@article{01GQMR2PQ3YYCVB5AVXVECS5SA,
  abstract     = {{Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure (VESS) methods receive increasing attention and are gaining popularity. Since in modern agriculture, soil structure degradation becomes very common, it is essential to protect and improve soil structure quality. Methods that enable its straightforward monitoring are therefore needed. Numerous visual soil evaluation techniques that serve this purpose exist, and are varying in objective, evaluation depth (topsoil/ subsoil), evaluation method, number of criteria assessed and their final scoring. In this study, we mainly focus on three VESS methods, two of which were employed in the field along a profile wall (Visual Evaluation of Subsoil Structure, SubVESS, and Double Spade VESS method, DSVESS), and one in the laboratory on soil cores (Cor-eVESS). The main aim of this research was to test and compare these VESS-based methods in terms of their feasibility and repeatability in detecting soil structure degradation in the topsoil and subsoil. Sixteen cropped fields were chosen in Belgium covering six of seven major soil texture classes according to the Belgian soil textural triangle (i.e., sand, loamy sand, light sandy loam, silt loam, clay, and heavy clay). SubVESS and DSVESS were performed in the same pits until 80 cm and 40 cm, respectively. Soil cores for CoreVESS and for the determination of soil quality indicators (SQi) with conventional laboratory methods were taken from three layers, that is, the ploughed topsoil (-10--20 cm, "TOP"), the compacted subsoil (-30--40 cm, "CSUB"), and the deeper subsoil (-60--70 cm, "SUB"), totalling 96 horizons. While SubVESS and CoreVESS were originally developed to evaluate subsoil and topsoil, respectively, they were thus used here beyond those zones. Moreover, all sampling and field evaluation was done at two positions per field -the more compacted headland and the less compacted in-field zone. It was shown that the soil quality (Sq) scores assigned to the cores with CoreVESS were not significantly influenced by operators with different backgrounds but all having received basic VESS training. When comparing field and laboratory results, positive relationships were found between Sq scores of SubVESS, DSVESS and CoreVESS. All VESS methods were able to assign significantly better soil quality (lower scores) at in-field positions (IN-FIELD) as compared to headland positions (HEAD), and significantly lower quality (higher scores) to CSUB layers than to the other two layers. Laboratory-derived SQi values presented a similar trend, with CSUB layers always indicating worse situations. There were good significant relationships between the SQi values and the different VESS-based Sq scores as well, with DSVESS showing the best correlations among the three VESS methods. The study thus confirmed that the different VESS methods all have a potential for moni-toring soil structure quality in a fast, cheap, intuitive and practical way, although they all have their own ad-vantages and disadvantages. Additionally, those methods that were employed at depths other than those for which they were developed did perform well.}},
  articleno    = {{116098}},
  author       = {{Lin, Lin and  Van der Bolt, Frank and Cornelis, Wim}},
  issn         = {{0016-7061}},
  journal      = {{GEODERMA}},
  keywords     = {{CoreVESS,SubVESS,Double Spade VESS,Operators,Soil physical quality indicator,Soil structure degradation}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{15}},
  title        = {{Visual assessment of soil structural quality across soil textures and compaction levels, part II : examination of profile walls vs intact soil cores}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116098}},
  volume       = {{426}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric

View in Altmetric

Web of Science

Times cited: