Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geoderma
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Review

Soil friability: A review of the concept, assessment and effects of soil properties
and management
L.J. Munkholm
Aarhus University, Department of Agroecology, Research Centre Foulum, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
University of Guelph, School of Environmental Sciences, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This review gathers and synthesizes literature on soil friability produced during the last three decades. Soil
Received 15 February 2011 friability is of vital importance for crop production and the impact of crop production on the environment.
Received in revised form 9 August 2011 A friable soil is characterized by an ease of fragmentation of undesirably large aggregates/clods and a difficulty
Accepted 11 August 2011
in fragmentation of minor aggregates into undesirable small elements. Soil friability has been assessed using
Available online 2 November 2011
qualitative field methods as well as quantitative field and laboratory methods at different scales of observa-
Keywords:
tion. The qualitative field methods are broadly used by scientists, advisors and farmers, whereas the quanti-
Soil friability tative laboratory methods demand specialized skills and more or less sophisticated equipment. Most
Methodology methods address only one aspect of soil friability, i.e. either the strength of unconfined soil or the fragment
Soil management size distribution after applying a stress. All methods have significant advantages and limitations. The use of
Soil properties a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods to get a comprehensive and adequate assessment of soil
Water regime friability is recommended. Poor friability can be experienced if soil is either too wet or too dry and there is
a range in water contents for optimal friability. There is a strong need to get more detailed knowledge
about effects of soil water content on soil friability and especially to be able to quantify the least limiting
water range for soil friability and therefore soil tillage. A strong relationship between organic matter and fri-
ability has been found but it is not possible to identify a specific lower critical level of organic matter across soil
types. Sustainable management of soil requires continuous and adequate inputs of organic matter to sustain or
improve soil friability. Intensive tillage and traffic in unfavorable conditions threatens soil friability and may
initiate a vicious cycle where increasingly higher intensity of tillage is needed to produce a proper seedbed.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
2. Soil friability—the concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3. Assessment of soil friability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
3.1. Visual assessment of soil friability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
3.2. Drop shatter tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
3.3. Assessment based on tensile strength of unconfined soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
3.3.1. Tensile strength of soil cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
3.3.2. Tensile strength and rupture energy of aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
3.4. Assessment based on soil water retention characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4. Effects of basic soil properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.1. Clay and exchangeable cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.2. Water content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.2.1. Soil strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4.2.2. Soil fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4.2.3. Water potential optima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Abbreviations: E, rupture energy; FSD, fragment size distribution; GMD, geometric mean diameter; MWD, mean weight diameter; S, index of soil physical quality; SOM, soil
organic matter content; SWRC, soil water retention curve; Y, tensile strength; w, gravimetric water content; θ, volumetric water content; θDL, dry limit volumetric water content
for soil fragmentation; θINFL, volumetric water content at inflation point; θOPT, optimal limit volumetric water content for soil fragmentation; θPL, plastic limit volumetric water con-
tent; θWL, wet limit volumetric water content for soil fragmentation; ΔθRANGE, range in soil water content for tillage; Ψ, soil water matric potential.
E-mail address: lars.munkholm@agrsci.dk.

0016-7061/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.08.005
 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246 237

4.3. Soil organic matter content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

4.4. Bulk density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5. Managing soil friability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.1. Cropping systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
5.2. Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
5.3. Residue management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
5.4. Tillage and traffic effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
6. Research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2. Effect of soil water content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.3. Effect of soil organic matter content and other basic soil properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.4. Managing soil friability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.5. Future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
7. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

1. Introduction crushing, crumbling or rubbing apart of the particles of which it is

Soil friability is a key soil physical property yielding valuable
information on the ease of producing a favorable seed—and root
beds during tillage operations. Therefore, soil friability is a crucial
soil property in relation to the ability of soil to support plant growth
and to minimize the energy required for tillage.
The awareness of soil friability is growing, both in practice and in
soil science. The topic has interested soil scientists for centuries (e.g.
Christensen, 1930), but it was the paper by Utomo and Dexter
(1981) that significantly put the topic on the soil science agenda.
The interest in the topic has recently escalated according to citations
registered in the ISI Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters). The
increased interest must be viewed in the light of the present renewed
focus on global food security (FAO, 2009) together with a focus on
fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in crop pro-
duction. Certainly, the demand for well-functioning arable soils is ris-
ing to meet the global challenges. However, the threats to soil quality
appear also to be on the increase due to climate change and changes
in soil management. In North-Western Europe soil compaction, loss
of organic matter and soil erosion are the main threats to soil quality
and, in particular, to soil friability. The soil organic matter content is
expected to decrease with increased temperatures and the expected
higher frequency of intensive rainfall will increase the risk of water
erosion. In North-Western Europe, the expected increase in winter
precipitation will limit the window for timely traffic and tillage in
the spring and thus increase the risk of severe soil compaction.
Soil friability is related to brittle fracture of soil as described by
Braunack et al. (1979) and Dexter and Watts (2000). Brittle fracture
results from the progressive development of cracks ending with a
crack opening and a sudden loss in strength (Hatibu and Hettiaratchi,
1993). The propagation of cracks in an unconfined stressed soil depends
on the density and the morphology (connectivity, orientation) of the
air-filled pores and the strength at the crack tips as defined by Hallett et
al. (1995a,b). The occurrence and nature of cracks in the soil depend on
basic soil properties (texture, clay mineralogy), climate (cycles of wet-
ting–drying and frost–thaw), soil biological activity as well as tillage and
traffic. This review gathers and synthesizes literature on soil friability pro-
duced during the last three decades since the paper of Utomo and Dexter
(1981). The objectives are to: 1. review the methodology to assess soil fri-
ability, 2. describe effects of basic soil properties affecting soil friability
with special focus on the soil water regime, 3. evaluate the effects of soil
management, and 4. identify knowledge gaps.
2. Soil friability—the concept
The term soil friability has been discussed, defined and redefined by
soil scientists for decades. Christensen (1930) defined it as “the ease of
composed” and thus emphasized the tendency of unconfined soil to
crumble and break down. Utomo and Dexter (1981) elaborated on
this definition and came up with the present widely accepted
definition of the concept: “Soil friability: the tendency of a mass of uncon-
fined soil to break down and crumble under applied stress into a particular
size range of smaller fragments”. Therefore, a friable soil is characterized
by an ease of fragmentation of undesirably large aggregates/clods and a
difficulty in fragmentation of minor aggregates into undesirable small
elements. Excessively small aggregates (b0.5–1 mm) enhance soil
erodibility and may impede seedling emergence as they increase the
risk of surface crusting. But what is the ideal size distribution of soil
aggregates in the seed and rooting bed? Karlen et al. (1990) stated
that a soil with a good soil tilth “usually is loose, friable and well
granulated”. This qualitative perception of a “crumb structure” as the
optimal environment for plant growth is supported by empirical data.
Braunack and Dexter (1989) concluded in a review that the optimal
seedbed (i.e. the soil layer that has been tilled to a condition to
promote seed germination and the emergence of seedlings) is
produced by 0.5–8 mm aggregates. Berntsen and Berre (1993)
concluded that an optimal seedbed for cereals is characterized by
about 50% of the aggregates by weight being in the 0.5–6 mm fraction.
A large fraction of small aggregates are not desired due to reasons
stated above, whereas a large fraction of aggregates N5–8 mm is not
wanted due to risk of rapid drying and delayed emergence. Small
seeded crops are normally more sensitive to seedbed structure and
may require a finer and more homogeneous structure (Braunack and
Dexter, 1989). Much less experimental work has been done on
characterizing the optimal soil structure below the seedbed. However,
results by e.g. Misra et al. (1986) support the perception that a crumb
structure is desirable throughout the arable layer. Soil friability is not
just relevant in conventional tilled systems—it is also of crucial
importance in relation to successful seeding and crop establishment
under no-till farming as highlighted by Macks et al. (1996). To sum
up, soil friability concerns: 1. the strength of different sizes of uncon-
fined soil and 2. the resulting fragment size distribution after applying
a stress.
3. Assessment of soil friability
Soil friability has been assessed using qualitative field methods as
well as quantitative field and laboratory methods at different scales of
observation (Fig. 1). They measure different aspects of friability and
have been used for different purposes. The qualitative field methods
are broadly used by scientists, advisors and farmers, whereas the
quantitative laboratory methods demand specialized skills and more
or less sophisticated equipment. Most methods address only one as-
pect of soil friability, i.e. either the strength of unconfined soil or the
238 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246

Tensile Quantitative operations and crop growth. Many combine pure visual assessment
strength at distance with hands-on examination of soil sampled in the field.
aggregates Tensile
strength The strength of soil can roughly be evaluated by crushing in the
S-index hand (unconfined, uniaxial compression between thumb and finger)
or by dropping minimally disturbed, unconfined soil from an arbi-
mm cm m km trary height. The latter will also provide information on the fragment
size distribution. Soil friability assessment is integrated into the stan-
Drop shatter dard procedure of soil profile description, relating it to soil consisten-
cy and grade of soil structure (FAO, 1990; Soil Survey Division Staff,
Visual
evaluation 1993). Examination of friability is carried out in relation to assess-
VSSE ment of “moist consistency”. That is, at a window in soil water con-
Visual tent between plastic condition and “hard” condition. The evaluation
evaluation
farmer of moist consistency is related to the strength of aggregates/peds. Fri-
Qualitative ability index, FI1, assigns friability assessed during soil profile descrip-
tion. Visual assessment of soil friability is also an integral part of other
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of methods used to assess soil friability in relation to scale visual soil examination methods such as the revised Peerlkamp meth-
and quantitative/qualitative.
od, Visual Soil Structure Evaluation (VSSE) (Ball et al., 2007). Soil ag-
gregation is evaluated by describing the type and size of the dominant
soil structural units. The method is simple and quick and soil is de-
fragment size distribution after applying a stress. An overview of fri- scribed by comparing a spadeful with a reference chart. The soil is
ability indices and their advantages and drawbacks is shown in graded from 1 to 5 where 1 is best, FI2 = VSSE score. The fragment
Table 1. size distribution after applying a stress can be evaluated in the field
by simply dropping a soil sample from a given height and visually
3.1. Visual assessment of soil friability assessing the results as described by Munkholm (2000). The advan-
tage of the visual methods is that they are fast, simple and yield valu-
These methods assess bulk soil friability at actual water contents able information on soil behavior in the field in terms of both strength
in the field. They address both key aspects of friability stated above. and fragmentation. The disadvantages are that they are qualitative,
The assessment of soil friability at field level is intuitively integral to operator-dependent and very sensitive to spatio-temporal changes
the farmer's visual evaluation of soil tilth in relation to tillage in soil conditions such as water content and texture.

Table 1
List of methods used to assess soil friability.

Main Friability Description Aspect of friability Advantages Drawbacks References

group index assessed

Visual FI1 FI1 = descriptive Both strength and Fast, simple, Qualitative, operator dependent, FAO (1990); Soil Survey
assessment characterization in relation fragment size evaluate soil sensitive to water content Division Staff (1993)
to soil profile description distribution is evaluated behavior in the field
FI2 FI2 = grading in Visual Soil Both strength and Fast, simple, Qualitative, operator dependent, Ball et al. (2007)
Structure Evaluation. fragment size evaluate soil sensitive to water content
distribution is evaluated behavior in the
field, reference
chart, grading
Drop shatter FI3 FI3 = fragment size Fragment size Simple, ease to Semi-quantitative, sensitive to Marshall and Quirk (1950);
distribution after drop distribution perform, field and water content Hadas and Wolf (1984); Snyder
shatter test; GMD, MWD or laboratory test, et al. (1995); Shepherd (2000);
grading from visual semi-quantitative Schjønning et al. (2002)
assessment.
Tensile FI4 FI4 = k1; Y = aV− k1 Scaling of aggregate Quantitative, No information on FSD, difficult Utomo and Dexter (1981)
strength strength with aggregate strength with to measure at high water
size scales, sensitive to contents, disturbance during soil
management separation, time consuming
1=β
differences
1
FI5 P ðy≤Y Þ ¼ ðy =a Þ ; FI5 ¼ Variation in aggregate Quantitative, As for FI4 plus only strength for Perfect and Kay (1994b);Watts
β
strength for a specific sensitive to one aggregate size and Dexter (1998)
size fraction management
differences
FI6 FI6 ¼ σY Y Variation in aggregate Quantitative, As for FI4 and FI5. Normal Watts and Dexter (1998)
strength for a specific sensitive to distribution of data is assumed
size fraction management
differences
Soil water FI7
∂ =
FI7 ¼ S ¼ ∂θ ð lnhÞ Indirect assessment. Quantitative, No direct information on either Dexter (2004), Dexter and
retention Based on the undisturbed soil, soil strength or fragmentation, Birkas (2004), Keller et al.
curve, S relationship between water contents time consuming (2007).
theory structural porosity and
friability
Structural FI8 Volume fraction Indirect assessment. Quantitative, Indirect measurement, i.e. no Guérif (1990); Munkholm et al.
porosity pores N 30 μm Based on the undisturbed soils, direct information on either soil (2002b)
relationship between fast strength or fragmentation.
structural porosity and
friability
 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
3.2. Drop shatter tests
The drop shatter tests may be used to estimate bulk soil friability
and address mainly the fragment size distribution after applying a
specific stress. Drop-shatter tests have been developed and refined
by e.g. Hadas and Wolf (1984), Marshall and Quirk (1950),
Schjønning et al. (2002), and Shepherd (2000) to evaluate the frag-
ment size distribution (FSD) after applying a specific input of energy.
In principle, a soil sample is supplied with a specific energy input by
dropping it from a given height onto a hard surface and subsequently
determining the aggregate size distribution. Intact soil clods were
used by Hadas and Wolf (1984) and Marshall and Quirk (1950),
whereas Schjønning et al. (2002) and Shepherd (2000) used undis-
turbed monoliths. The resulting fragment size distribution has been
visually evaluated (Shepherd, 2000) or expressed graphically as ag-
gregate size distribution, or as calculated values in the form of the
geometric mean diameter (GMD) or the mean weight diameter
(MWD) or as surface area. GMD and surface energy (i.e. the ratio be-
tween fragmentation energy and the new surface area produced)
have been proposed as soil friability indices (Snyder et al., 1995). In
the following part of this paper FI3 = FSDdrop shatter. The drop shatter
tests are simple, easy to perform and they yield semi-quantitative in-
formation. They are also flexible (i.e. both field and laboratory
methods) and they mimic conditions in practice rather well. The dis-
advantage is that they yield little information on soil strength and are
very sensitive to changes in water content. Sandy soils will fragment
under most conditions, whereas clayey soils may bounce without
breaking up. Further, the energy input in the soil drop test is low in
comparison with the estimated energy input in different tillage oper-
ations as highlighted by Munkholm et al. (2002b).
3.3. Assessment based on tensile strength of unconfined soil
Soil friability has been quantified extensively from tensile strength
measurements as proposed in the Utomo and Dexter (1981) paper.
Tensile strength measurements yield, on their own, essential infor-
mation on key aspects of soil friability, i.e. soil strength of unconfined
soil, and a range of friability indices has been developed based on ten-
sile strength measurements. The water content at measurement is
adjusted in many cases. Air-dry condition has been the standard con-
dition for the classical procedure by Utomo and Dexter (1981).
3.3.1. Tensile strength of soil cores
Methods of measuring tensile strength in a compression test on
soil cores (e.g. the Brazilian method, are well known. Methods for
measuring soil tensile strength on remolded and repacked samples
soil (Ø = 19–45 mm and l = 50–140 mm) in a direct tension test
have been introduced by a number of authors (Farrell et al., 1967;
Gill, 1959; Junge et al., 2000; Nearing et al., 1988). Munkholm et al.
(2002b) developed a method to measure tensile strength on undis-
turbed, field-sampled soil cores (Ø = 44.5 mm, l = 50.0 mm) at
water contents around field capacity. Soil friability has been quanti-
fied from tensile strength measurements on soil cores. Christensen
(1930) proposed the ratio between unit deformation (relative axial
strain) and the work of deformation to the yield point as a friability
index. These methods yield information on “bulk” soil strength.
3.3.2. Tensile strength and rupture energy of aggregates
Tensile strength may be determined from the force needed to
crack an individual aggregate between two flat parallel plates
(Braunack et al., 1979; Dexter and Kroesbergen, 1985; Rogowski,
1964; Rogowski and Kirkham, 1976):
2 FI6 ¼
Y ¼ c  F=d ð1Þ
239
where Y = tensile strength; F = polar force of failure; d = diameter
of spherical particle; c = constant.
Perfect and Kay (1994b) suggested calculating the specific rupture
energy instead of tensile strength, avoiding assumptions having to be
taken regarding the exact mode of loading by which the soil fails. The
rupture energy, E, was derived by calculating the area under the
stress–strain curve:
E≈ ∑ F ðsi ÞΔsi ð2Þ
i
where F(si) is the mean force at the ith subinterval and Δsi is the dis-
placement length of the ith subinterval. The specific rupture energy
was estimated on the gravimetric basis, Esp:
Esp ¼ E=m ð3Þ
Methods for quantifying friability based on aggregate tensile
strength measurements have been reviewed by Dexter and Watts
(2000) and Watts and Dexter (1998). In the “classical” procedure de-
scribed by Utomo and Dexter (1981) the friability index, denoted, FI4,
was determined as the scaling of aggregate tensile strength, Y, with
aggregate volume, V:
−k1
Y ¼ aV ; FI4 ¼ k1 ð4Þ
where α is a fitting parameter that is an extrapolated estimate of the
strength of a 1 m 3 bulk soil sample. The parameter k1 was proposed
by Utomo and Dexter (1981) as a friability index. The larger the
strength of the small aggregates in relation to the large aggregates,
the higher the friability index. When log-transforming Eq. (4) the re-
lationship between Y and V will be shown as a straight line with log a
as the intercept on the y axis and k1 as the slope of the line. The scal-
ing effect of aggregate tensile strength may be explained by increased
possibility and probability of long cracks with size according to the
Griffith theory (Dexter, 1975; Rogowski, 1964). Others have applied
Weibull statistical theory (Braunack et al., 1979; Freudenthal, 1968;
Munkholm and Perfect, 2005) or a Weibull-fractal cube theory
(Perfect and Kay, 1995) to describe the relationship between aggre-
gate tensile strength and size. When applying the Weibull statistical
theory, k1 is an estimate of the average spread of strength for the dif-
ferently sized aggregates used. Based on the FI4 friability index re-
sults, Utomo and Dexter (1981) classified soils into 5 broad classes:
FI4 b 0.05 not friable, FI4 = 0.05–0.10 slightly friable, FI4 = 0.10–0.25
friable, FI4 = 0.25–0.40 very friable and FI4 N 0.40 mechanically
unstable.
For a specific size of aggregates, i, the cumulative frequency distri-
bution of Y can be expressed as:

1= 1
P ðy≤Y Þ ¼ y=α
β
; FI5 ¼ ð5Þ
β
where P(y ≤ Y) is the probability of failure (cumulative relative fre-
quency for Y), α is a constant and β is a constant indicating the spread
of strength. The 1/β parameter has also been used as an index of soil
friability by e.g. Perfect and Kay (1994b) and Watts and Dexter
(1998).
The friability indices FI4 and FI5 would be identical if all the as-
sumptions of the Weibull weakest link theory of brittle fracture are
fulfilled. For various reasons, FI5 is larger than FI4 in many cases as dis-
cussed by Watts and Dexter (1998). They also suggested using simply
the standard deviation from aggregate tensile strength measure-
ments on a single size of aggregates (13.2–19.0 mm used) as an
index of soil friability.
σY
 ð6Þ
Y
240 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
Perfect and Kay (1994b) suggested using specific rupture energy
rather than tensile strength to determine the friability index in
order to avoid making assumptions on the exact mode of failure.
Assessment of soil friability from tensile strength measurements is
a well-established and commonly used procedure to quantify soil fri-
ability. There are good reasons for the widespread use of this ap-
proach, i.e. quantitative information is obtained for an essential
aspect of soil friability and the approach is more objective than visual
evaluation and the drop shatter test. It has also proven to be sensitive
to soil management, i.e. quantifying effects of tillage, compaction and
organic matter. However, there are also a number of drawbacks relat-
ed to the use of tensile strength to quantify soil friability. Firstly, little
information is acquired regarding the FSD after applying a stress. Sec-
ondly, it is rather difficult to determine tensile strength at water con-
tents similar to those in the field at soil tillage. Tensile strength is—for
practical reasons—normally determined in a compression test. Plastic
deformation will occur in wet soil and the mode of failure shifts from
pure tensile to shearing and compression. Therefore, most re-
searchers have determined tensile strength on air-dry or even oven
dry soil. This drawback can to some extent be overcome by measuring
fracture energy rather than tensile strength as suggested by Perfect
and 7 (1994b). Thirdly, if tensile strength is determined solely on ag-
gregates, it may be difficult to upscale the results to the behavior of
bulk soil in the field as brittle fracture of bulk soil is expected to be
strongly related to the structural porosity, i.e. properties of the
inter-aggregate pore space (Aluko and Koolen, 2000). Measuring ten-
sile strength for different size fractions will to some extent overcome
the problem. This problem relates primarily to soils with a hierarchi-
cal structure. Fourthly, extracting minimally disturbed aggregates
from the soil is not easy. There are considerable risks of mechanical
disturbance during separation if the soil is separated when moist.
Air-drying before separation reduces this risk, but on the other hand
increases the risk of inflicting drying stress greater than any previous-
ly experienced by the soil.
3.4. Assessment based on soil water retention characteristics
As friability depends on the presence of flaws and microcracks,
Dexter (2004) suggested using soil pore data deduced from the soil
water retention curve (SWRC) to characterize soil friability. He sug-
gested using the slope at the inflection point, labeled the index of
physical quality, S, as a measure of soil friability.
FI7 ¼ S ¼ ∂θ=∂ðlnhÞ
ð7Þ
Where θ is the gravimetric water content and h is the matric
potential.
The S index scale follows that of structural porosity and therefore
of the occurrence of microcracks in the soil. Dexter (2004) found good
correlations between S and the friability index FI6 (R 2 = 0.88 and
p = 0.002) in a study including a sandy loam, a clay loam, a silt
loam and a clay. The S index has also successfully been used to predict
the FSD resulting from tillage for specific soils (Dexter and Birkas,
2004; Keller et al., 2007). Please note, that the S index is an indirect
measure of soil friability as it does not directly yield information on
either soil strength or soil fragmentation. The applicability of the
index builds on a strong relationship between these parameters and
soil pore characteristics. The method is promising as friability is
assessed on undisturbed soil cores and at water contents similar to
those in the field at soil tillage. However, there are also a number of
drawbacks that need to be explored. Firstly, S, a measure of structural
porosity, depends not just on microcracks but also on voids and bio-
pores that are not expected to play a major role in soil fragmentation.
Secondly, S, does not encompass the effect of bonding strength at the
crack tips. This will be highly dependent on clay and carbon content,
clay mineralogy, pH, and sodicity. Guérif (1990) showed that tensile
strength for soils compacted to similar bulk densities displayed a
strong increase with increasing clay content and this dependence
was labeled textural strength. Therefore, the influence of texture
etc. on soil strength and friability may limit the use of S as a universal
friability index across soil types. Thirdly, if the correlation between S
and friability only reflects the influence of structural porosity, then
this parameter could be assessed more simply by measuring water
content at only one matric potential rather than the complete
SWRC. Many have used air-filled porosity at field capacity (typically
at − 100 hPa matric potential) as a measure of structural porosity.
This may not always yield an appropriate estimate of structural po-
rosity as the change between textural and structural porosity may
occur over a wide range of matric potentials for different soils (Dexter
and Richard, 2009).
Fls ¼ volume fraction of pores N 30μm ð8Þ
Guérif (1990) and Munkholm et al. (2002b) have found significant
correlations between soil strength and macroporosity. The latter au-
thors found a negative linear correlation between the strength of
soil cores and the volume of pores N 60 μm (R 2 = 0.54⁎⁎⁎) and volume
of pores N 30 μm (R 2 = 0.35⁎) The use of FI8 as a friability index has
the same limitation as described above for using S as a friability
index, i.e. structural pores includes both cracks and biopores and
structural porosity does not in itself yield information on bonding
strength at the crack tips.
4. Effects of basic soil properties
4.1. Clay and exchangeable cations
The strength of the unconfined soil will in general increase
with clay content as outlined by e.g. Guérif (1990) and Hatibu and
Hettiaratchi (1993) for soil cores and e.g. Barzegar et al. (1994,
1995), Guérif (1990), Munkholm and Kay (2002) and Munkholm et
al. (2007) for soil aggregates. The rate of increase in tensile strength
of dry soil with clay content depends on clay mineralogy as shown
by Barzegar et al. (1995). They found that tensile strength increased
more strongly with clay content for smectite dominated than for illite
and especially kaolinite dominated soils. In other studies, Barzegar et
al. (1994) and Dexter and Chan (1991) showed that tensile strength
also depends on the composition of exchangeable cations. The
strength of remolded dry soils saturated with different exchangeable
cations decreased in the order Na N Na–Mg N Na–Ca N Na–Ca N Mg N Ca–
Mg N Ca (Barzegar et al., 1994). That is, the lowest strength was ob-
served for soils saturated with the exchangeable cations having the
greatest flocculation capacity. The tensile strength increased with dis-
persible clay—and this was especially the case for sodic soils where
clay dispersion is promoted. Several other studies have shown that
a high amount of readily dispersible clay increases tensile strength
of dry aggregates (Elmholt et al., 2008; Watts and Dexter, 1997a)
and reduces soil friability (Macks et al., 1996; Shanmuganathan and
Oades, 1982). Acidity and base saturation also have crucial roles in
soil structure formation (Bronick and Lal, 2005). Low pH levels and
base saturation is expected to yield high strength in dry conditions
(Kim et al., 2007) and poor friability. It is an effect of great importance
in humid areas but very little work has been carried out to quantify
this in details for natural soils.
4.2. Water content
In this review, there will be special focus on the effects of water
content as this topic has been explored in detail in recent years.
There will be focus on the effect of water content on the two
 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
fundamental aspects of friability as outlined in Section 2, i.e. the
strength of unconfined soil and soil fragmentation.
4.2.1. Soil strength
The increase in soil strength with decreasing water content can be
ascribed to an increase in cohesive forces of capillary-bound water
(Bishop, 1961) and to increased effectiveness of cementing materials
Caron and Kay (1992) (e.g. drying and hardening of dispersed clay).
Mullins and Panayiotopoulos (1984) proposed the following relation-
ship between tensile strength, Y, and matric potential, ψ:
Y ¼ c−χψ ð9Þ
where c is cohesion and χ is a factor related to the degree of satura-
tion. In the absence of externally applied stress, the χψ term describes
the effective stress experienced by the soil. Mullins et al. (1992)
showed a linear relationship between Y and ψ for matric potentials
in the range 0 to −100 kPa in a study using remolded core samples
from a hardsetting Australian soil. For drier soil, the effective stress
theory tends to overpredict Y (Aluko and Koolen, 2000; Mullins et
al., 1992). Differences in the geometry of pores involved with tensile
failure and the creation of internal shrinkage cracks at low water con-
tents have been proposed as possible mechanisms explaining non-
linearity (Mullins et al., 1992). Empirical correlations between aggre-
gate tensile strength, Y or rupture energy, E, and volumetric water
content, θ, or ψ have been found in a number of studies (Causarano,
1993; Chan, 1995; Guérif, 1988; Munkholm and Kay, 2002). The latter
authors expressed the relationship by a power function:
n Empirical evidence suggests that the wet limit for soil fragmenta-
Y ¼ −qψ ð10Þ
Where q and n are fitting parameters. It is difficult to measure θ
and ψ on individual aggregates. Therefore, Munkholm et al. (2007)
related rupture energy of aggregates to the gravimetric water con-
tent:
γ and the morphology of cracks and therefore it would, ideally, have
α ¼ α0 ðw=w0 Þ ð11Þ
where α0 is the characteristic rupture energy for the air-dry condition
and γ is a water content scaling factor. This function excellently fitted
data from individual size fractions (Munkholm et al., 2007). The
water content had little effect on the spread of strength as expressed
by the Weibull distribution parameter β (Eq. (5)). Munkholm et al.
(2007) concluded that potentially only four parameters would be
needed to model the effect of water content on the rupture energy
of aggregates across a large range of water contents and a range of
size fractions:
h
D i θOPT
β
P ðE≤Ei Þ ¼ 1− exp − x=xj ðE=aÞ ð12Þ
where x is the length of the aggregate, xj is the average length of the
particle “building blocks,” and D is a size scaling factor.
4.2.2. Soil fragmentation
An optimum in water content for soil fragmentation (θOPT) has
been defined as the water content where the production of small
fragments is highest relative to the production of large elements
(Dexter and Bird, 2001). This is also stated as the optimum water con-
tent for tillage. The value of θOPT has been found to be at a water con-
tent just below the water content at the plastic limit (0.90 θPL)
(Dexter and Bird, 2001 and references therein). Recent studies indi-
cate that the optimum water content occurs at the water content at
the inflection point, θINFL, on the soil water release curve (Dexter
and Bird, 2001; Keller et al., 2007). However, Mueller et al. (2003)
concluded that θINFL was in many cases larger than θOPT in an exten-
sive study on 80 different soils. They proposed a water content at
241
0.7* gravimetric water content at −5 kPa as a safer limit for maxi-
mum water content for optimal tillage. It has to be mentioned that
Mueller et al. (2003) did not carry out tillage experiments in the
field. The range in water content for tillage was assessed using a
field scoring method.
Soil fragmentation is not expected to show a distinct peak at a spe-
cific water content, but rather a gradual change with water content
and to display satisfactory levels (seen from a tillage point of view)
over a range of water contents (Fig. 2). This calls for working with
the concept of a water range for satisfactory fragmentation (ΔθRANGE)
rather than just focussing on the optimum water content for frag-
mentation. Dexter and Bird (2001) proposed a method to quantify
the concept for tillage based on the water retention curve as outlined
below. The concept is equivalent to the least limiting water range
(LLWR) concept that has been proven to be very useful for character-
izing the effect of water content on other crucial soil functions such as
root growth (da Silva et al., 1994) and nitrogen mineralization (Drury
et al., 2003). Kay and Munkholm (2011) argued in a recent review for
a broader use of the concept in relation to other vital soil functions.
The occurrence of a least limiting range in water content for soil frag-
mentation can be explained by opposite pulling processes with in-
creasing water content. On the one hand, soil strength increases
with decreasing water content as outlined above. On the other
hand, the likelihood of cracks occurring where the fragmentation pro-
cess can begin also increases with decreasing water content. When
exceeding the boundaries of ΔθRANGE, soil fragmentation is unsatisfac-
tory in wet conditions due to smearing and compression and in dry
conditions due to too high strength.
tion θWL is at water content just above the lower plastic limit (i.e.
lower Atterberg limit) (Barzegar et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2003;
Ojeniyi and Dexter, 1979). Dexter and Bird (2001) applied the
water content at the plastic limit as θWL for tillage. However, it is
not ideal to use a property determined on molded soil as a measure
of θWL. At θWL, fragmentation is expected to be limited by density
to be an index that is linked to these properties. The easiest way
would be to follow the approach for LLWRroot, where a certain value
of air-filled pore space (10%) is used as the standard wet limit (da
Silva et al., 1994). So far, the best documented estimate of θWL is the
one proposed by Mueller et al. (2003). In an extensive study covering
80 different soils from Germany and North and Central USA, they
found that θWL could best be expressed as the water content at max-
imum Proctor density or 0.7* water content at −5kPa matric
1.2
1
θDL θWL
Relative friability
ΔθRANGE
d
Soil
0.8
ite
lim
crac
LLWR
gth
en
k (ai
str
0.6
il
r-fill
So
ed p
0.4
ore s
pace
0.2
) lim
ited
0
Water content
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the least limiting water range concept applied for soil
friability. ΘDL = lower water content for tillage (= plastic limit), θOPT = optimal
water content for tillage, θWL = upper water content for tillage.
242 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
potential. The lower limit, θDL, is at water content where soil strength
limits soil fragmentation. This is comparable to the LLWRroot where
soil strength limits root growth. Dexter and Bird (2001) assessed
θDL arbitrarily, and in a rather crude way, as the water content at
which aggregate strength is twice the strength at θWL. It would be
more appropriate to use a fixed value of soil strength. This could be
the water content at which the tensile strength for a standard soil
core or standard aggregate size (e.g. 8–16 mm) exceeds a specific
value of tensile strength. This would be comparable to the concept
of LLWRroots where a penetration resistance of 2 MPa is used as the
critical dry limit for root growth.
4.2.3. Water potential optima
Evidence suggests that a range of soils exhibits maximum friability
between approximately −300 and −1000 hPa. The maximum value
of the friability indices based on tensile strength measurements was
found to be between − 300 and − 1000 hPa pressure potential
(Fig. 3) (Causarano, 1993; Munkholm et al., 2002b; Munkholm and
Kay, 2002; Utomo and Dexter, 1981). Optimal friability in this
maximum value range corresponds with soil fragmentation results
by Snyder et al. (1995). They found maximum soil fragmentation at
−400 to −700 hPa for a silty clay loam.
4.3. Soil organic matter content
Soil organic matter (SOM) acts as a crucial bonding material in soil
structure formation (Oades, 1984). SOM forms complexes with pri-
mary mineral particles and secondary structural units. In this way,
interaggregate pores are formed and the result is a general reduction
in bulk density (Bronick and Lal, 2005). The consequence of low SOM
content is severe as outlined by Schjønning et al. (2009) in a recent
review. Poor soil structure formation may lead to low strength in
wet conditions and a large risk of clay dispersion. Upon drying the
dispersed clay will harden resulting in a harder soil at low SOM con-
tent compared with a soil with high SOM content (Munkholm et al.,
2002a; Munkholm and Kay, 2002) (Fig. 4). This phenomenon is also
known as hardsetting (Mullins et al., 1987). SOM not only affects
soil strength but also tends to increase θOPT and expand ΔθRANGE
(Dexter and Bird, 2001 and Munkholm et al., 2002a). This indicates
that depletion in SOM content decreases the optimum water content
for tillage and, more importantly, the range in water contents for till-
age. The important role of SOM for soil friability is also reflected in the
positive relationship between SOM and friability index (FI4) found by
Macks et al. (1996) and Watts and Dexter (1997a), and the significant
negative relationship between aggregate tensile strength and SOM
found by Abid and Lal (2009). The study of Watts and Dexter
(1997a) was based on soil taken from the Rothamsted long term
0.40 0.40
0.35
a b PAC
0.35
REF
Friability index, FI4
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
DFG
0.05 0.05
CCC
0.00 0.00
-10-1-100 -101 -102 -103 -104 -105 -10-1-100 -101 -102 -103 -104 -105 -106
Pressure Potential (kPa)
Fig. 3. Friability indices, FI4 as a function of pressure potential for the two cropping sys-
tem soils (a) and two traffic treatments (b). Bars indicate +/−1 standard error of
mean.
Republished from Munkholm and Kay (2002).
B2 B4
AM AM
NPK
NPK
UNF UNF
θ θ θ θ DL θ WL θ LL
DL
θOPTWL LL
θOPT
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water content/ kg 100 kg -1
Fig. 4. Water contents for tillage. θDL = lower water content for tillage (= plastic
limit), θOPT = optimal water content for tillage, θWL = upper water content for tillage
and θLL = liquid limit.
Republished from Munkholm et al. (2002a).
experiment at Highfield in the UK and the soil organic carbon (SOC)
values varied from 1.1 to 3.2 g 100 g -1. They found a strong linear cor-
relation (R 2 = 0.97) between friability (FI6 estimates) and SOC.
Schjønning et al. (2007, 2009) discussed the occurrence of a critical
SOM content for vital soil functions and concluded that there is no
unique minimum level for SOM across soil types. The ratio between
clay and SOC (n) may be a useful index for some soils as proposed
by Dexter et al. (2008) in a study including a range of French and
Polish soils. Their results indicated that a ratio n of 10 was optimal.
With increasing n ratios N10 (i.e. decreasing relatively SOM levels),
an increasing proportion of the clay was assumed uncomplexed,
resulting in higher bulk density and levels of readily-dispersible
clay. Both these factors have been associated with low soil friability
due to effects on soil strength and soil pore characteristics. More
work is needed to explore the applicability of this index in relation
to soil friability. It is important to keep in mind that n cannot stand
alone. Other factors such as clay mineralogy, CEC and cation composi-
tion play a key role in relation to soil structural stability, levels of dis-
persible clay and soil friability as discussed above.
4.4. Bulk density
High bulk density levels can result from poor structural stability
(i.e. collapse of soil structure after wetting) or from compaction by
animals or farm machinery. Soil friability decreases, in general, with
increasing bulk density (Munkholm et al., 2002a,b; Watts and Dexter,
1998). Soil tensile strength increases with bulk density as shown by
numerous authors (e.g. Guérif, 1990). The strength increases due to
an increase in cohesive forces of capillary bound water and the in-
creased effectiveness of cementing materials (e.g. drying and harden-
ing of formerly dispersed clay). Further, increased density is usually
associated with the decrease in mainly structural porosity (Guérif,
1990), which plays a vital role in brittle failure. Soil fragmentation
may be even more sensitive to soil compaction than tensile strength.
Munkholm et al. (2002b) showed that compaction of a sandy loam in
wet conditions increased tensile strength by 20 and 60% for 8–16 mm
aggregates soil cores (Ø = 4.45 cm), respectively, whereas the geo-
metric mean diameter in a drop-shatter test increased by 172%.
High bulk density can be a result of direct impact from heavy traffic
or a consequence of poor structural stability caused by e.g. low SOM
content.
5. Managing soil friability
Soil management affects soil friability in multiple ways. An over-
view of the effect of different soil management types is shown in
Table 2.
 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
Table 2
Overview of management impact on soil friability.
Management Management Overall Reason
type option trend
Crop rotation Cereal ↓↓↓ Low OM inputs and others
monoculture
Fertilization Manure ↑↑ Increased OM input
application
Residue Residue ↘ Decreased OM input
management removal
Tillage Reduced ↑ Accumulation of SOM in
primary tillage surface layers, low disturbance (1998), Munkholm et al. (2001b), Blanco-Canqui et al. (2005), Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007), Abid
Intensive ↓ High degree of disturbance,
secondary kneading in wet condition
tillage
Traffic Heavy traffic ↓↓↓ Increased density
5.1. Cropping systems
Monocultural cereal growing systems have been shown to result in
poorer soil friability compared with more diverse cropping systems
(Chan and Heenan, 1996; Mueller et al., 2009; Reganold, 1988; Watts
et al., 1996a; Watts and Dexter, 1997a). In an on-farm study, Munkholm
et al. (2001a) compared a continuously cash-cropped and mineral-
fertilized soil (N20 years) (CCC) with an animal-manured soil with a di-
versified crop rotation (DFG(2)) and assessed soil friability using a
range of methods (visual assessment, drop shatter and aggregate tensile
strength). The series of measurements unambiguously showed that
DFG(2) had a better tilth and was more friable than CCC. The DFG(2)
soil had a more crumbly structure than the cloddy and rather massive
and dense CCC soil. The difference between CCC and DFG(2) could be
explained by a difference in SOM content resulting from differences in
both crop rotation and fertilization. For another field pair including an-
imal manured soils, Munkholm et al. (2001a), surprisingly, found
poorer soil friability for a soil with a diverse crop rotation (forages in-
cluded), DFG(1), than for its arable counterpart, DFA. Both soils were
healthy soils with high biological activity and had similar bulk densities.
However, the DFG(1) soil had markedly higher biological activity than
DFA (Elmholt et al., 2008; Schjønning et al., 2002), which means a
higher concentration for biological binding and bonding material. This
may explain the lower friability observed for the DFG(1) soil compared
with the DFA soil. Other studies have also shown that e.g. high earth-
worm activity increases aggregate tensile strength (Schrader and
Zhang, 1997) and thus tends to reduce friability in the short term.
5.2. Fertilization
The effect of contrasting fertilization on soil friability has been
studied using the Askov long-term trials (N110 years) located on a
sandy loam in Denmark (Munkholm et al., 2002a). The long-term
unfertilized soil (UNF), low in SOM, tended to show the lowest
strength in wet soil (i.e. pressure potentials around −100 hPa) and
the highest strength in moist and dry soil compared with a mineral
fertilized (NPK) and an animal manured (AM) treatment. The opti-
mum water content for fragmentation, θOPT, and the range in water
content for fragmentation, ΔθRANGE, decreased in the order
AM N NPK N UNF. Results from the Rothamsted trial showed a similar
trend (Dexter and Bird, 2001) although they included a much broader
range in management practices, i.e. from permanent bare fallow to
permanent grass.
5.3. Residue management
Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007, 2008) showed that 3 or 10 years
of continuous crop residue removal decreased aggregate tensile
243
References
Reganold (1988), Chan and Heenan (1996), Watts et al. (1996b), Watts and Dexter (1997a),
Munkholm et al. (2001a), Schjønning et al. (2002), Mueller et al. (2009)
Dexter and Bird (2001), Munkholm et al. (2002a)
Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007, 2008)
Chan (1989), Macks et al. (1996), Perfect and Kay, 1994a; Perfect et al. (1998), Arvidsson and Feiza
and Lal (2009).
Watts et al. (1996b), Watts and Dexter (1997b), Munkholm and Schjønning (2004)
Watts and Dexter (1998), Munkholm et al. (2002b), Munkholm and Schjønning (2004)
strength for silt loam to clay loam soils in Ohio, USA. Therefore, the
results are in agreement with Munkholm et al., 2001a as outlined
above (i.e. DFG(1) vs. DFA). This was explained by a promotion of ag-
gregate formation by residue soil organic matter input. For the
10 year long-term study, bulk density increased with crop residue re-
moval. This is expected to have counteracted the weakening effect of
lower concentration of biological binding and bonding material.
Continued removal of residues resulting in lower SOM content is
expected—over time—to cause increased aggregate tensile strength
with decreasing SOM content as found in a number of long-term
studies as outlined above.
5.4. Tillage and traffic effects
Soil tillage disturbs the soil, i.e. causes loosening and fragmenta-
tion, but also affects the conditions for soil aggregation, e.g. through
the spatial distribution and the mineralization of soil organic matter
and via the effect on soil wetting and drying. No-till has been
shown to increase soil friability for hardsetting Australian soils
(Chan, 1989; Macks et al., 1996) in comparison with conventional till-
age. They found that no-till was able to maintain a friability at ap-
proximately the same level as for permanent pasture or woodland,
whereas cultivation resulted in a strong decrease. For example, fria-
bility (FI4 estimates) for soil taken at 0–10 cm depth dropped from
c. 0.8 (i.e. mechanical unstable) for no-till to c. 0.08 (slightly friable)
for traditional tillage for two potentially hardsetting soils (Macks et
al., 1996). The drop in friability could to a large extent be related to
a loss of SOM and problems derived from this in terms of poor struc-
tural stability. Similar effects have also been found in some cases for
less degraded soils (Abid and Lal, 2009; Blanco-Canqui et al., 2005;
Perfect et al., 1998) but are lacking in others (Blanco-Canqui and
Lal, 2007; Perfect and Kay, 1994a). Munkholm et al. (2001b) studied
the effect of chisel versus conventional mouldboard plowing on a
sandy loam soil using a range of methods to assess soil friability.
The visual evaluation revealed no substantial differences between
the treatments at the 0–20 cm soil depth. On the other hand, quanti-
tative field and laboratory measurements showed poorest soil friabil-
ity for the chiseled soil. There was a significant difference in soil
fragmentation when using a field drop shatter test and aggregates
from the chiseled soil had higher tensile strength. The soil friability
index (FI4) was also lowest for the chiseled soil for autumn sampled
soil. In another Scandinavian study, Arvidsson and Feiza (1998)
found no clear difference in aggregate tensile strength between a
chiseled and mouldboard plowed silty clay soil.
Intensive secondary tillage may result in decreased soil friability,
especially if it is carried out in wet soil. Watts et al. (1996b) and
Watts and Dexter (1997b) showed that aggregate tensile strength in-
creased significantly after rotary cultivation, indicating decreased
244 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
friability. Likewise, Munkholm and Schjønning (2004) showed that
intensive rotavation of a wet sandy loam increased aggregate tensile
strength. In fact the intensive tillage had a similar negative effect on
density and strength of aggregates as soil compaction induced by
heavy traffic. The negative effect persisted for at least six months,
but was not discernible the following year, i.e. after a Northern
European winter and a spring plowing operation. Surprisingly, the
soil friability index, FI4, was not sensitive to effects of the rough tillage
and traffic treatments (FI4 varied from 0.21 to 0.34). This indicates
that the treatments affected the structure of the smallest aggregates
(1–2 mm) equally as much as the largest aggregates (8–16 mm).
Aggregate density from the trial confirms that this was the case
(Munkholm and Kay, 2002). This example shows that FI4 cannot
stand alone in all cases when evaluating friability.
6. Research needs
A lot of data have been produced during the last 30 years yielding
valuable knowledge on friability and how to manage soils to optimize
this soil property. The results have also made it possible to identify
and clarify the knowledge gaps in understanding and managing
friability.
6.1. Methodology
A wide range of methods are available to assess friability qualita-
tively and quantitatively. They measure different aspects of friability
and all have advantages and drawbacks. The field-based methods
are in general qualitative or semi-quantitative and are to a great ex-
tent operator-dependent and very sensitive to spatio-temporal
changes in soil conditions. On the other hand, the quantitative
laboratory typically yields information on only one of the two main
aspects of soil friability, i.e. either soil strength or the fragmentation
pattern. Further, soil friability has in many cases been assessed at
low water contents, on physically disturbed soil and at meso-scale
(aggregates). This may altogether result in insufficient information
on soil behavior in the field at relevant scales and water contents.
There is a strong need to explore the correlations between different
measures of friability—in particular the relations between qualitative
field and quantitative laboratory methods. This would help in select-
ing the best possible combination of methods to yield comprehensive
information on friability and to take account of spatio-temporal
variations in e.g. water content. At the moment a combination of
the classical procedure (i.e. based on tensile strength of air-dry aggre-
gates, FI4), ΔθRANGE and drop shatter test or visual evaluation in the
field appear to cover the different key aspects of friability. Standardi-
zation is needed for some of the methods—in particular the field
methods. For instance, with the drop shatter test, there is a need to
standardize sample size, optimum time and water content for mea-
surement and input energy (i.e. drop height). There is also a need to
develop new methods to quantify soil friability at water contents rel-
evant for soil tillage. Novel non-invasive computer tomographic
methods appear promising. They would allow assessment of friability
on undisturbed soil cores taken from the field and adjusted to
relevant soil water contents. Hopefully, these methods can be used
to obtain information about both the strength of soil and the frag-
mentation pattern when exposed to external stress. In the field
there is a need to develop new methods and sensors for fast and reli-
able assessment of soil friability, i.e. methods that can be used to
assess the need for soil disturbance on the go in a tillage operation.
6.2. Effect of soil water content
The soil water content strongly affects soil friability and there is a
need for much more research with focus on the relationship between
soil water content and soil strength/soil fragmentation. Munkholm et
al. (2007) found that only four parameters were needed to model the
effect of water content on the rupture energy of aggregates. They
based their conclusion on three different soils from Denmark and
USA. Future studies are needed to validate this statement. There is
also a strong need to focus on determining the window of suitable
water contents for tillage rather than the optimum water content
for tillage. This would be very useful for farmers who are in need of
knowledge to help in decisions on when to work the soil. The concept
of a least-limiting water range appears a promising concept also in
this context. There are rather well-documented estimations of the
wet limit (θWL) in the literature (Mueller et al., 2003), whereas
there is more uncertainty regarding the dry limit.
6.3. Effect of soil organic matter content and other basic soil properties
Soil organic matter is a key player in soil structure formation and
therefore greatly affects friability. Clear linear relationships between
SOM and friability have been for found for some soils but we need
to explore whether these relationships are applicable for other soils.
The key question to be answered is what is the critical SOM level
for a given soil? There is also a need for more focus on the temporal
changes in soil friability after changing organic matter input rates as
present results indicates significant temporal dynamics. To fully
understand SOM effects on soil friability we need improved funda-
mental understanding of the interactions between SOM and clay,
CEC and exchangeable cations in relation to aggregation and clay sta-
bilization. The role of clay mineralogy, CEC and exchangeable cation
has mainly been studied for soils developed in a warm dry climate,
where sodicity is a major issue. More studies are needed in this re-
spect but it is also important to focus on the role of these factors for
temperate humid conditions where acidification is a major issue.
6.4. Managing soil friability
Soil management affects soil friability in multiple ways and we
need to continuously address the central question: How do we
manage soil to improve or maintain appropriate soil friability? In
that respect, there is a need to focus strongly on organic matter
input and tillage and traffic. With growing demand for food and fuel
there is increased pressure on removing as much biomass (crop and
residues) from the soil as possible. Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2009),
Blanco-Canqui (2010) and Lal (2010) have raised special concern
over the potential negative effects of using crop residues for bio-
energy production. In relation to tillage and traffic, there is a need
for further evaluation of the effect of different tillage systems. Friabil-
ity is of key importance to the quality of seeding and tillage for all
types of tillage systems. Intensive tillage and traffic on wet soil was
shown to have a negative effect on soil fragmentation and friability
properties. Larger tractors and improved tires have made it possible
to traffic soil that is wetter than ever, with dire potential conse-
quences for the soil. Apparently, there is risk of entering a “vicious
circle” where intensive tillage and traffic on wet soil leads to stronger
and less friable soil, which again increases the demand for more in-
tensive tillage. Future research must evaluate the consequences of
this development and the persistence of poor friability.
6.5. Future perspectives
Soil friability is a soil parameter of vital importance for crop pro-
duction and the impact of crop production on the environment. Thirty
years of focussed research in this area has yielded significant results
but serious knowledge gaps remain. Dexter (1979) stated more
than 30 years ago that “one of the principal aims of tillage research
is to be able to predict what will be the effects on the soil of using a
given tillage implement in given soil conditions.” This still remains a
valid and timely objective in soil science and more knowledge on
 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
soil friability is needed to address this objective. This is especially rel-
evant as soil quality and thus soil friability is threatened by a decrease
in organic matter content, erosion and compaction.
7. Conclusion
• It is concluded that the Utomo and Dexter (1981) definition of the
concept: “Soil friability: the tendency of a mass of unconfined soil to
break down and crumble under applied stress into a particular size
range of smaller fragments” is still valid. It is, however, suggested
to add that a friable soil is characterized by an ease of fragmentation
of undesirably large aggregates/clods and a difficulty in fragmentation
of minor aggregates into undesirable small elements.
• A range of methods is available to assess soil friability at different
scales. They measure different aspects of friability (i.e. typically
either strength of unconfined soil or soil fragmentation) and serve
different purposes. All methods have advantages and limitations.
The use of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods to
get a comprehensive and adequate assessment of soil friability is
recommended.
• Water content strongly affects soil friability. Poor friability can be
experienced if soil is either too wet or too dry, i.e. there is a range
in water contents for sufficient tillage for all soils. The use the
least limiting water range concept—expressed as ΔθRANGE for soil
fragmentation—is highly recommended.
• A strong relationship between organic matter and friability has
been found in a number of cases. No unique lower critical level of
organic matter has been found across soil types. Sustainable man-
agement of soil requires continuous and adequate inputs of organic
matter to sustain or improve soil friability.
• Intensive tillage and traffic in unfavorable conditions threaten soil
friability and may initiate a vicious cycle where increasingly higher
intensity of tillage is needed to produce a proper seedbed.
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out on a sabbattical leave at University of
Guelph, Canada that was partly funded by the OECD Co-operative
Research Programme. A special thanks to Per Schjønning, Aarhus
University who introduced me to soil friability and who also gave
valuable comments to this review.
References
Abid, M., Lal, R., 2009. Tillage and drainage impact on soil quality: II. Tensile strength of
aggregates, moisture retention and water infiltration. Soil Till. Res. 103, 364–372.
Aluko, O.B., Koolen, A.J., 2000. The essential mechanics of capillary crumbling of struc-
tured agricultural soils. Soil Till. Res. 55, 117–126.
Arvidsson, J., Feiza, V., 1998. Conventional and ploughless tillage systems with normal
and low tyre inflation traffic. Swedish J. Agric. Res. 28, 73–82.
Ball, B.C., Batey, T., Munkholm, L.J., 2007. Field assessment of soil structural quality — a
development of the Peerlkamp test. Soil Use Man. 23, 329–337.
Barzegar, A.R., Murray, R.S., Churchman, G.J., Rengasamy, P., 1994. The strength of
remoulded soils as affected by exchangeable cations and dispersible clay. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 32, 185–199.
Barzegar, A.R., Oades, J.M., Rengasamy, P., Murray, R.S., 1995. Tensile strength of dry,
remoulded soils as affected by properties of the clay function. Geoderma 65,
93–108.
Barzegar, A.R., Hashemi, A.M., Herbert, S.J., Asoodar, M.A., 2004. Interactive effects of
tillage system and soil water content on aggregate size distribution for seedbed
preparation in fluvisols in southwest Iran. Soil Till. Res. 78, 45–52.
Berntsen, R., Berre, B., 1993. Fracturing of soil clods and the soil crumbling effectiveness
of draught tillage implements. Soil Till. Res. 28, 79–94.
Bishop, A.W., 1961. The measurement of pore pressure in the triaxial test. Pore Pres-
sure and Suction in Soils. Butterworths, London, pp. 38–46.
Blanco-Canqui, H., 2010. Energy crops and their implications on soil and environment.
Agron. J. 102, 403–419.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2007. Soil structure and organic carbon relationships follow-
ing 10 years of wheat straw management in no-till. Soil Till. Res. 95, 240–254.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2008. Corn stover removal impacts on micro-scale soil phys-
ical properties. Geoderma 145, 335–346.
245
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2009. Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and
environmental quality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 139–163.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., Owens, L.B., Post, W.M., Izaurralde, R.C., 2005. Strength prop-
erties and organic carbon of soils in the North Appalachian region. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 69, 663–673.
Braunack, M.V., Dexter, A.R., 1989. Soil aggregation in the seedbed: a review. II. Effect of
aggregate sizes on plant growth. Soil Till. Res. 14, 281–298.
Braunack, M.V., Hewitt, J.S., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Brittle fracture of soil aggregates and the
compaction of aggregate beds. J. Soil Sci. 30, 653–667.
Bronick, C.J., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124,
3–22.
Caron, J., Kay, B.D., 1992. Rate of response of structural stability to a change in water
content: Influence of cropping history. Soil Till. Res. 25, 167–185.
Causarano, H., 1993. Factors affecting the tensile strength of soil aggregates. Soil Till.
Res. 28, 15–25.
Chan, K.Y., 1989. Effect of tillage on aggregate strength and aggregation of Vertisols.
Soil Till. Res. 13, 163–175.
Chan, K.Y., 1995. Strength characteristics of a potentially hardsetting soil under pasture
and conventional tillage in the semi-arid region of Australia. Soil Till. Res. 34,
105–113.
Chan, K.Y., Heenan, D.P., 1996. The influence of crop rotation on soil structure and soil
physical properties under conventional tillage. Soil Till. Res. 37, 113–125.
Christensen, O., 1930. An index of friability of soils. Soil Sci. 29, 119–138.
da Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., Perfect, E., 1994. Characterization of the least limiting water
range of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1775–1781.
Dexter, A.R., 1975. Uniaxial compression of ideal brittle tilths. J. Terramech. 12, 3–14.
Dexter, A.R., 1979. Prediction of soil structures produced by tillage. J. Terramech. 16,
117–127.
Dexter, A.R., 2004. Soil physical quality: Part II. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting.
Geoderma 120, 215–225.
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, 203–212.
Dexter, A.R., Birkas, M., 2004. Prediction of the soil structures produced by tillage. Soil
Till. Res. 79, 233–238.
Dexter, A.R., Chan, K.Y., 1991. Soil mechanical properties as influenced by exchangeable
cations. J. Soil Sci. 42, 219–226.
Dexter, A.R., Kroesbergen, B., 1985. Methodology for determination of tensile strength
of soil aggregates. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 31, 139–147.
Dexter, A.R., Richard, G., 2009. Tillage of soils in relation to their bi-modal pore size dis-
tributions. Soil Till. Res. 103, 113–118.
Dexter, A.R., Watts, C.W., 2000. Tensile strength and friability. In: Smith, K.A., Mullins,
C.E. (Eds.), Soil and Environmental Analysis Physical Methods. Marcel Dekker Inc,
New York, pp. 405–433.
Dexter, A.R., Richard, G., Arrouays, D., Czyz, E.A., Jolivet, C., Duval, O., 2008. Complexed
organic matter controls soil physical properties. Geoderma 144, 620–627.
Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Reynolds, W.D., Welacky, T.W., Weaver, S.E., Hamill, A.S., Vyn, T.J.,
2003. Impacts of zone tillage and red clover on corn performance and soil physical
quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 867–877.
Elmholt, S., Schjønning, P., Munkholm, L.J., Debosz, K., 2008. Soil management effects
on aggregate stability and biological binding. Geoderma 144, 455–467.
FAO, 1990. Guidelines for soil description, Soil Resource Management and Conserva-
tion Service, Land and Water Division, 3rd edition. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations, Rome. 70 pp.
FAO, 2009. The State of Food and Agriculture 2009, Part II. World Food and Agriculture
in Review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp.
103–122. 2009.
Farrell, D.A., Greacen, E.L., Larson, W.E., 1967. The effect of water content on axial strain
in a loam soil under tension and compression. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 31, 445–450.
Freudenthal, A.M., 1968. Statistical approach to brittle fracture. In: Liebowitz, H. (Ed.),
Fracture: An Advanced Treatise. : Mathematical Fundamentals, II. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 591–619.
Gill, W.R., 1959. The effects of drying on mechanical strength of Lloyd clay. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 23, 255–257.
Guérif, J., 1988. Détermination de la résistance en traction des agrégats terreux: revue
bibliographique et mise au point technique. Agronomie 8, 281–288.
Guérif, J., 1990. Factors influencing compaction-induced increases in soil strength. Soil
Till. Res. 16, 167–178.
Hadas, A., Wolf, D., 1984. Refinement and re-evaluation of the drop-shatter soil frag-
mentation method. Soil Till. Res. 4, 237–249.
Hallett, P.D., Dexter, A.R., Seville, J.P.K., 1995a. Identification of pre-existing cracks on
soil fracture surfaces using dye. Soil Till. Res. 33, 163–184.
Hallett, P.D., Dexter, A.R., Seville, J.P.K., 1995b. The application of fracture mechanics to
crack propagation in dry soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 46, 591–599.
Hatibu, N., Hettiaratchi, D.R.P., 1993. The transition from ductile flow to brittle failure
in unsaturated soils. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 54, 319–328.
Junge, T., Gräsle, W., Gisela, B., Horn, R., 2000. Effect of pore water pressure on tensile
strength. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163, 21–26.
Karlen, D.L., Erbach, D.C., Kaspar, T.C., Colvin, T.S., Berry, E.C., Timmons, D.R., 1990. Soil
tilth: a review of past perceptions and future needs. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54,
153–161.
Kay, B.D., Munkholm, L.J., 2011. Managing the interactions between soil biota and their
physical habitat in agroecosystems. In: Ritz, K., Young, I.M. (Eds.), Architecture and
Biology of Soils: Life in Inner Space. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 170–195.
Keller, T., Arvidsson, J., Dexter, A.R., 2007. Soil structures produced by tillage as affected
by soil water content and the physical quality of soil. Soil Till. Res. 92, 45–92.
246 L.J. Munkholm / Geoderma 167-168 (2011) 236–246
Kim, T.H., Kim, C.K., Jung, S.J., Lee, J.H., 2007. Tensile strength characteristics of contam-
inated and compacted sand-bentonite mixtures. Environ. Geol. 52, 653–661.
Lal, R., 2010. Managing soils for a warming earth in a food-insecure and energy-starved
world. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 173, 4–15.
Macks, S.P., Murphy, B.W., Cresswell, H.P., Koen, T.B., 1996. Soil friability in relation to
management history and suitability for direct drilling. Aust. J. Soil Res. 34,
343–360.
Marshall, T.J., Quirk, J.P., 1950. Stability of structural aggregates of dry soil. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 1, 266–275.
Misra, R.K., Dexter, A.R., Alston, A.M., 1986. Penetration of soil aggregates of finite size.
Plant Soil 94, 43–58.
Mueller, L., Schindler, U., Fausey, N.R., Lal, R., 2003. Comparison of methods for estimat-
ing maximum soil water content for optimum workability. Soil Till. Res. 72, 9–20.
Mueller, L., Kay, B.D., Deen, B., Hu, C., Zhang, Y., Wolff, M., Eulenstein, F., Schindler, U.,
2009. Visual assessment of soil structure: Part II. Implications of tillage, rotation
and traffic on sites in Canada, China and Germany. Soil Till. Res. 103, 188–196.
Mullins, C.E., Panayiotopoulos, K.P., 1984. The strength of unsaturated mixtures of sand
and kaolin and the concept of effective stress. J. Soil Sci. 35, 459–468.
Mullins, C.E., Young, I.M., Bengough, A.G., Ley, G.J., 1987. Hard-setting soils. Soil Use
Man. 3, 79–83.
Mullins, C.E., Blackwell, P.S., Tisdall, J.M., 1992. Strength development during drying of
a cultivated, flood-irrigated hardsetting soil. I. Comparison with a structurally sta-
ble soil. Soil Till. Res. 25, 113–128.
Munkholm, L.J., 2000. The Spade Analysis — A Modification of the Qualitative Spade Di-
agnosis for Scientific Use. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, Denmark.
pp. 1–40.
Munkholm, L.J., Kay, B.D., 2002. Effect of water regime on aggregate-tensile strength,
rupture energy, and friability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 702–709.
Munkholm, L., Perfect, E., 2005. Brittle fracture of soil aggregates: Weibull models and
methods of parameter estimation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 1565–1571.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., 2004. Structural vulnerability of a sandy loam exposed
to intensive tillage and traffic in wet conditions. Soil Till. Res. 79, 79–85.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., Petersen, C.T., 2001a. Soil mechanical behaviour of
sandy loams in a temperate climate: case studies on long-term effects of fertiliza-
tion and crop rotation. Soil Use Man. 17, 269–277.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., Rasmussen, K.J., 2001b. Non-inversion tillage effects on
soil mechanical properties of a humid sandy loam. Soil Till. Res. 62, 1–14.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., Kay, B.D., 2002a. Tensile strength of soil cores in rela-
tions to aggregate strength, soil fragmentation and pore characteristics. Soil Till.
Res. 64, 125–135.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., Debosz, K., Jensen, H.E., Christensen, B.T., 2002b. Aggre-
gate strength and mechanical behaviour of a sandy loam soil under long-term fer-
tilization treatments. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 53, 129–137.
Munkholm, L.J., Perfect, E., Grove, J., 2007. Incorporation of water content in the Wei-
bull model for soil aggregate strength. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71, 682–691.
Nearing, M.A., West, L.T., Bradford, J.M., 1988. Consolidation of an unsaturated illitic
clay soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 929–934.
Oades, J.M., 1984. Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and implica-
tions for management. Plant Soil 76, 319–337.
Ojeniyi, S.O., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Soil factors affecting the macrostructures produced by
tillage. Trans. ASAE 22, 339–343.
Perfect, E., Kay, B.D., 1994a. Influence of corn management on dry aggregate tensile
strength: Weibull analysis. Soil Till. Res. 32, 149–161.
Perfect, E., Kay, B.D., 1994b. Statistical characterization of dry aggregate strength using
rupture energy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1804–1809.
Perfect, E., Kay, B.D., 1995. Brittle fracture of fractal cubic aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
59, 969–974.
Perfect, E., Zhai, Q., Blevins, R.L., 1998. Estimation of Weibull brittle fracture parameters
for heterogenous materials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 1212–1219.
Reganold, J.P., 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and con-
ventional farming systems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3, 144–154.
Rogowski, A.S., 1964. Strength of Soil Aggregates. Iowa State University of Science and
Technology, Ames Iowa.
Rogowski, A.S., Kirkham, D., 1976. Strength of soil aggregates: influence of size, density
and clay and organic matter content. Med. Fac. Landouw. Rijksuniv. Gent 41,
85–100.
Schjønning, P., Elmholt, S., Munkholm, L.J., Debosz, K., 2002. Soil quality aspects of
humid sandy loams as influenced by organic and conventional long-term manage-
ment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 195–214.
Schjønning, P., Munkholm, L.J., Elmholt, S., Olesen, J.E., 2007. Organic matter and soil
tilth in arable farming: management makes a difference within 5–6 years. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 122, 157–172.
Schjønning, P., Heckrath, G., Christensen, B.T., 2009. Threats to Soil Quality in Denmark.
DJF Report Plant Science No. 143. Aarhus University, Denmark.
Schrader, S., Zhang, H., 1997. Earthworm casting: stabilization or destabilization of soil
structure? Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 469–475.
Shanmuganathan, R.T., Oades, J.M., 1982. Effect of dispersible clay on the physical prop-
erties of the B horizon of a red-brown earth. Aust. J. Soil Res. 20, 315–324.
Shepherd, T.G., 2000. Visual Soil Assessment: Field guide for cropping and pastoral
grazing on flat to rolling country. horizons.mw & Landcare Research, Palmerston
North, Volume 1. 84 pp.
Snyder, V.A., Vazquez, M.A., Martinez, G., Ramirez, L., Hadas, A., 1995. Controlled dis-
placement technique for measuring soil friability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 44–52.
Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Examination and description of soils. In: Soil survey
manual. Handbook no. 18, 59–196. USDA, Washington D.C.
Utomo, W.H., Dexter, A.R., 1981. Soil friability. J. Soil Sci. 32, 203–213.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1997a. The influence of organic matter in reducing the desta-
bilization of soil by simulated tillage. Soil Till. Res. 42, 253–275.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1997b. Intensity of tillage of wet soil and the effects on soil
structural condition. Fragmenta Agronomica TOM 2B. Proceedings 14th ISTRO con-
ference, pp. 669–672. July 27- August 1, 1997, Pulawy, Poland. Poland. Pulawy.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1998. Soil friability: theory, measurement and the effects of
management and organic carbon content. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49, 73–84.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Longstaff, D.J., 1996a. An assessment of the vulnerability of
soil structure to destabilisation during tillage. Part II. Field trials. Soil Till. Res. 37,
175–190.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Dumitru, E., Canarache, A., 1996b. Structural stability of two
Romanian soils as influenced by management practices. Land Deg. Dev. 7, 217–238.