)
proposed the use of an aggregate uniformity coef-
cient (AUC) to describe the structural state of a tilled
soil. This coefcient can be calculated from the ratio
between the fragment mass-sizes at 10 and 60% of
undersized mass. A soil non-limiting to root growth
was dened when the AUC was 5 and inadequate for
plant growth when the AUC was 2.
Assuming a normal distribution of structural units,
the mean diameter and standard deviation parameters
can be determined by tting a Gaussian frequency
distribution to fragment mass-size data (Table 2). A
fundamental property of the normal distribution is
that differences from the mean are equally likely; i.e.
the probability of nding structural units 10% larger
than the mean is the same than the probability of
nding units 10% smaller (Allen, 1997). Stirk (1958)
stated that fragments some times conform to a normal

Table 2
Indices for soil fragment mass-size distribution quantication. Px < X is the fraction of soil structural units smaller than sieve size X

Distribution Function Parameters Reference

Reference Spread of
sizea distributionb
" #
1 x MD2
Normal Px < X p exp MD S.D. Allen (1997)
s 2p 2S:D:2
" #
1 logx GMD2
Log-normal Px < X p exp GMD log GSD Gardner (1956)
log GSD 2p 2log GSD2
   
x b
RosinRammler Px < X exp a b Irani and Callis (1963)
a
 m
x
GaudinSchuhmann Px < X x0 m Gaudin and Meloy (1962)
x0
a
MD: mean diameter; GMD: geometric mean diameter; a: fragment diameter corresponding to the 36.78 percentile of the cumulative
probability function; x0: diameter of the largest fragment.
b
S.D.: standard deviation; log GSD: log of the geometric standard deviation, b: RosinRammler exponent; m: GaudinSchuhmann
exponent.
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
probability distribution, but this is not usually so after
dry sieving. Further, the Gaussian normal law should
not be applied to the distribution of soil fragments
because it is impossible to have fragments of negative
length (x), and the lowest limit of the normal density
function is x 1 while in the log-normal and other
distribution functions is x 0 (Allen, 1997) (Irani and
Callis, 1963, #4220).
The geometric mean diameter (GMD) was sug-
gested as an index of fragment mass-size because
the mass-size distribution is often log-normal, rather
than normal, in most soils (Gardner, 1956, 3859).
Gardner (1956) proposed that the GMD be estimated
by performing a linear regression between the sieve
diameter as the dependent variable and the cumulative
percent oversize on log-probability paper. The GMD
is the diameter at the 50% oversize value. The other
parameter needed to describe the log-normal distribu-
tion of fragments is the log geometric standard devia-
tion (log GSD), and according to Allen (1997), the log
GSD computed using the plotted cumulative undersize
mass fraction is given by the log of the ratio between
the diameter at 84% undersize and the GMD. When
the cumulative oversize mass fraction is considered,
the log GSD must be calculated using the inverse of
this ratio (Irani and Callis, 1963). Irani and Callis
(1963) proposed another equation to determine the log
GSD, derived from the log-normal density function,
computed using undersize mass fractions. The antilog
of the log GSD does not have statistical meaning and
log GSD must be kept in logarithmic units (Gardner,
1956). The minimum value it can have is one, meaning
that all the fragments are of the same size (Irani and
Callis, 1963).
The GMD and log GSD parameters of the log-
normal function (Table 2) can also be estimated by
tting non-linear models to sample data through an
iterative procedure so that the sum of squares of the
difference between observed and predicted values is
minimized. Like the method of least squares, the
method of maximum likelihood is a general method
of estimating parameters in non-linear models. This
method reduces essentially to the method of least
squares when the observations are normally distrib-
uted, requiring that the probability distribution of
observations be known (Snedecor and Cochran,
1989). The unbiased and minimum variance properties
for the parameter estimates are approached only at
13
the limits as the sample becomes large (Montgomery
and Peck, 1992).
Wagner and Ding (1994) proposed using 3- and
4-parameter log-normal functions for a more accurate
fragment mass-size distribution description. These
modied log-normal functions assume that either a
limiting, non-zero, minimum size and/or a nite
maximum size fraction exist, which is normally true
in fragment mass-size distributions. The same authors
also proposed using nonlinear optimization techniques
for nding the ``best t'' parameter values.
The GaudinSchuhmann function (Table 2) is a
power function often employed to characterize frag-
ment mass-size distributions resulting from industrial
crushing and grinding operations (Gaudin and Meloy,
1962; Prasher, 1987). Baldock and Kay (1987) pro-
posed employing a power function between the cumu-
lative percentage by weight of aggregates less than a
given size and fragment mass-size, which is mathe-
matically identical to the GaudinSchuhmann func-
tion. The exponent of this function serves as an index
of the fragment mass-size distribution, and increases
the proportion of large fragments increases.
Another distribution function applicable to fragmen-
ted materials is the RosinRammler relation (Table 2).
The a parameter represents the fragment mass-size
corresponding to the 36.78 percentile of the cumulative
probability distribution, an index similar to the mean
diameter (50th percentile) of a normal distribution. The
greater the value of a the larger the soil fragments that
dominate the distribution. The b parameter is analo-
gous to the standard deviation of a normal distribution.
Small values of b denote a wide spread of fragment
mass-sizes and vice versa. The RosinRammler model
has been used to characterize the dry fragment dis-
tribution produced by the drop-shatter test (Marshall
and Quirk, 1950; Ingles, 1965). Perfect et al. (1993)
concluded that the a parameter of the RosinRammler
model was a sensitive descriptor of dry fragment
mass-size distribution for studies comparing manage-
ment practices on a single soil type.
Recently, fractals (geometric models with scale-
invariant heterogeneities) have been applied to char-
acterize soil fragment mass-size distributions (Perfect,
1997). Perfect et al. (2002) have presented a homo-
geneous fragmentation model for quantifying the
mass-size distribution of fragments produced by a given
energy input. Their model contains three parameters:
14 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
the scale-invariant probability of failure, the length of
the porous medium and the scale factor. These para-
meters are correlated with the parameters describing a
log-normal distribution. However, the fractal model
has the advantage that its parameters are physically
based and can be obtained from independent measure-
ments. For example, the scale-invariant probability of
failure is related to the stability of soil structural units,
while the medium length and scale factor can be
estimated from soil water retention measurements
(Perfect et al., 2002). Fractal parameters have been
used to study the inuence of cropping and tillage on
soil structure (Perfect and Blevins, 1997). Gimenez
et al. (1998) found that some fractal parameters were
more sensitive to soil management than others.
Further research on the capability of fractal models
to characterize a wide range of structural conditions
for different soil types is needed.
In addition to the theoretical distribution models
discussed above, it is also possible to apply moment
techniques for summarizing soil fragment mass-size
distributions. Moments are an empirical procedure for
parameterizing data without bias towards a specic
theory or underlying distribution model. They are also
model independent and orthogonal (Skopp, 1984).
The mean position, or central tendency, is calculated
from the rst ordinary moment. The second, third and
fourth moments are measures of distribution, skew-
ness and kurtosis, respectively. While moment tech-
niques have been applied to soil particle analysis
(Krumbein, 1936), they remain untested on soil frag-
ment mass-size distributions.
5.2. Soil structural stability
Soil structural stability is a measure of the cap-
ability of soil structural units to resist changes after the
application of a mechanical stress (i.e. dry or moist
fragmentation, compaction, dispersion, etc.). There
are two principal types of structural stability: (1)
the ability of the soil to retain its structure under
the action of water; and (2) the ability of drier soil
to retain its structure under the action of external
mechanical stresses (Dexter, 1988). There is a great
variation of methods used to assess soil structural
stability, i.e. 26 procedures were reported in ``Western
European Methods for Soil Structure Determination,
1967'' (Burke et al., 1986). Briey, soil structural
stability is generally determined using the ratio or
the difference between the size of fragments before
energy input and the remaining size of fragments after
the application of a mechanical stress
B
SS (1)
A
or,
SS A B (2)
where SS is the structural stability index, A the initial
size of fragments and B the fragment mass-size after
stress. The initial size of fragments corresponds to a
higher hierarchical state of the structural units and is
measured with minimal disruption (low energy input),
while the size of the fragments after application of a
greater disruption energy represents structural units at
a lower hierarchical level (Fig. 2).
Soil structural stability implies a change in frag-
ment mass-size distribution after the application of
different levels of mechanical stress while the size
distribution of fragments by itself characterizes soil
structure after imposing a stress condition. Assuming
that the amount of aggregates destroyed depends
linearly on the amount energy input, then the slope
this relationship can be used as an index of the
stability. Koening and Schuffelen (1960) successfully
applied this assumption in describing wet aggregate
stability determinations. Soils with similar fragment
mass-size distributions measured after a low input of
energy can have similar or different fragment mass-
size distributions after a high-energy input depending
on their structural stability and the level of energy
input (Fig. 4a and b). Soils with different fragment
mass-size distributions determined after a low energy
input can have similar or different structural stabilities
resulting in similar or different fragment mass-size
distributions after a high-energy input (Fig. 4c and d).
Several other combinations between sizes of fragments
and energy input can be conceptualized depending on
differences in soil structural stability. Differences in
soil fragmentation resulting from different applied
energy levels can be related to differences in the
predominant processes involved in aggregate forma-
tion (Fig. 1). Differences in methodologies for eval-
uating soil structural stability depend on the condition
of the sample subjected to the test (soil as it is in the
eld at sampling versus samples altered to give a
standard structural state) and the treatment to which
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322 15

Fig. 4. Idealized changes in soil fragment mass-size distribution as a function of applied soil mechanical stress. SS is the soil structural
stability, the subscript (A or B) indicates the soil type.

the sample is subjected during the test, i.e. dry or wet where, clay, silt and sand are the percentages of clay,
sieving (Burke et al., 1986). silt and sand in the suspension treated with benzene or
Henin et al. (1958) proposed an instability index (Is) water, ASA, BSA and WSA are the percentages of
by measuring the weight of soil fragments retained stable aggregates after treatment with alcohol, ben-
on 0.20 mm sieves after pre-treatments with alcohol, zene and water, respectively. The Is index can vary
benzene and water, from 0.1 for stable soils to >100 for very instable soils,
i.e. sodic soils.
clay silt The weight of water stable aggregates >0.25 mm
Is (3)
ASA BSA WSA=3 0:9 Sand (WSA), relative to the weight of aggregates with
16 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322

1 to 2 mm of diameter, has been shown to be highly half-life and describes the energy required to release
sensitive indicator of the effect of crop management one-half of the aggregated clay from the sample. Other
practices on soil structural stability (e.g., Topp et al., researchers (e.g., Carolino de Sa et al., 1999) have
1997), developed similar indices to estimate the equivalent
sonic energy required for aggregate disruption. How-
WSA WSand ever, although the sonic energy input can be estimated,
SS (4)
Wagg WSand the characteristics and conditions under which the
sonicator are used govern the results (Watson, 1971).
where WSand is the weight of sand particles measured
Some researchers have combined the size of frag-
after dispersion of the WSA and Wagg the total weight
ments after dry sieving with the size of fragments after
of the sieved aggregates. Kemper and Rosenau (1986)
wet sieving in order to calculate structural indices
recommended performing the measurement of SS
(Sumner, 1958; De Leenheer and De Boodt, 1959). In
using 4 g of dry aggregates from the 1 to 2 mm size
these cases, it is assumed that the resultant size after
range.
dry sieving is equivalent to the size of natural aggre-
Clay dispersion is indicative of soil instability and
gates and that the size of fragments after wet sieving
several turbidimetric techniques have been described
corresponds to a lower hierarchical state. The De
for quantifying the amount of dispersible clay after a
Leenheer and De Boodt (1959) instability index is
mechanical energy input. Watts et al. (1996) measured
determined as the measured area between the two
nephelometric turbidity units to estimate the weight of
curves corresponding to the aggregate size distribu-
dispersible clay after using a falling weight to apply a
tions found before and after wet sieving water-mois-
mechanical energy to the soil aggregates. Westerhof
tened aggregates with diameters between 2 and 8 mm.
et al. (1999) determined changes in aggregation
The authors determined the index graphically, but it is
between 1 and 30 min of shaking in water by measur-
numerically equivalent to the change in mean weight
ing the size distribution of soil suspensions mixed and
diameter (DMWD) between the dry aggregate distri-
circulated at high speed using laser diffraction with a
bution (MWDdry) and the water stable aggregate size
laser grain sizer. Van Steenbergen et al. (1991) pro-
distribution (MWDwet). The larger the value of
posed to quantitatively summarize the degree of dis-
DMWD, the more unstable the aggregates. This pro-
ruption with respect to a reference level based on the
cedure partially takes into account the erosive effect of
maximum disruption level possible for a given soil.
raindrop impact and is it has been found to be suitable
Absolute maximum disruption is obtained after com-
for studying seedbed preparation (Burke et al., 1986).
plete dispersion of the sample, and corresponds to the
De Boodt et al. (1961) concluded, after comparing
particle size distribution.
several structural stability indices, that only the
Wet aggregate stability can also be estimated using
DMWD (instability index) was correlated with crop
ultrasonic energy for aggregate disruption (Fuller and
productivity.
Goh, 1992; Carolino de Sa et al., 1999; Cerda, 2000)
In Table 3, we present some of the most recently
assuming that all aggregated clay is released at high
used structural stability indices, based on fragmenta-
levels of sonic energy input. Fuller and Goh (1992)
tion of the whole soil or of a particular size fraction. In
found that the clay remaining in aggregated form
all cases, stability is measured after application of
(Cagg) followed a rst-order decay model as a function
some arbitrary disintegrating forces, so that the sta-
of the applied sonic energy level (Es),
bility values are empirical and have meaning only
Cagg CMax e kEs
(5) when they are compared to values among treatments
treated equally and/or related to soil constituents or
where CMax is the total aggregated clay in the size processes (Kemper and Koch, 1966). Different tests
fraction of aggregates under dispersion and k is a measuring the soil structural stability are often corre-
``stability constant'' that describes the average release lated despite the fact that they do not always use the
of aggregated clay per unit of energy input. Another same disruption method and do not always correspond
useful parameter for describing the stability of soil to eld processes (Bryan et al., 1989). There is no a
aggregates is the E1/2 value, which is analogous to a single index that can be used to depict eld behavior
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322 17

Table 3
Summary of structural stability indices based on soil fragmentation procedures

Index Equation Specific conditions Reference

number

DMWDa 2 Dry and wet mean weight diameter De Leenheer and De Boodt (1959)
Henin index, Is 3 Water, ethanol and benzene stable aggregates Henin et al. (1958)
Stability index 4 Water stable aggregates greater than 3.0 mm Bryan (1968)
WASb and DCFc 4 Water stable aggregates and dispersible colloids Pojasok and Kay (1990)
Stability index, SS 4 Water stable aggregates greater than 0.25 mm Kemper and Rosenau (1986)
Soil erodibility 4 Dry stable aggregates greater than 0.84 mm Chepil (1952)
Dry structural stability 2 Mass fraction distribution after 1 and 5 min of sieving Buschiazzo et al. (1994)
Stability constant, k 5 Ultrasonic dispersion Fuller and Goh (1992)
a
Change in mean weight diameter.
b
Wet aggregate stability.
c
Dispersible clay fraction (dispersible clay/total clay).

for all soils, and several indices may be needed to
adequately describe the structural conditions (Collis-
George and Laryea, 1972; Lal and Elliott, 1994). For
example, Wagner and Skidmore (2000) considered that
soil aggregate status, determined by measuring both
soil dry fragment mass-size distribution and structural
stability, is important for quantifying soil erodibility
in wind erosion studies. The measurement method and
index be chosen with the specic application in mind
(i.e. wind or water erosion, crop growth, etc.).
6. Concluding comments
Adequate assessment of soil structure using disrup-
tive procedures must take in account the fact that the
processes of building-up and breaking-down involved
in aggregation and fragmentation of secondary soil
units are continuous. These processes commence at
sampling and continue until the nal size distribution
of fragments is determined.
The purpose of the measurement must be well
understood before sampling in order to determine
the depth of sampling and the handling procedures
to be employed. No compression or articial changes
in structure or strength are desired. Consequently, a
standardized low energy fragmentation (drop-shatter)
and quick air-drying process are recommended after
sampling. The ``gentle'' hand fractionation procedure
provides a non-measurable energy input that is stron-
gly dependent upon the operator. Air-drying of sam-
ples without initial fragmentation allows the formation
of clods that may not have been present in the natural
state, particularly when the sampled layer does not dry
excessively under eld conditions.
Choosing between fragment mass-size distribution
and structural stability procedures will depend on the
use to be made of the indices. In general, if the pro-
cedure is to characterize the soil condition as it is in
the eld, with no resistance to disruptive processes
(slaking, wind erosion, etc.), then, measurement of
the distribution of soil fragments after input of low
fractionation energy is recommended. For structural
stability measurements it is important to measure
the distribution of soil fragments before and after
high-energy mechanical disruption.
With the exception of characterizing the dry aggre-
gate size distribution for wind erosion studies, there
are no standardized procedures for dry or wet sieving.
When at sieves are used for dry sieving it is important
to determine the duration of sieving in order to avoid
abrasion of fragments. Several studies recommend
30 s of vibratory, horizontal or horizontalvertical
sieving for adequate separation of soil fragments with
minimal abrasion. In the case of wet sieving, although
the stability of one size range of aggregates can be
related to whole soil structural stability, a better
estimate of the resistance of the soil to fragmentation
under water is obtained by sieving the sample over a
nest of sieves. Special care must be taken to exclude
primary particles with sizes similar to that of the
measured fragments.
Use of the average size or mass fractions corre-
sponding to a single size ranges are not suitable
18 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
for describing the distribution of soil fragments.
Fragments rarely follow a normal distribution of sizes
so parameters from the log-normal or RosinRamler
models are recommended for describing the distribu-
tion of mass fractions. A new approach to describe the
distribution of soil fragments based on fractal theory
has been recently proposed. This approach deserves
further investigation.
Structural stability values are empirical and have
meaning only when they are compared to similarly
obtained values among treatments, or to soil consti-
tuents or processes. The choice of stability index
should be carefully considered in relation to the types
of comparison desired.
References
Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987. The
Canadian System of Soil Classication, Vol. 1646, 2nd Edition.
Agriculture Canada Publication, p. 164.
Allen, T., 1997. Particle Size Measurement. Powder Sampling and
Particle Size Measurement, Vol. 1, 5th Edition. Chapman &
Hall, London, 525 pp.
Aluko, O.B., Seig, D.A., 2000. An experimental investigation of
the characteristics of and conditions for brittle fracture in two-
dimensional soil cutting. Soil Till. Res. 57, 143157.
Andersson, S., Hakansson, J., 1967. Determination of the volume
relationship in the different layers of the topsoil. In: De Boodt,
M., De Leenheer, L., Frese, H., Low, A.J., Peerlkamp, P.K.
(Eds.), West-European Methods for Soil Structure Determina-
tion, Vol. VII. The West-European Working Group on Soil
Structure of the International Soil Science Society, Ghent,
Belgium, pp. 2529.
Arshad, M.A., Lowery, B., Grossman, B., 1996. Physical test for
monitoring soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.),
Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of
America, Madison, WI, pp. 123141
Aubertot, J.N., Durr, C., Kieu, K., Richard, G., 1999. Character-
ization of sugar beet seedbed structure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63,
13771384.
Babel, U., Benecke, P., Hartge, K.H., Horn, R., Wiechmann, H.,
1995. Determination of soil structure at various scales. In:
Hartge, K.H., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Structure, Its Devel-
opment and Function. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 110.
Baldock, J.A., Kay, B.D., 1987. Inuence of cropping history and
chemical treatments on the water-stable aggregation of a silt
loam soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 67, 501511.
Berntsen, R., Berre, B., 1993. Fracturing of soil clods and the soil
crumbling effectiveness of draught tillage implements. Soil
Till. Res. 28, 7994.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.),
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods. ASA/SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 363375.
Braunack, M.V., Dexter, A.R., 1989a. Soil aggregation in the seedbed:
a review. I. Properties of aggregates and beds of aggregates. Soil
Till. Res. 14, 259279.
Braunack, M.V., Dexter, A.R., 1989b. Soil aggregation in the seedbed:
a review. II. Effect of aggregate sizes on plant growth. Soil Till.
Res. 14, 281298.
Braunack, M.V., McPhee, J.E., 1991. The effect of initial soil water
content and tillage implement on seedbed formation. Soil Till.
Res. 20, 517.
Brown, A.D., Dexter, A.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Spoor, G., 1996.
Effect of soil macroporosity and aggregate size on seedsoil
contact. Soil Till. Res. 38, 203216.
Bryan, R.B., 1968. The development, use and efciency of indices
of soil erodibility. Geoderma 2, 526.
Bryan, R.B., Govers, G., Poesen, J., 1989. The concept of soil
erodibility and some problems of assessment and application.
Catena 16, 393412.
Burke, W., Gabriels, D., Bouma, J., 1986. Soil Structure Assessment.
A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 92 pp.
Buschiazzo, D.E., Aimar, S.B., Babinec, F.J., Ferramola, L., 1994.
Un metodo para la determinacion de estabilidad de agregados
en seco en suelos de la region semiarida pampeana central
(Argentina). Ciencia del Suelo 12, 3234.
Campbell, D.J., Henshall, J.K., 1991. Bulk density. In: Smith, K.A.,
Mullins, C.E. (Eds.), Soil Analysis, Physical Methods. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 329366.
Carolino de Sa, M.A., Lima, J.M., Silva, M.L.N., Dias Junior, M.S.,
1999. Indice de desagregacao do solo baseado em energia ultra-
sonica. Revista Brasilera do Ciencia do solo 23, 525531.
Carter, M.R., Sanderson, J.B., Macleod, J.A., 1998. Inuence of
time of tillage on soil physical attributes in potato rotations in
Prince Edward Island. Soil Till. Res. 49, 127137.
Cerda, A., 2000. Aggregate stability against water forces under
different climates on agriculture land and scrubland in southern
Bolivia. Soil Till. Res. 57, 159166.
Chan, K.Y., Heenan, D.P., 1999. Lime-induced loss of soil organic
carbon and effect on aggregate stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
63, 18411844.
Chepil, W.S., 1952. Improved rotary sieve for measuring state and
stability of dry soil structure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 16, 113
117.
Chepil, W.S., 1953. Field structure of cultivated soils with special
reference to erodibilty by wind. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 17,
185190.
Chepil, W.S., 1962. A compact rotatory sieve and the importance of
dry sieving in physical soil analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
26, 46.
Chepil, W.S., Bisal, F., 1943. A rotatory sieve method for
determining the size distribution of soil clods. Soil Sci. 56,
95100.
Christensen, B.T., 1986. Straw incorporation and soil organic matter
in macro-aggregates and particle size separates. J. Soil Sci. 37,
125135.
Clement, C.R., Williams, T.E., 1958. An examination of the
method of aggregate analysis by wet sieving in relation to
the inuence of diverse leys on arable soils. J. Soil Sci. 9,
252266.
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Cole, R.H., 1939. Soil macrostructure as affected by cultural
treatments. Hilgardia 12, 429472.
Collis-George, N., Laryea, K.B., 1972. An examination of the wet
aggregate analysis. The moisture characteristic and inltration
percolation methods of determining the stability of soil
aggregates. Aust. J. Soil Res. 10, 1524.
Coughlan, K.J., Smith, G.D., Fox, W.E., 1978. Measurement of the
size of natural aggregates. In: Emerson, W.W., Bond, R.D.,
Dexter, A.R. (Eds.), Modication of Soil Structure. Wiley,
Chichester, UK, pp. 205210.
Danielson, R.E., Sutherland, P.L., 1986. Porosity. In: A. Klute (Ed.),
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 443461.
Davidson, J.M., Chang, R.K., 1972. Transport of picloram in
relation to soil physical conditions and pore-water velocity. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36, 257261.
De Boodt, M., De Leenheer, L., Kirkham, D., 1961. Soil aggregate
stability indexes and crop yields. Soil Sci. 91, 138146.
De Boodt, M., De Leenher, L., Frese, H., Low, A.J., Peerlkamp,
P.K., 1967. West-European methods for soil structure determi-
nation. The State Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghent,
Belgium.
De Leenheer, L., De Boodt, M., 1959. Determination of aggregate
stability by the change in mean weight diameter. In: Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Soil Structure, Ghent, Belgie.
Rijkslandouwhogeschool, pp. 290300.
Deizman, M.M., Mostaghini, S., Shanholtz, V.O., Mitchell, J.K.,
1987. Size distribution of eroded sediment from two tillage
systems. Trans. ASAE 30, 16421647.
Dexter, A.R., 1975. Uniaxial compression of ideal brittle tilths. J.
Terramechanics 12, 314.
Dexter, A.R., 1979. Prediction of soil structures produced by tillage.
J. Terramechanics 16, 117127.
Dexter, A.R., 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure.
Soil Till. Res. 11, 199238.
Dexter, A.R., 1997. Physical properties of tilled soils. Soil Till.
Res. 43, 4163.
Dexter, A.R., Bird, N.R.A., 2001. Methods for predicting the
optimum and the range of soil water contents for tillage based
on the water retention curve. Soil Till. Res. 57, 203212.
Daz-Zorita, M., Grove, J.H., Perfect, E., 2000. Sampling and
sieving procedures for measuring soil dry aggregate size
distributions. In: Morrison Jr., J.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
15th International Conference of the International Soil Tillage
Research Organization, ``ISTRO-2000'', Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
Douglas, J.T., Goss, M.J., 1982. Stability and organic matter
content of surface soil aggregates under different methods of
cultivation and in grassland. Soil Till. Res. 2, 155175.
Elliott, E.T., Heil, J.W., Kelly, E.F., Monger, H.C., 1999. Soil
structure and other physical properties. In: Robertson, G.P.,
Coleman, D.C., Bledsoe, C.S., Sollins, P. (Eds.), Standard Soil
Methods for Long-term Ecological Research. LTER, New York,
pp. 7485.
Freitag, D.R., 1971. Methods of measuring soil compaction. In:
Barnes, K.K., Carleton, W.M., Taylor, H.M., Throckmorton,
19
R.I., Vanden Berg, G.E. (Eds.), Compaction of Agricultural
Soils. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
MI, pp. 47103.
Fryrear, D.W., 1985. Determining soil aggregate stability with a
rapid rotary sieve. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40, 231233.
Fuller, L.G., Goh, T.B., 1992. Stabilityenergy relationships and
their application to aggregation studies. Can. J. Soil Sci. 72,
453466.
Gardner, W.R., 1956. Representation of soil aggregate size distribu-
tion by a logarthmic-normal distribution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
20, 151153.
Gaudin, A.M., Meloy, T.P., 1962. Model and commination
distribution equation for single fracture. Trans. AIME 223,
4043.
Gillman, G.P., Bell, L.C., 1976. Surface charge characteristics of
six weathered soils from tropical North Queensland. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 14, 351360.
Gimenez, D., Perfect, E., Rawls, W.J., Pachepsky, Y., 1997. Fractal
models for predicting soil hydraulic properties: a review. Eng.
Geol. 48, 161183.
Gimenez, D., Allmaras, R.R., Huggins, D.R., Nater, E.A., 1998.
Mass, surface, and fragmentation fractal dimensions of soil
fragments produced by tillage. Geoderma 86, 261278.
Gollany, H.T., Schumacher, T.E., Evenson, P.D., Lindstrom, M.J.,
Lemme, G.D., 1991. Aggregate stability of an eroded and
desurfaced Typic Argiustoll. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55, 811
816.
Gregorich, E.G., Kachanoski, R.G., Voroney, R.P., 1988. Ultrasonic
dispersion of aggregates: distribution of organic matter in size
fractions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68, 395403.
Gupta, V.S., Fuerstenau, D.W., Mika, T.S., 1975. An investigation
of sieving in the presence of attrition. Powder Technol. 11,
257271.
Hadas, A., 1987. Long-term tillage practice effects on soil aggre-
gation modes and strength. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 191197.
Hadas, A., Wolf, D., 1984. Renement and re-evaluation of the
drop-shatter soil fragmentation method. Soil Till. Res. 4, 237
249.
Harris, R.F., Chesters, G., Allen, O.N., 1966. Dynamics of soil aggre-
gation. Adv. Agron. 18, 107169.
Hattori, T., Hattori, R., 1976. The physical environment in soil
microbiology: an attempt to extend principles of microbiology
to soil microorganisms. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 423461.
Henin, S., Monnier, G., Combeau, A., 1958. Methode pour l'etude
de la stabilite structurale des sols. Ann. Agron. 9, 7190.
Hofman, G., De Leenheer, L., 1975. Inuence of soil prewetting on
aggregate instability. Pedologie 25, 190198.
Hooker, D.C., Vyn, T.J., 2000. Critical soil factors affecting early
corn growth and yield in conservation tillage: a multiple-
variable approach. In: Morrison Jr., J.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 15th International Conference of the International Soil
Tillage Research Organization, ``ISTRO-2000'', Fort Worth,
TX, USA. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
Horn, R., 1990. Aggregate characterization as compared to soil
bulk properties. Soil Till. Res. 17, 265289.
Ingles, O.G., 1965. The shatter test as an index of strength for soil
aggregates. In: Osbora, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Jibt
20 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Tenksbury Symposium on Fracture. Faculty of Engineering,
University of Melburne, Melburne, Australia, pp. 284302.
Irani, R.R., Callis, C.F., 1963. Particle Size: Measurement,
Interpretation, and Application. Wiley, New York, 165 pp.
Jastrow, J.D., Miller, R.M., 1991. Methods for assessing the effects
of biota on soil structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 34, 279
303.
Kay, B.D., 1990. Rates of change of soil structure under different
cropping systems. Adv. Soil Sci. 12, 152.
Kay, B.D., Angers, D.A., 1999. Soil structure. In: Sumner, M.E.
(Ed.), Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 229276.
Kemper, W.D., Koch, E.J., 1966. Aggregate stability of soils from
western United States and Canada. ARS-USDA Tech. Bull.
1355, 170.
Kemper, W.D., Rosenau, R.C., 1984. Soil cohesion as affected
by time and water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 1001
1006.
Kemper, W.D., Rosenau, R.C., 1986. Aggregate stability and size
distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part
1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of
Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI,
pp. 425442.
Koening, F.F.R., Schuffelen, A.C., 1960. Mathematical treatment of
aggregate-stability determinations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh
International Congress on Soil Science, Madison, WI, USA,
pp. 265271.
Krumbein, W.C., 1936. Application of logarithmic moments to size
frequency distributions of sediments. J. Sediment. Petrol. 6, 35
47.
Lal, R., Elliott, W., 1994. Erodibility and erosivity. In: Lal, R.
(Ed.), Soil Erosion Research Methods. St. Lucie Press, Delray
Beach, pp. 181208.
Le Bissonnais, Y., 1996. Soil characteristics and aggregate stability.
In: Agassi, M. (Ed.), Soil Erosion, Conservation, and
Rehabilitation, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 4160.
Lima, J.M., Anderson, S.J., 1997. Aggregation and aggregate size
effects on extractable iron and aluminum in two Hapludoxs.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 965970.
Linquist, B.A., Singleton, P.W., Yost, R.S., Cassman, K.G., 1997.
Aggregate size effects on the sorption and release of phosphorus
in an Ultisol. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 160166.
Lyles, L., Dickerson, J.D., Disrud, L.A., 1970. Modied rotary
sieve for improved accuracy. Soil Sci. 109, 201210.
MacRae, R.J., Mehuys, G.R., 1987. Effects of green manuring in
rotation with corn on the physical properties of two Quebec
soils. Biol. Agric. Hort. 4, 257270.
Manichon, H., 1987. Observation morphologique de l'etat struc-
tural et mise en evidence d'effets de compactage des horizons
travailles. In: Monnier, G., Goss, M.J. (Eds.), Soil Compaction
and Regeneration. Balkema, Rotterdam/Boston, pp. 3952.
Marshall, T.J., Quirk, J.P., 1950. Stability of structural aggregates
of dry soil. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 266275.
Martens, D.A., 2000. Management and crop residue inuence soil
aggregate stability. J. Environ. Qual. 29, 723727.
McCoy, E., Cardina, J., 1997. Characterizing the structure of
undisturbed soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 280286.
McIntyre, D.S., 1974a. Procuring undisturbed cores for physical
measurements. In: Loveday, J. (Ed.), Methods for Analysis of
Irrigated Soils. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Victoria,
Australia, pp. 154165.
McIntyre, D.S., 1974b. Soil sampling techniques for physical
measurements. In: Loveday, J. (Ed.), Methods for Analysis of
Irrigated Soils. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Victoria,
Australia, pp. 1220.
McKeague, J.A., Wang, C., 1982. Soil structure: concepts, descrip-
tion, and interpretation. Research Branch Agriculture Canada,
Ottawa, Ont., Canada, 42 pp.
Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A., 1992. Introduction to Linear
Regression Analysis. Wiley, New York, 527 pp.
Mott, S.C., Groenevelt, P.H., Voroney, R.P., 1990. Biodegradation
of a gas oil applied to aggregates of different sizes. J. Environ.
Qual. 19, 257260.
Nasr, H.M., Selles, F., 1995. Seedling emergence as inuenced by
aggregate size, bulk density, and penetration resistance of the
seedbed. Soil Till. Res. 34, 6176.
Nimmo, J.R., 1997. Modeling structural inuences on soil water
retention. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 712719.
Njos, A., 1979. Aggregate size distribution in the seed bed: effects
on soil temperature, matric suction, and emergence of barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)a review of some research on clayey
soils in South Eastern Norway. In: Proceedings of the Eight
International Soil Tillage Research Organisation (ISTRO)
Conference, ISTRO, Stuttgart, Hohenheim, Germany.
Oades, J.M., 1984. Soil organic matter and structural stability:
mechanisms and implications for management. Plant and Soil
76, 319337.
Panabokke, C.R., Quirk, J.P., 1957. Effect of initial water content
on stability of soil aggregates in water. Soil Sci. 83, 185
195.
Perfect, E., 1997. Fractal models for the fragmentation of rocks and
soils: a review. Eng. Geol. 48, 185198.
Perfect, E., Blevins, R.L., 1997. Fractal characterization of soil
aggregation and fragmentation as inuenced by tillage treat-
ment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 896900.
Perfect, E., Sukop, M.C., 2001. Models relating solute dispersion
to pore space geometry in saturated media: a review. In:
Selim, H.M., Sparks, D.L. (Eds.), Physical and Chemical
Processes of Water and Solute Transport/Retention in Soils.
Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 77
146.
Perfect, E., Kay, B.D., van Loon, W.K.P., Sheard, R.W., Pojasok,
T., 1990. Factors inuencing soil structural stability within a
growing season. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 173179.
Perfect, E., Rasiah, V., Kay, B.D., 1992. Fractal dimension of soil
aggregate-size distributions calculated by number and mass.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 14071409.
Perfect, E., Kay, B.D., Ferguson, J.A., Da Silva, A.P., Denholm,
K.A., 1993. Comparison of functions characterizing the dry
aggregate size distribution of tilled soil. Soil Till. Res. 28, 123
139.
Perfect, E., Daz-Zorita, M., Grove, J.H., 2002. A prefractal model
for predicting soil fragment mass-size distributions. Soil Till.
Res. 64, 7990.
 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322
Perret, J., Prasher, S.O., Kantzas, A., Langford, C., 1997. 3D
visualization of soil macroporosity using X-ray CAT scanning.
Can. Agric. Eng. 39, 249261.
Pojasok, T., Kay, B.D., 1990. Assessment of a combination of wet
sieving and turbidimetry to characterize the structural stability
of moist aggregates. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70, 3342.
Prasher, C.L., 1987. Crushing and Grinding Process Handbook.
Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 46118.
Puri, A.N., Puri, B.R., 1939. Physical characteristics of soils. II.
Expressing mechanical analysis and state of aggregation of
soils by single values. Soil Sci. 47, 7781.
Rathore, T.R., Ghildyal, B.P., Sachan, R.S., 1983. Effect of surface
crusting on emergence of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.)
seedlings. I. Inuence of aggregate size in the seedbed. Soil
Till. Res. 3, 111121.
Reid, J.B., Goss, M.J., 1981. Effect of living roots of different plant
species on the aggregate stability of two arable soils. J. Soil Sci.
32, 521541.
Reuss, S.A., Buhler, D.D., Gunsolus, J.L., 2001. Effects of soil
depth and aggregate size on weed distribution and viability in a
silt loam soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 16, 209217.
Sahimi, M., 1993. Flow phenomena in rocks: from continuum
models to fractals, percolation, cellular automata, and simu-
lated annealing. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 13931534.
Sandri, R., Anken, T., Hilker, T., Sartori, L., Bollhalder, H., 1998.
Comparison of methods for determining cloddiness in seedbed
preparation. Soil Till. Res. 45, 7590.
Schaller, F.W., Stockinger, K.R., 1953. A comparison of ve
methods for expressing aggregation data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 17, 310313.
Schneider, E.C., Gupta, S.C., 1985. Corn emergence as inuenced
by soil temperature, matric potential, and aggregate size
distribution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 415422.
Schulten, H.R., Monreal, C.M., Schnitzer, M., 1995. Effect of long-
term cultivation on the chemical structure of soil organic
matter. Naturwissenschaften 82, 4244.
Seech, A.G., Beauchamp, E.G., 1988. Denitrication in soil
aggregates of different sizes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 16161621.
Sextone, A.J., Revsbech, N.P., Parkin, T.B., Tiedje, J.M., 1985.
Direct measurement of oxygen proles and denitrication rates
in soil aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 645651.
Siddoway, F.H., 1963. Effects of cropping and tillage methods on
dry aggregate soil structure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27, 452
454.
Singh, K.K., Colvin, T.S., Erbach, D.C., Mughal, A.Q., 1992. Tilth
index: an approach to quantifying soil tilth. Trans. ASAE 35,
17771785.
Skidmore, E.L., Layton, J.B., 1988. Soil measurements to estimate
erodibility by wind. Wind Erosion Conference, Lubbock, TX,
USA. Texas Technical University, pp. 133138.
Skidmore, E.L., Powers, D.H., 1982. Dry soil-aggregate stability:
energy based index. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 12741279.
Skidmore, E.L., Hagen, L.J., Armbrust, D.V., Durar, A.A., Fryrear,
D.W., Potter, K.N., Wagner, L.E., Zobeck, T.M., 1994. Methods
for investigating basic processes and conditions affecting wind
erosion. In: Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion, Research Methods. St.
Lucie Press, Delray Beach, pp. 295330.
21
Skopp, J., 1984. Analysis of solute movement in structured soils.
In: Bouma, J., Raats, P.A.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISSS
Symposium on Water Solute Movement in Heavy Clay Soils,
Wageningen, The Netherlands. ILRI, pp. 220227.
Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th
Edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 503 pp.
Soil Science Society of America, 1997. Glossary of Soil Science
Terms 1996. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI,
138 pp.
Sort, X., Alcaniz, J.M., 1999. Effects of sewage sludge amendment
on soil aggregation. Land Degrad. Dev. 10, 312.
Stirk, G.B., 1958. Expression of soil aggregate distributions. Soil
Sci. 86, 133135.
Sumner, M.E., 1958. A simplied technique for the determination
of soil aggregation. S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 1, 301304.
Tisdall, J.M., Oades, J.M., 1982. Organic matter and water-stable
aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 33, 141163.
Toogood, J.A., 1979. Relation of aggregate stability to properties of
Alberta soils. In: Emerson, W.W., Bond, R.D., Dexter, A.R.
(Eds.). Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 211215.
Topp, G.C., Reynolds, W.D., Cook, F.J., Kirby, J.M., Carter, M.R.,
1997. Physical attributes of soil quality. In: Gregorich, E.G.,
Carter, M.R. (Eds.), Soil Quality for Crop Production and
Ecosystem Health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 2158.
Van Bavel, C.H.M., 1949. Mean weightdiameter of soil
aggregates as a statistical index of aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 14, 2023.
Van Steenbergen, M., Cambardella, C.A., Elliott, E.T., Merckx, R.,
1991. Two simple indexes for distribution of soil components
among size classes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 34, 335340.
Van Veen, J.A., Kuikman, P.J., 1990. Soil structural aspects of
decomposition of organic matter by micro-organisms. Biogeo-
chemistry 11, 213233.
Vershinin, P.V., 1971. The Background of Soil Structure. Israel
Program for Scientic Translations Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel, 128 pp.
Wagner, L.E., Ding, D., 1994. Representing aggregate size distribu-
tions as modied lognormal distributions. Trans. ASAE 37, 815
821.
Wagner, L.E., Skidmore, E.L., 2000. Methods to quantify residue,
roughness, and soil aggregates in wind erosion studies. In:
Laen, J.M., Tian, J., Huang, C. (Eds.), Soil Erosion and
Dryland Farming. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 663671.
Watson, J.R., 1971. Ultrasonic vibration as a method of soil
dispersion. Soils Fert. 34, 127134.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Longstaff, D.J., 1996. An assessment of
the vulnerability of soil structure to destabilisation during
tillage. Part II. Field trials. Soil Till. Res. 37, 175190.
Westerhof, R., Buurman, P., van Griethuysen, C., Ayarza, M.,
Vilela, L., Zech, W., 1999. Aggregation studied by laser
diffraction in relation to plowing and liming in the Cerrado
region in Brazil. Geoderma 90, 277290.
Whitby, K.T., 1959. The Mechanics of Fine Sieving. American
Society for Testing and Materials. Special Technical Publica-
tion, Vol. 234, pp. 325.
White, W.M., 1993. Dry aggregate distribution. In: Carter, M.R.
(Ed.), Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Lewis Publish-
ers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 659662.
22 M. Daz-Zorita et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 64 (2002) 322

Wilson, G.V., Luxmoore, R.J., 1988. Inltration, macroporosity,
and mesoporosity distributions on two forested watersheds. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 329335.
Winding, A., 1994. Fingerprinting bacterial soil communities using
Biolog microtitre plates. In: Ritz, K., Dighton, J., Giller, K.E.
(Eds.), Beyond the Biomass: Compositional and Functional
Analysis of Soil Microbial Communities. Wiley, Chichester,
UK, pp. 8593.
Wu, L., Vomocil, J.A., Childs, S.W., 1990. Pore size, particle size,
aggregate size, and water retention. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54,
952956.
Yoder, R.E., 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils
and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses. J. Am. Soc.
Agron. 28, 337351.
Zobeck, T.M., 1991. Soil properties affecting wind erosion. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 46, 112118.