Prediction of the bulk density distribution along the soil profile using the data on the resistance to penetration for the retisols of the Educational and Experimental Soil and Ecological Center of Lomonosov Moscow State University “Chashnikovo”

Abstract

The dependence of soil bulk density on penetration resistance, moisture content, soil organic carbon content and particle size distribution was investigated for Retisols of the Educational and Experimental Soil and Ecological Center of Lomonosov Moscow State University “Chashnikovo”. Penetration resistance was measured with a penetrologger at six key sites with different land-use types, in areas in front of three soil profiles. Soil samples for bulk density were taken from the same profiles using 100 cm³ cutting rings. The samples were subsequently analyzed for moisture content, organic carbon (by the Tyurin method), and particle-size distribution using a laser diffraction analyzer. Within the study, 24 regression models for predicting soil bulk density were developed and analyzed. The quality of these models varied; the coefficients of determination (R²) ranged from 0.23 to 0.89 and the root mean square error (RMSE) from 0.07 to 0.18 g×cm^–3. Based on the modelling results, the greatest contribution to predicting bulk density was made by organic carbon content, depth and penetration resistance, in descending order. Adding specific particle-size fractions to the model is more informative than using the principal components of particle-size fractions as predictors. The use of specific particle-size fractions is more informative than using principal components as predictors. In many models, field soil moisture proved to be an insignificant predictor for bulk density. Given the labour-intensive nature of determining a full set of predictors, models with a reduced set of predictors were proposed: 1) depth and penetration resistance; 2) organic carbon content and penetration resistance; and 3) organic carbon content alone. The data from the first of these models are automatically collected during the use of the penetrometer, making it convenient for monitoring surveys. The method has important limitations relating to the particle size distribution of soils and how this is determined. For example, it is impossible to take a top-down measurement of penetration resistance with a penetrologger in the presence of large boulders in the soil, as the measuring tool hits them and cannot be pushed into the underlying horizons. The use of regression equations in which particle-size distribution is determined by a method other than laser diffraction is incorrect. The choice of which particle-size fraction to use as a predictor should be based on a correlation analysis for each territory in question.

References

1. Гордеев А.С., Каширин Ю.А. Цифровое устройство для исследования плотности почвы // Наука и образование. 2023. №2. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tsifrovoe-ustroystvo-dlya-issledovaniya-plotnosti-pochvy (дата обращения: 09.01.2026). 2. Курс физики почв: Учеб. для студентов вузов, обучающихся по направлению 510700 «Почвоведение» и специальности 013000 «Почвоведение» / Е.В. Шеин. М., 2005. 430 с. 3. Перспективные средства контроля в дорожном строительстве (Электронный ресурс). URL: https://www.stroypribor.com/about/publications/2019/02/21/dorozhnoye-stroitelstvo.html (дата обращения: 07.02.2025). 4. Честных О.В., Замолодчиков Д.Г. Зависимость плотности почвенных горизонтов от глубины их залегания и содержания гумуса // Почвоведение. 2004. № 8. С. 937–844. 5. Шишов Л.Л., Тонконогов В.Д., Лебедева И.И. и др. Классификация и диагностика почв России. Смоленск, 2004. 342 с. 6. Abdelbaki A. Evaluation of pedotransfer functions for predicting soil bulk density for U.S. soils // Ain Shams Eng. J. 2016. Vol. 9, № 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.12.002 7. Dexter A.R., Czyż E.A., Gaţe O.P. A method for prediction of soil penetration resistance // Soil Tillage Res. 2007. № 93(2). P. 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.05.011 8. Hernanz J.L., Peixoto H., Cerisola C. et al. An empirical model to predict soil bulk density profiles in field conditions using penetration resistance, moisture content and soil depth // J. Terramechanics. 2000. Vol. 37, Iss. 4. P. 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4898(99)00020-8 9. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria, 2022. 236 p. 10. Janik D., Piotr A.D. Soil penetration testers. State of the art. Part 1. The penetrometer approach // Soil Tillage Res. 2024. Vol. 244. P. 106219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106219 11. Kurmi P., Rai H.K., Patel R. et al. Prediction of related Soil Properties using Empirical Modelling Approach in Vertisols // BFIJ. 2023. Vol. 15, № 10. P. 640-643. 12. Pathirana S., Lambot S., Krishnapillai M. et al. Integrated ground-penetrating radar and electromagnetic induction offer a non-destructive approach to predict soil bulk density in boreal podzolic soil // Geoderma. 2024. Vol. 450. Р. 117028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.117028 13. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2023. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/. 14. Reichert J.M., Morales C.A.S., Bastos F. et al. Tillage recommendation for commercial forest production: should tillage be based on soil penetrability, bulk density or more complex, integrative properties? // Geoderma Reg. 2021. № 25. Art. № e00381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00381 15. Robinson D.A., Thomas A., Reinsch S. et al. Analytical modelling of soil porosity and bulk density across the soil organic matter and land-use continuum // Sci Rep. 2022. Vol. 12. P. 7085. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11099-7 16. Royal Eijkelkamp. M-0615SAN Penetrologger: Handleiding (Hardware version: 6.00, Software version: 6.03, Penetroviewer version: 6.08). Giesbeek, The Netherlands: Royal Eijkelkamp. 2022. Available at: https://www.royaleijkelkamp.com/media/zivh42gu/m-0615san-penetrologger.pdf 17. Saygin F., Alaboz P., Dengiz O. et al. Relationships between some soil properties and penetration resistance // Sivas II. International conference on scientific and innovation research (15–17 September). S., 2023. P. 734–743. 18. Schillaci C., Perego A., Valkama E. et al. New pedotransfer approaches to predict soil bulk density using WoSIS soil data and environmental covariates in Mediterranean agro-ecosystems // Sci. Total Environ. 2021. Vol. 780. P. 146609. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146609 19. Shi L., O'Rourke S., Santana F.B. et al. Prediction of soil bulk density in agricultural soils using mid-infrared spectroscopy // Geoderma. 2023. Vol. 434. 116487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116487 20. Standard operating procedure for soil organic carbon: Tyurin spectrophotometric method. Rome: FAO, 2021. 22 p. 21. Suzuki L., Reinert D., Pillon C. et al. Mechanical Resistance to Penetration for Improved Diagnosis of Soil Compaction at Grazing and Forest Sites // Forests. 2024. Vol. 15. 1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081369 22. Taalab K., Corstanje R., Creamer R. et al. Modelling soil bulk density at the landscape scale and its contributions to C stock uncertainty // Biogeosciences. 2013. № 10. Р. 4691–4704. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-4691-2013 23. Ünal İ., Kabaş Ö., Sözer S. Comparison of two different artificial neural network models for prediction of soil penetration resistance // J. Agric. Eng. 2024. Vol. 55. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2024.1550 24. Vaz C., Manieri J., Maria I. et al. Modeling the Influence of Water Content and Bulk Density on Soil Penetration Resistance // International Annual Meeting American Society of Agronomy (November) / Crop Science Society of America / Soil Science Society of America 2010. 25. Wadoux A.M.J.-C., Walvoort D.J.J., Brus D.J. An integrated approach for the evaluation of quantitative soil maps through Taylor and solar diagrams // Geoderma. 2022. Vol. 405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115332