Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health

Elizabeth L. Rieke; Dianna K. Bagnall; Cristine L.S. Morgan; Kade D. Flynn; Julie A. Howe; Kelsey L.H. Greub; G. Mac Bean; Shannon B. Cappellazzi; Michael Cope; Daniel Liptzin; Charlotte E. Norris; Paul W. Tracy; Ezra Aberle; Amanda Ashworth; Oscar Bañuelos Tavarez; Andy I. Bary; R. L. Baumhardt; Alberto Borbón Gracia; Daniel C. Brainard; Jameson R. Brennan; Dolores Briones Reyes; Darren Bruhjell; Cameron N. Carlyle; James J.W. Crawford; Cody F. Creech; Steve W. Culman; Bill Deen; Curtis J. Dell; Justin D. Derner; Thomas F. Ducey; Sjoerd W. Duiker; Miles F. Dyck; Benjamin H. Ellert; Martin H. Entz; Avelino Espinosa Solorio; Steven J. Fonte; Simon Fonteyne; Ann Marie Fortuna; Jamie L. Foster; Lisa M. Fultz; Audrey V. Gamble; Charles M. Geddes; Deirdre Griffin-LaHue; John H. Grove; Stephen K. Hamilton; Xiying Hao; Zachary D. Hayden; Nora Honsdorf; James A. Ippolito; Gregg A. Johnson; Mark A. Kautz; Newell R. Kitchen; Sandeep Kumar; Kirsten S.M. Kurtz; Francis J. Larney; Katie L. Lewis; Matt Liebman; Antonio Lopez Ramirez; Stephen Machado; Bijesh Maharjan; Miguel Angel Martinez Gamiño; William E. May; Mitchel P. McClaran; Marshall D. McDaniel; Neville Millar; Jeffrey P. Mitchell; Amber D. Moore; Philip A. Moore; Manuel Mora Gutiérrez; Kelly A. Nelson; Emmanuel C. Omondi; Shannon L. Osborne; Leodegario Osorio Alcalá; Phillip Owens; Eugenia M. Pena-Yewtukhiw; Hanna J. Poffenbarger; Brenda Ponce Lira; Jennifer R. Reeve; Timothy M. Reinbott; Mark S. Reiter; Edwin L. Ritchey; Kraig L. Roozeboom; Yichao Rui; Amir Sadeghpour; Upendra M. Sainju; Gregg R. Sanford; William F. Schillinger; Robert R. Schindelbeck; Meagan E. Schipanski; Alan J. Schlegel; Kate M. Scow; Lucretia A. Sherrod; Amy L. Shober; Sudeep S. Sidhu; Ernesto Solís Moya; Mervin St. Luce; Jeffrey S. Strock; Andrew E. Suyker; Virginia R. Sykes; Haiying Tao; Alberto Trujillo Campos; Laura L. Van Eerd; Harold M. van Es; Nele Verhulst; Tony J. Vyn; Yutao Wang; Dexter B. Watts; David L. Wright; Tiequan Zhang; C. Wayne Honeycutt

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health

Elizabeth L. Rieke, Dianna K. Bagnall, Cristine L.S. Morgan, Kade D. Flynn, Julie A. Howe, Kelsey L.H. Greub, G. Mac Bean, Shannon B. Cappellazzi, Michael Cope, Daniel Liptzin, Charlotte E. Norris, Paul W. Tracy, Ezra Aberle, Amanda Ashworth, Oscar Bañuelos Tavarez, Andy I. Bary, R. L. Baumhardt, Alberto Borbón Gracia, Daniel C. Brainard, Jameson R. BrennanDolores Briones Reyes, Darren Bruhjell, Cameron N. Carlyle, James J.W. Crawford, Cody F. Creech, Steve W. Culman, Bill Deen, Curtis J. Dell, Justin D. Derner, Thomas F. Ducey, Sjoerd W. Duiker, Miles F. Dyck, Benjamin H. Ellert, Martin H. Entz, Avelino Espinosa Solorio, Steven J. Fonte, Simon Fonteyne, Ann Marie Fortuna, Jamie L. Foster, Lisa M. Fultz, Audrey V. Gamble, Charles M. Geddes, Deirdre Griffin-LaHue, John H. Grove, Stephen K. Hamilton, Xiying Hao, Zachary D. Hayden, Nora Honsdorf, James A. Ippolito, Gregg A. Johnson, Mark A. Kautz, Newell R. Kitchen, Sandeep Kumar, Kirsten S.M. Kurtz, Francis J. Larney, Katie L. Lewis, Matt Liebman, Antonio Lopez Ramirez, Stephen Machado, Bijesh Maharjan, Miguel Angel Martinez Gamiño, William E. May, Mitchel P. McClaran, Marshall D. McDaniel, Neville Millar, Jeffrey P. Mitchell, Amber D. Moore, Philip A. Moore, Manuel Mora Gutiérrez, Kelly A. Nelson, Emmanuel C. Omondi, Shannon L. Osborne, Leodegario Osorio Alcalá, Phillip Owens, Eugenia M. Pena-Yewtukhiw, Hanna J. Poffenbarger, Brenda Ponce Lira, Jennifer R. Reeve, Timothy M. Reinbott, Mark S. Reiter, Edwin L. Ritchey, Kraig L. Roozeboom, Yichao Rui, Amir Sadeghpour, Upendra M. Sainju, Gregg R. Sanford, William F. Schillinger, Robert R. Schindelbeck, Meagan E. Schipanski, Alan J. Schlegel, Kate M. Scow, Lucretia A. Sherrod, Amy L. Shober, Sudeep S. Sidhu, Ernesto Solís Moya, Mervin St. Luce, Jeffrey S. Strock, Andrew E. Suyker, Virginia R. Sykes, Haiying Tao, Alberto Trujillo Campos, Laura L. Van Eerd, Harold M. van Es, Nele Verhulst, Tony J. Vyn, Yutao Wang, Dexter B. Watts, David L. Wright, Tiequan Zhang, C. Wayne Honeycutt

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aggregate stability is a commonly used indicator of soil health because improvements in aggregate stability are related to reduced erodibility and improved soil–water dynamics. During the past 80 to 90 years, numerous methods have been developed to assess aggregate stability. Limited comparisons among the methods have resulted in varied magnitudes of response to soil health management practices and varied influences of inherent soil properties and climate. It is not clear whether selection of a specific method creates any advantage to the investigator. This study assessed four commonly used methods of measuring aggregate stability using data collected as part of the North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements. The methods included water stable aggregates using the Cornell Rainfall Simulator (WSA_CASH), wet sieved water stable aggregates (WSA_ARS), slaking captured and adapted from SLAKES smart-phone image recognition software (STAB₁₀), and the mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates (MWD). Influence of climate and inherent soil properties at the continental scale were analyzed in addition to method responses to rotation diversity, cash crop count, residue management, organic nutrient amendments, cover crops, and tillage. The four methods were moderately correlated with each other. All methods were sensitive to differences in climate and inherent soil properties between sites, although to different degrees. None measured significant effects from rotation diversity or crop count, but all methods detected significant increases in aggregate stability resulting from reduced tillage. Significant increases or positive trends were observed for all methods in relation to cover cropping, increased residue retention, and organic amendments, except for STAB₁₀, which expressed a slightly negative response to organic amendments. Considering these results, no single method was clearly superior and all four are viable options for measuring aggregate stability. Therefore, secondary considerations (e.g., cost, method availability, increased sensitivity to a specific management practice, or minimal within-treatment variability) driven by the needs of the investigator, should determine the most suitable method.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	116156
Journal	Geoderma
Volume	428
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156
State	Published - Dec 15 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements is part of a broader effort titled, “Assessing and Expanding Soil Health for Production, Economic, and Environmental Benefits”. The project was funded by the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (grant ID 523926), General Mills, and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The authors acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their contribution to the long-term research sites: Robert Dungan, Alan Franzluebbers, Joshua Heitman, April Leytem, Mark Liebig, Deanna Osmond, Michael Thompson, Dr. George Kapusta, Ronald Krausz, Dr. Karla Gage, Dr. Rachel Cook, Amanda Weidhuner, Bob Blevins, Con Campbell, Brian McConkey, Hong Wang, Reynald Lemke, Kelsey Brandt, B. Hohner, M.R. Reeb, D. Lawrence, M. Soultani, and K. Rinas. Support for the sampling by Michigan State University was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation's Long-term Ecological Research program at the Kellogg Biological Station ((DEB 1832042), the US Department of Agriculture’s Long-term Agroecosystem Research program, and MSU AgBioResearch.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)

Keywords

Aggregate stability
Cover crops
Indicators
Organic amendments
Soil health
Tillage

Publisher link

10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

Rieke, E. L., Bagnall, D. K., Morgan, C. L. S., Flynn, K. D., Howe, J. A., Greub, K. L. H., Mac Bean, G., Cappellazzi, S. B., Cope, M., Liptzin, D., Norris, C. E., Tracy, P. W., Aberle, E., Ashworth, A., Bañuelos Tavarez, O., Bary, A. I., Baumhardt, R. L., Borbón Gracia, A., Brainard, D. C., ... Honeycutt, C. W. (2022). Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health. Geoderma, 428, [116156]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

Rieke, EL, Bagnall, DK, Morgan, CLS, Flynn, KD, Howe, JA, Greub, KLH, Mac Bean, G, Cappellazzi, SB, Cope, M, Liptzin, D, Norris, CE, Tracy, PW, Aberle, E, Ashworth, A, Bañuelos Tavarez, O, Bary, AI, Baumhardt, RL, Borbón Gracia, A, Brainard, DC, Brennan, JR, Briones Reyes, D, Bruhjell, D, Carlyle, CN, Crawford, JJW, Creech, CF, Culman, SW, Deen, B, Dell, CJ, Derner, JD, Ducey, TF, Duiker, SW, Dyck, MF, Ellert, BH, Entz, MH, Espinosa Solorio, A, Fonte, SJ, Fonteyne, S, Fortuna, AM, Foster, JL, Fultz, LM, Gamble, AV, Geddes, CM, Griffin-LaHue, D, Grove, JH, Hamilton, SK, Hao, X, Hayden, ZD, Honsdorf, N, Ippolito, JA, Johnson, GA, Kautz, MA, Kitchen, NR, Kumar, S, Kurtz, KSM, Larney, FJ, Lewis, KL, Liebman, M, Lopez Ramirez, A, Machado, S, Maharjan, B, Martinez Gamiño, MA, May, WE, McClaran, MP, McDaniel, MD, Millar, N, Mitchell, JP, Moore, AD, Moore, PA, Mora Gutiérrez, M, Nelson, KA, Omondi, EC, Osborne, SL, Osorio Alcalá, L, Owens, P, Pena-Yewtukhiw, EM, Poffenbarger, HJ, Ponce Lira, B, Reeve, JR, Reinbott, TM, Reiter, MS, Ritchey, EL, Roozeboom, KL, Rui, Y, Sadeghpour, A, Sainju, UM, Sanford, GR, Schillinger, WF, Schindelbeck, RR, Schipanski, ME, Schlegel, AJ, Scow, KM, Sherrod, LA, Shober, AL, Sidhu, SS, Solís Moya, E, St. Luce, M, Strock, JS, Suyker, AE, Sykes, VR, Tao, H, Trujillo Campos, A, Van Eerd, LL, van Es, HM, Verhulst, N, Vyn, TJ, Wang, Y, Watts, DB, Wright, DL, Zhang, T & Honeycutt, CW 2022, 'Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health', Geoderma, vol. 428, 116156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

@article{ba24074ca6af4f36918ea5e30885fa68,

title = "Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health",

abstract = "Aggregate stability is a commonly used indicator of soil health because improvements in aggregate stability are related to reduced erodibility and improved soil–water dynamics. During the past 80 to 90 years, numerous methods have been developed to assess aggregate stability. Limited comparisons among the methods have resulted in varied magnitudes of response to soil health management practices and varied influences of inherent soil properties and climate. It is not clear whether selection of a specific method creates any advantage to the investigator. This study assessed four commonly used methods of measuring aggregate stability using data collected as part of the North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements. The methods included water stable aggregates using the Cornell Rainfall Simulator (WSACASH), wet sieved water stable aggregates (WSAARS), slaking captured and adapted from SLAKES smart-phone image recognition software (STAB10), and the mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates (MWD). Influence of climate and inherent soil properties at the continental scale were analyzed in addition to method responses to rotation diversity, cash crop count, residue management, organic nutrient amendments, cover crops, and tillage. The four methods were moderately correlated with each other. All methods were sensitive to differences in climate and inherent soil properties between sites, although to different degrees. None measured significant effects from rotation diversity or crop count, but all methods detected significant increases in aggregate stability resulting from reduced tillage. Significant increases or positive trends were observed for all methods in relation to cover cropping, increased residue retention, and organic amendments, except for STAB10, which expressed a slightly negative response to organic amendments. Considering these results, no single method was clearly superior and all four are viable options for measuring aggregate stability. Therefore, secondary considerations (e.g., cost, method availability, increased sensitivity to a specific management practice, or minimal within-treatment variability) driven by the needs of the investigator, should determine the most suitable method.",

keywords = "Aggregate stability, Cover crops, Indicators, Organic amendments, Soil health, Tillage",

author = "Rieke, {Elizabeth L.} and Bagnall, {Dianna K.} and Morgan, {Cristine L.S.} and Flynn, {Kade D.} and Howe, {Julie A.} and Greub, {Kelsey L.H.} and {Mac Bean}, G. and Cappellazzi, {Shannon B.} and Michael Cope and Daniel Liptzin and Norris, {Charlotte E.} and Tracy, {Paul W.} and Ezra Aberle and Amanda Ashworth and {Ba{\~n}uelos Tavarez}, Oscar and Bary, {Andy I.} and Baumhardt, {R. L.} and {Borb{\'o}n Gracia}, Alberto and Brainard, {Daniel C.} and Brennan, {Jameson R.} and {Briones Reyes}, Dolores and Darren Bruhjell and Carlyle, {Cameron N.} and Crawford, {James J.W.} and Creech, {Cody F.} and Culman, {Steve W.} and Bill Deen and Dell, {Curtis J.} and Derner, {Justin D.} and Ducey, {Thomas F.} and Duiker, {Sjoerd W.} and Dyck, {Miles F.} and Ellert, {Benjamin H.} and Entz, {Martin H.} and {Espinosa Solorio}, Avelino and Fonte, {Steven J.} and Simon Fonteyne and Fortuna, {Ann Marie} and Foster, {Jamie L.} and Fultz, {Lisa M.} and Gamble, {Audrey V.} and Geddes, {Charles M.} and Deirdre Griffin-LaHue and Grove, {John H.} and Hamilton, {Stephen K.} and Xiying Hao and Hayden, {Zachary D.} and Nora Honsdorf and Ippolito, {James A.} and Johnson, {Gregg A.} and Kautz, {Mark A.} and Kitchen, {Newell R.} and Sandeep Kumar and Kurtz, {Kirsten S.M.} and Larney, {Francis J.} and Lewis, {Katie L.} and Matt Liebman and {Lopez Ramirez}, Antonio and Stephen Machado and Bijesh Maharjan and {Martinez Gami{\~n}o}, {Miguel Angel} and May, {William E.} and McClaran, {Mitchel P.} and McDaniel, {Marshall D.} and Neville Millar and Mitchell, {Jeffrey P.} and Moore, {Amber D.} and Moore, {Philip A.} and {Mora Guti{\'e}rrez}, Manuel and Nelson, {Kelly A.} and Omondi, {Emmanuel C.} and Osborne, {Shannon L.} and {Osorio Alcal{\'a}}, Leodegario and Phillip Owens and Pena-Yewtukhiw, {Eugenia M.} and Poffenbarger, {Hanna J.} and {Ponce Lira}, Brenda and Reeve, {Jennifer R.} and Reinbott, {Timothy M.} and Reiter, {Mark S.} and Ritchey, {Edwin L.} and Roozeboom, {Kraig L.} and Yichao Rui and Amir Sadeghpour and Sainju, {Upendra M.} and Sanford, {Gregg R.} and Schillinger, {William F.} and Schindelbeck, {Robert R.} and Schipanski, {Meagan E.} and Schlegel, {Alan J.} and Scow, {Kate M.} and Sherrod, {Lucretia A.} and Shober, {Amy L.} and Sidhu, {Sudeep S.} and {Sol{\'i}s Moya}, Ernesto and {St. Luce}, Mervin and Strock, {Jeffrey S.} and Suyker, {Andrew E.} and Sykes, {Virginia R.} and Haiying Tao and {Trujillo Campos}, Alberto and {Van Eerd}, {Laura L.} and {van Es}, {Harold M.} and Nele Verhulst and Vyn, {Tony J.} and Yutao Wang and Watts, {Dexter B.} and Wright, {David L.} and Tiequan Zhang and Honeycutt, {C. Wayne}",

note = "Funding Information: The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements is part of a broader effort titled, “Assessing and Expanding Soil Health for Production, Economic, and Environmental Benefits”. The project was funded by the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (grant ID 523926), General Mills, and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The authors acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their contribution to the long-term research sites: Robert Dungan, Alan Franzluebbers, Joshua Heitman, April Leytem, Mark Liebig, Deanna Osmond, Michael Thompson, Dr. George Kapusta, Ronald Krausz, Dr. Karla Gage, Dr. Rachel Cook, Amanda Weidhuner, Bob Blevins, Con Campbell, Brian McConkey, Hong Wang, Reynald Lemke, Kelsey Brandt, B. Hohner, M.R. Reeb, D. Lawrence, M. Soultani, and K. Rinas. Support for the sampling by Michigan State University was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation's Long-term Ecological Research program at the Kellogg Biological Station ((DEB 1832042), the US Department of Agriculture{\textquoteright}s Long-term Agroecosystem Research program, and MSU AgBioResearch. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s)",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "428",

journal = "Geoderma",

issn = "0016-7061",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health

AU - Rieke, Elizabeth L.

AU - Bagnall, Dianna K.

AU - Morgan, Cristine L.S.

AU - Flynn, Kade D.

AU - Howe, Julie A.

AU - Greub, Kelsey L.H.

AU - Mac Bean, G.

AU - Cappellazzi, Shannon B.

AU - Cope, Michael

AU - Liptzin, Daniel

AU - Norris, Charlotte E.

AU - Tracy, Paul W.

AU - Aberle, Ezra

AU - Ashworth, Amanda

AU - Bañuelos Tavarez, Oscar

AU - Bary, Andy I.

AU - Baumhardt, R. L.

AU - Borbón Gracia, Alberto

AU - Brainard, Daniel C.

AU - Brennan, Jameson R.

AU - Briones Reyes, Dolores

AU - Bruhjell, Darren

AU - Carlyle, Cameron N.

AU - Crawford, James J.W.

AU - Creech, Cody F.

AU - Culman, Steve W.

AU - Deen, Bill

AU - Dell, Curtis J.

AU - Derner, Justin D.

AU - Ducey, Thomas F.

AU - Duiker, Sjoerd W.

AU - Dyck, Miles F.

AU - Ellert, Benjamin H.

AU - Entz, Martin H.

AU - Espinosa Solorio, Avelino

AU - Fonte, Steven J.

AU - Fonteyne, Simon

AU - Fortuna, Ann Marie

AU - Foster, Jamie L.

AU - Fultz, Lisa M.

AU - Gamble, Audrey V.

AU - Geddes, Charles M.

AU - Griffin-LaHue, Deirdre

AU - Grove, John H.

AU - Hamilton, Stephen K.

AU - Hao, Xiying

AU - Hayden, Zachary D.

AU - Honsdorf, Nora

AU - Ippolito, James A.

AU - Johnson, Gregg A.

AU - Kautz, Mark A.

AU - Kitchen, Newell R.

AU - Kumar, Sandeep

AU - Kurtz, Kirsten S.M.

AU - Larney, Francis J.

AU - Lewis, Katie L.

AU - Liebman, Matt

AU - Lopez Ramirez, Antonio

AU - Machado, Stephen

AU - Maharjan, Bijesh

AU - Martinez Gamiño, Miguel Angel

AU - May, William E.

AU - McClaran, Mitchel P.

AU - McDaniel, Marshall D.

AU - Millar, Neville

AU - Mitchell, Jeffrey P.

AU - Moore, Amber D.

AU - Moore, Philip A.

AU - Mora Gutiérrez, Manuel

AU - Nelson, Kelly A.

AU - Omondi, Emmanuel C.

AU - Osborne, Shannon L.

AU - Osorio Alcalá, Leodegario

AU - Owens, Phillip

AU - Pena-Yewtukhiw, Eugenia M.

AU - Poffenbarger, Hanna J.

AU - Ponce Lira, Brenda

AU - Reeve, Jennifer R.

AU - Reinbott, Timothy M.

AU - Reiter, Mark S.

AU - Ritchey, Edwin L.

AU - Roozeboom, Kraig L.

AU - Rui, Yichao

AU - Sadeghpour, Amir

AU - Sainju, Upendra M.

AU - Sanford, Gregg R.

AU - Schillinger, William F.

AU - Schindelbeck, Robert R.

AU - Schipanski, Meagan E.

AU - Schlegel, Alan J.

AU - Scow, Kate M.

AU - Sherrod, Lucretia A.

AU - Shober, Amy L.

AU - Sidhu, Sudeep S.

AU - Solís Moya, Ernesto

AU - St. Luce, Mervin

AU - Strock, Jeffrey S.

AU - Suyker, Andrew E.

AU - Sykes, Virginia R.

AU - Tao, Haiying

AU - Trujillo Campos, Alberto

AU - Van Eerd, Laura L.

AU - van Es, Harold M.

AU - Verhulst, Nele

AU - Vyn, Tony J.

AU - Wang, Yutao

AU - Watts, Dexter B.

AU - Wright, David L.

AU - Zhang, Tiequan

AU - Honeycutt, C. Wayne

N1 - Funding Information: The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements is part of a broader effort titled, “Assessing and Expanding Soil Health for Production, Economic, and Environmental Benefits”. The project was funded by the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (grant ID 523926), General Mills, and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The authors acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their contribution to the long-term research sites: Robert Dungan, Alan Franzluebbers, Joshua Heitman, April Leytem, Mark Liebig, Deanna Osmond, Michael Thompson, Dr. George Kapusta, Ronald Krausz, Dr. Karla Gage, Dr. Rachel Cook, Amanda Weidhuner, Bob Blevins, Con Campbell, Brian McConkey, Hong Wang, Reynald Lemke, Kelsey Brandt, B. Hohner, M.R. Reeb, D. Lawrence, M. Soultani, and K. Rinas. Support for the sampling by Michigan State University was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation's Long-term Ecological Research program at the Kellogg Biological Station ((DEB 1832042), the US Department of Agriculture’s Long-term Agroecosystem Research program, and MSU AgBioResearch. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)

PY - 2022/12/15

Y1 - 2022/12/15

N2 - Aggregate stability is a commonly used indicator of soil health because improvements in aggregate stability are related to reduced erodibility and improved soil–water dynamics. During the past 80 to 90 years, numerous methods have been developed to assess aggregate stability. Limited comparisons among the methods have resulted in varied magnitudes of response to soil health management practices and varied influences of inherent soil properties and climate. It is not clear whether selection of a specific method creates any advantage to the investigator. This study assessed four commonly used methods of measuring aggregate stability using data collected as part of the North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements. The methods included water stable aggregates using the Cornell Rainfall Simulator (WSACASH), wet sieved water stable aggregates (WSAARS), slaking captured and adapted from SLAKES smart-phone image recognition software (STAB10), and the mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates (MWD). Influence of climate and inherent soil properties at the continental scale were analyzed in addition to method responses to rotation diversity, cash crop count, residue management, organic nutrient amendments, cover crops, and tillage. The four methods were moderately correlated with each other. All methods were sensitive to differences in climate and inherent soil properties between sites, although to different degrees. None measured significant effects from rotation diversity or crop count, but all methods detected significant increases in aggregate stability resulting from reduced tillage. Significant increases or positive trends were observed for all methods in relation to cover cropping, increased residue retention, and organic amendments, except for STAB10, which expressed a slightly negative response to organic amendments. Considering these results, no single method was clearly superior and all four are viable options for measuring aggregate stability. Therefore, secondary considerations (e.g., cost, method availability, increased sensitivity to a specific management practice, or minimal within-treatment variability) driven by the needs of the investigator, should determine the most suitable method.

AB - Aggregate stability is a commonly used indicator of soil health because improvements in aggregate stability are related to reduced erodibility and improved soil–water dynamics. During the past 80 to 90 years, numerous methods have been developed to assess aggregate stability. Limited comparisons among the methods have resulted in varied magnitudes of response to soil health management practices and varied influences of inherent soil properties and climate. It is not clear whether selection of a specific method creates any advantage to the investigator. This study assessed four commonly used methods of measuring aggregate stability using data collected as part of the North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements. The methods included water stable aggregates using the Cornell Rainfall Simulator (WSACASH), wet sieved water stable aggregates (WSAARS), slaking captured and adapted from SLAKES smart-phone image recognition software (STAB10), and the mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates (MWD). Influence of climate and inherent soil properties at the continental scale were analyzed in addition to method responses to rotation diversity, cash crop count, residue management, organic nutrient amendments, cover crops, and tillage. The four methods were moderately correlated with each other. All methods were sensitive to differences in climate and inherent soil properties between sites, although to different degrees. None measured significant effects from rotation diversity or crop count, but all methods detected significant increases in aggregate stability resulting from reduced tillage. Significant increases or positive trends were observed for all methods in relation to cover cropping, increased residue retention, and organic amendments, except for STAB10, which expressed a slightly negative response to organic amendments. Considering these results, no single method was clearly superior and all four are viable options for measuring aggregate stability. Therefore, secondary considerations (e.g., cost, method availability, increased sensitivity to a specific management practice, or minimal within-treatment variability) driven by the needs of the investigator, should determine the most suitable method.

KW - Aggregate stability

KW - Cover crops

KW - Indicators

KW - Organic amendments

KW - Soil health

KW - Tillage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138061820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138061820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

DO - 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116156

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85138061820

SN - 0016-7061

VL - 428

JO - Geoderma

JF - Geoderma

M1 - 116156

ER -

Evaluation of aggregate stability methods for soil health

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this