Comparing Two Methods for Measuring Soil Bulk Density and Moisture Content
- 1 USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney, Montana, USA
- 2 USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney, Montana, USA
- 3 USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney, Montana, USA
Abstract
Soil bulk density and moisture content are dynamic properties that vary with changes in soil and field conditions and have many agricultural, hydrological and environmental implications. The main objective of this study was to compare between a soil core sampling method (core) and the CPN MC-3 Elite TM nuclear gauge method (radiation) for measuring bulk density ( ρ B ) and volumetric moisture content ( θ v ) in a clay loam soil. Soil ρ B and θ v measurements were determined using the core and radiation methods at 0 - 10 and 10 - 20 cm soil depths. The mean values of soil ρ B obtained using the core method (1.454, 1.492 g · cm <sup>−3</sup> ) were greater than those obtained using the radiation method (1.343, 1.476 g · cm <sup>−3</sup> ) at the 0 - 10 and 10 - 20 cm depths, respectively. Mean ρ B and θ v values averaged across both depths (referred to as the 0 - 20 cm depth) measured by the core method were 4.47% and 22.74% greater, respectively, than those obtained by the radiation method. The coefficients of variation (CV) of soil ρ B values measured by the core method were lower than the CV values of those measured by the radiation method at both depths; however, the CV’s of ρ B values for both methods were larger at the 0 - 10 cm depth than those measured at the 10 - 20 cm depth. Similarly, the CV values of soil θ v values measured by the core method were lower than the CV values of those measured by the radiation method at both depths. There were significant differences between two methods in terms of ρ B and θ v , with the core method generating greater values than the radiation method at the 0 - 20 cm depth. These discrepancies between the two methods could have resulted from soil compaction and soil disturbance caused by the core and radiation techniques, respectively, as well as by other sources of error. Nevertheless, the core sampling method is considered the most common one for measuring ρ B for many agricultural, hydrological and environmental studies in most soils.
- Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. (1986) Bulk Density. In: Klute, Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, ASA-SSSA, Madison, 363-375. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c13
- Jabro, J.D., Toth, J.D. and Jemison, J.M. (1996) Physical and Hydraulic Characteristics of a Hagerstown Silt Loam Soil. Agronomy Series Number 138. College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
- Campbell, G.S. (1985) Soil Physics with Basic. Transport Models for Soil-Plant Systems. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc., New York.
- Grossman, R.B. and Reinsch, T.G. (2002) The Solid Phase. In: Jacob, D.H. and Topp, C., Eds., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, Physical Methods, SSSA, Inc., Madison, 201-225.
- Throup, H.L., Archer, S.R., Monger, H.C. and Waltman, S. (2012) When Bulk Density Methods Matter: Implications for Estimating Soil Organic Carbon Pools in Rocky Soils. Journal of Arid Environments, 77, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.08.020
- Casanova, M., Tapia, E., Seguel, O. and Salazar, O. (2016) Direct Measurement and Prediction of Bulk Density on Alluvial Soils of Central Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 76, 105-113. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392016000100015
- Al-shammary, A.A.G., Kouzani, A.Z., Kaynak, A., Khoo, S.Y., Norton, M. and Gates W. (2018) Soil Bulk Density Estimation Methods: A Review. Pedosphere, 28, 581-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60034-7
- Erbach, E. (1987) Measurement of Soil Bulk Density and Moisture. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 30, 922-931. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30500
- Wood, M.J., Douglas, R.A. and Sands, R. (2004) A Comparison of Three Methods for Measuring the Density of a Forest Soil in New Zealand. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 15, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2004.10702491
- Page-Dumroese, D.S., Jurgensen, M.F., Brown, R.E. and Mroz, G.D. (1999) Comparison of Methods for Determining Bulk Densities of Rocky Forest Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63, 379-383. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.03615995006300020016x
- Jabro, J.D., Iversen, W.M., Evans, R.G., Allen, B.L. and Stevens, W.B. (2014) Repeated Freeze-Thaw Cycles Effects on Soil Compaction in a Clay Loam in Northeastern Montana. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78, 737-744. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.07.0280