Emon SS101347 Thesis Paper

MORPHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SARA AND BAJOA
SOIL SERIES
Md. Moshiur Rahman
Student ID: 101347
Soil Science Discipline
Khulna University
Khulna, Bangladesh
Contents
Contents I-III
List of Figure IV
List of Table V
Acronyms VI
Chapter One:IntroductIon 1-3
1. Introduction 1-3
1.1. General idea 1
1.2. Background of the study 2
1.3. Objective of the study 3
Chapter Two:Literature RevIew 4-24
2. Literature Review 4-24
2.1. Morphological and Physical properties 4
2.1.1. Soil Color 4
2.1.1.2. Soil Color and its interpretation 5
2.1.2. Particle Size Distribution and Soil Texture 7
2.1.3. Soil Structure 9
2.1.3.1. Characterization of soil structure and 10
importance
2.1.4. Bulk Density (Db) 12
2.1.5. Particle Density (Dp) 14
2.1.6. Soil Porosity 15
2.1.7. Hydraulic Conductivity 18
2.1.8. Aggregate Stability 21
2.1.8.1. Macro-aggregate stability 23
2.1.8.2. Micro-aggregate stability 24
Chapter Three: Methods and MaterIals 25-
3. Materials and methods 25
3.1. Sampling Site
3.2. Collection and Processing of Soil sample 26
| Contents I
3.3. Morphological Properties 26
3.4. Physical Properties Analysis 26
3.4.1. Particle size analysis (PSA) and Texture 26
3.4.2. Soil Bulk Density (Db) 27
3.4.3. Particle Density (Dp) 27
3.4.4. Hydraulic Conductivity 27
3.4.5. Soil Structure 27
3.4.6. Maximum Water Holding Capacity 27
3.4.7. Aggregate stability 28
3.4.7.1. Micro aggregate Analysis 28
3.4.7.1. Water Stable Aggregate Analysis 28
3.4.8. Soil porosity
3.5. Chemical Analysis 29
3.5.1. Soil pH 29
3.5.2. Electrical Conductivity (EC) 29
3.5.3. Soil Organic Carbon(C) 29
3.5.5. Cataion Exchange Capacity (CEC) 29
Chapter Four:Results and Discussion 30-44
4. Results and Discussion 30-44
4.1. Profile Description of Soil Series 30-32
4.1.1. Sara Series 30
4.1.2. Bajoa Series 31
4.2. Soil Color 32
4.3. Soil Structure 32
4.4. Particle size analysis (PSA) and Texture 33
4.4.1. Sand/Silt, Silt/Clay and CEC/Clay ratio 35
4.5. Bulk Density (Db) 35-36
4.6. Particle Density (Dp) 37
4.7. Soil Porosity 37
4.8. Maximum Water Holding Capacity 38
4.9. Hydraulic Conductivity 38
4.10. Aggregate Stability 39-43
| Contents II
4.10.1. Macro Aggregate Stability 39
4.10.2. Micro Aggregate Stability 41
4.10.2.1. Clay Ratio 41
4.10.2.2. Dispersion Ratio 441
4.10.2.3. Degree of Aggregation 41
4.10.2.4. Particle size and micro aggregate 42-43
distribution
4.11. Some basic properties of soil 44
Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion 45
5. Summary and Conclusion 45
References 46-63
| Contents III
List of Figure
Fig. 2.1. Color triangle showing relationships between soil colors and 6
influencing factors/conditions
Fig. 2.2. Soil particles (Sand, Silt and Clay) 7
Fig. 3.3. Textural Triangle 8
Fig. 2.4. Schematic representation of the process of building up and 10
breaking down soil structure.
Fig. 2.5. well structured and poorly structured soil with capacity of 12
function
Fig. 2.6. Hydraulic conductivity measurement of certain soil 19
Fig. 4.1. Particle size and micro aggregate distribution of soils of Sara 42
soil series
Fig. 4.2. Particle size and micro aggregate distribution of soils of 43
Bajoa soil series
| Contents IV
List of Table
Table 2.1. Biological, chemical and physical processes influenced by 11
soil structure.
Table 2.2. General relationship of soil bulk density to root growth 13
based on soil texture
Table 2.3. Management factors influencing bulk density 14
Table 2.4. Particle density of different textural class. 15
Table 2.5. General relationship between water conductivity and soil 17
pores.
Table 2.6. Pore size classification based on function 18
Table 2.7. Representive values of saturated hydraulic conductivity 20
Table 3.1. Environmental settings of Soil Series 25
Table 3.2. Description of sampling site 26
Table 4.1. Results of Particle size distribution of the soils 34
Table 4.2. Profile distribution of bulk density, particle density and soil 36
porosity of studied profile.
Table 4.3. Hydraulic Conductivity and Maximum water holding 39
capacity of studied profile
Table 4.4. Macro and micro aggregate stability of soils of studied 40
profiles
Table 4.4. Some basic properties of soil 44
| Contents V
Acronyms
SRDI Soil Resource Development Institute
BARI Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
BINA Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture
BRRI Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
KU Khulna University
OM Organic Matter
| Contents VI
CHAPTER ONE Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1. General idea
Soil physical properties profoundly influence how soils function in an ecosystem and
how they can best be managed for optimum crop yields while conserving the soil
environment. Physical properties that influence soil quality include its particle size
distribution, density, hydraulic conductivity and water holding capacity just to
mention a few (Brady and Weil, 2002) and among which structure, texture, hydraulic
conductivity, aggregate size distribution, and stability control key processes in soil.
These properties affect crop production through nutrients supply, water
infiltration, and water holding capacity. In addition, they play an important role in
influencing the behavior of plant growth. Soil texture, for example, determines not
only the nutrient supplying ability of soil solids but also the supply of water and air to
plant life. Soil properties in their environmental setting result from soil formation
processes, which are governed by the factors such as climate, topography, parent
material, vegetation and time and those soil forming factors differ from one place to
another, hence soil properties varies from location to location, region to region even
within soil horizontally and vertically. Drainage characteristics of soil have also direct
correlation with soil physical properties such as soil texture, structure, hydraulic
conductivity and soil permeability. Therefore, suitability of soil for crop production
may be determined by its physical properties.
Crop production in Bangladesh has a huge amount of limiting factors among which
soil is a dominant one. The physical deterioration often associated with a decline in
organic matter content is manifested by a decline in wet aggregate stability, an
increase in bulk and clod densities, an increase in modulus of rupture, a decline in
large pore space and increasing structural impedance. Therefore, knowledge of these
parameters is essential to accurately diagnose the agricultural, hydrological, and
environmental problems related erosion and the movement of water and air through
soils (Amoozegar, 1992) and most importantly to crop production.
Chapter 1 | Introduction 1
1.2. Background of the study
Bangladesh is an agro-based developing country despite of its reducing agricultural

land with increasing population. The land-man ratio of the country is the lowest figure
of the world. Therefore, it is one of the great challenges to meet the food security and
this will require solution in very short period not keeping people for starvation. Being
fabulously fertile and densely populated, the soils of the Bangladesh have been the
subject of extensive use for rice paddy cultivation for a long time to meet the food
challenge. Regardless use of high yielding varieties of crops with fertilizer, crop
production in Bangladesh is still decreasing in comparison to other developing ones.
With the intensification of agriculture, these soils have witnessed depletion of
nutrients and productivity. For cultivation high analysis fertilizers have been used, it
was working at primordial time but today fertilization does not increasing crops yield
satisfactorily. Quantities of nutrients like N, P and K in the soil are generally assumed
to be the more important parameters of its fertility. Mineral fertilization - notably
through the application of inorganic fertilizers - provides required nutrients quantities
for the optimum plant growth. The physical fertility of the soil such as water holding
capacity, porosity, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity…, which creates suitable
environment for the availability and uptake of these nutrients, is often ignored (Rasool
et al., 2007). The view which neglects the physical aspects of fertility is that the
phrase “soil fertility” frequently associated with the chemical fertility of soil as
determined by nutrients and pollutants. Soil physical properties deteriorate with
change in land use especially from forest to arable land. The deterioration of soil
physical condition during crop production is common problem, particularly in tropical
countries (Ahn, 1968). Cropping with continuous cultivation, physical properties and
productivity of many soils commonly decline due to decrease in organic matter
content (Lal, 1986) and soil pH, may lead to erosion and leaching of soil nutrients
(Chisci and Zanchi, 1981) which in turn, adversely affect the physicochemical
properties of the soil. Thus most often crop yields are limited by physical and
hydrophysical condition rather than its nutrients values. In past, research on studies of
physical properties of Bangladesh has been neglected. Some piece meal work has
been done on the physical characterization of the soils but detailed information in this
aspect of Morphological and physical properties is still lacking. Recently different
researcher organization of Bangladesh namely, SRDI, BINA, BARI, BRRI, K.U.
have taken extensive programmes to study detail physical properties of many soil
series with fertility status for better land use and crop yielding and management of
soil. Since, soils are intensively used for growing crops; their morphological and
physical properties should be meticulously studied for better understanding of
maintaining sustainability of soil health in relation to plant growth and crop
production. Keeping these views in mind, this study was designed to determine and
evaluate the present morphological and physical properties of Sara series and Bajoa
soil series of Bangladesh.
1.3. Objective of the study
The overall objective of this research is to study the physical properties of soil which
is related to soil fertility and productivity of the studied representative soils series of
Bangladesh. The specific objectives of the research-
 The objective of the study is to investigate soil morphological and physical

properties.
CHAPTER TWO Literature Review
2. Literature Review
2.1. Morphological and Physical properties
Soil is comprised of minerals, soil organic matter, water, and air. The composition
and proportion of these components greatly influence soil physical properties,
including texture, structure, and porosity, the fraction of pore space in a soil. In turn,
these properties affect air and water movement in the soil, and thus the soil‟s ability to
function. Soils function in any ecosystem and their management strongly influenced
by soil physical properties (Brady and Weil, 2002). Success or failure of both
agriculture and engineering projects often hinges on the physical properties of the soil
used. Soils, like all physical bodies, have unique properties that define them. There
are seven physical properties that we look at when diagnosing if a soil is healthy or
not, or to tell one type of soil from another. Texture, moisture, aggregation, bulk
density, strength, porosity, and temperature are physical properties unique to each
soil. Texture cannot normally be modified, but through proper management practices,
we can significantly change the other six factors. Intensive cropping of native grass
land soils generally decreases organic matter content and causes an associated
degradation of soil physical properties (Dormaar, 1979; Skidmore et al., 1975;
Olmstead, 1946). Physical properties and processes of soil affect soil fertility by
altering water movement through soil, root penetration of soil and water logging.
Important physical properties that affect fertility include soil structure and texture,
color, bulk and particle density, hydraulic conductivity, water content and surface
features (Kogano et al., 1991)
2.1. 1. Soil Color
Color is one of the most conspicuous characteristics of soils and one that probably is
more frequently used to describe and characterize soil (Soil survey stuff, 1975). It is a
variable property, across the landscape and with depth from the surface. Differences
in color in relation to other characteristics, such as drainage, clay content, grain
Chapter 2 | Literature Review 4

packing, and root distribution, are clues to local oxidation and reduction and to
movement and rearrangement of constituents. A standard system has been developed
for precise color description because of its importance in classifying and interpreting
soil. Soil color has long been expressed with the help of three independent variables,
hue, value and chroma (Munsell color co., 1954) which described the reflection of
light from the soil, called the color of the soil is. This reflection is by hue, value, and
chroma. Hue denotes the dominant spectral color (Red, yellow, green and blue),
Value refers to the lightness & darkness of the color and chroma is the relative purity
of the spectral (rainbow) color (Strength of the color). Three major factors have the
greatest influence on the color of a soil. Color triangle chart (Fig. 2.1) showing the
influence of three factors.
1) The organic matter content

2) The water content
3) The presence of iron & manganese.
Dark colors may result from high water table conditions (poor drainage), low annual
temperatures, or other conditions that induce high organic matter content and, at the
same time, slow the oxidation of organic materials. However, soil coloration may be
due to the colors imparted by the parent material. Shades of red or yellow, particularly
where associated with relatively fine textures, usually indicate that subsoil material
has been incorporated in the surface layer. Subsoil colors are associated with natural
drainage of the soils while the soils were forming. The level of moisture in a soil
affected iron compounds that gave color to the subsoil.
2.1. 1.1. Soil Color and its interpretation
Soil color indicates many important soil properties (McGarry, 2007) as follows: (1)
Provides information about the soil‟s source materials and the climatic and human
factors that have altered the original rocks and sediments to give the current soil
condition. (2) Serves as an indicator of current soil: water (or aeration) status. (3)
Reflects the organic matter status of the soil and is particularly useful when surface
materials of long-term cropping systems are compared. Color can tell us much about
the soil: the amount of organic matter present; the types of minerals and how
weathered they are; the current moisture content; how long water is held in the soil
(soil drainage class); and oxidation states of iron and manganese.

Fig. 2.1. Color triangle showing relationships between soil colors and influencing
factors/conditions
Color of soil represents the intensity of weathering, development stage and drainage
condition of the soil. Soil color can also be a good guide to climatic soil types (Joffe,
1949). Since colors are good indicators of soil behavior and the environment in which
they form, they may be helpful in arriving at conclusion concerning their best uses
and management (Boul et al., 1973). Subsoil colors, in general, are indications of air,
water, and soil relationships and the degree of oxidation of certain minerals in the soil.
Highest groundwater levels and water table fluctuations are routinely estimated by
soil scientists from a soil's morphology, mainly the soil color. Gray colors are
associated with saturated and chemically reducing soil environments, while
yellowish-brown colors are related to generally aerobic and chemically oxidizing

conditions. Soils without any excess water during the year usually are aerated and
yellowish-brown-colored. Soils with high water tables during some part of the
growing season, exhibit gray coloration at the depth of the high water mark and
below. The grayer the soil, the more distinct the wet period is.
2.1. 2. Particle Size Distribution and Soil Texture
The Canadian Soil Information System glossary defines particle size distribution as
the amounts of the various soil separates in a soil sample, usually expressed as weight
percentages (Gregorich et al., 2001). Precise meaning is given to the term “soil
texture” only through the concept of particle-size distribution (Skopp, 1992). The
suitability of soil for different uses traditionally has been expressed as a function of
soil texture (Rawls et al., 1991; Wischmeier et al., 1971). In the USDA classification
system (Soil Survey Staff, 1993), soil texture refers to the relative proportions of clay,
silt, and sand on a <2-mm basis. Soil particles ranging from 0 to 2 mm may contain
separate sand, silt, and clay particles as well soil aggregates (Stanchi et al., 2008). The
size limits used to distinguish the sand, silt and clay particles of the inorganic soil
constituents are usually: sand 2 to 0.05 mm, silt 0.05 to 0.002 mm and clay less than
0.002 mm (Fig. 2.2).
Fig. 3.2 Soil particles (Sand, Silt and Clay)
The relative proportions of clay, silt, and sand are usually represented on soil textural
triangle (Marshall Triangle) and when percentage of three particles are known, their
textural classes can be read from the textural triangle (Zorita et al., 2001) (Fig. 4.3).
The textural triangle provided a common language with scientists, agronomists and
engineers describes the major physical property of a soil (Filgueira et al., 2006).
Textural differences between horizons can be related to such factors as the movement
of fine materials, destruction or other loss of minerals, formation of secondary

minerals and noncrystalline substances. They also may be due to differences in
texture of the parent materials of the horizons. It is related to weathering and parent
material.
Fig. 5.3. Textural Triangle
The performance for a good number of physical and many chemical soil properties
are significantly influenced by particle-size distribution which is important for soil
interpretations, determination of soil hydrologic qualities, plant nutrient requirements
and classifications (Eshel et al., 2004), to estimate other soil properties such as soil
moisture characteristics and hydraulic conductivity (Khodaverdiloo et al., 2011), and
is used as a tool to explain soil genesis, quantify soil classification. . Particle size
distribution reflects the relative balance of weathering and pedogenetic processes, and
it is typically presented as percentage of the total mass of soil by a given size fraction
(Eshel et al., 2004). Particle sizes contributed significantly to eroded aggregate sizes
as expected from the strong reliance on texture and clay content in previous models to
estimate erodibility or nutrient adsorption (Rawls et al., 1991; Wischmeier et al.,
1971). In general, surface soils show low amount of clay that increases with depth.
Sarker (2011) carried out an experiment with AEZ 13 (Ganges Tidal Floodplain) and
the soils were predominantly fine textured (silty clay loam, silty clay and clay) with
some medium textured soils were also found. Most soils had medium to high amount

of clay with a wide range of the content from 14.0 to 60.3% and the variation was
mainly related to the topographical position of soils on the landscape. Islam et al.
(2009) conducted an experiment with soil profiles of four series viz. Jhalakhati, Hijla,
Bajoa and Barisal in the Gangetic alluvium. The soils were fine textured with 5-22%
sand, 21-59% silt and 34-70% clay contents.
2.1. 3. Soil Structure
The phrase “soil fertility” is frequently associated with the chemical fertility of soil as
determined by nutrients and pollutants; this view neglects the physical aspects of
fertility which are embodied in soil structure whose importance has been more than
150 years ago and great number of research on its character has been summarized in a
number of wide-ranging reviews articles (Bronick and Lal, 2005; Kay and Angers,
2000; Horn et al., 1994; Dexter, 1988). Primary particles of soil, sand, silt and clay
held together in the form of aggregate (Brady and Weil, 2002) arranging and
organizing into aggregates with organic matter in a certain repeating pattern is called
soil structure. Marshall (1962) defined soil structure as “the arrangement of the solid
particles and of the pore space located between them” a simpler, working definition is
just “the size and arrangement of pores”. The resulting size, shape and arrangement of
aggregates which can separate along cracks and flaws are basic characteristics
peculiar to each soil (Marshall et al., 1996). If a soil has high clay content, the
structures are more tightly formed and thus less likely to be broken apart and to
slump. Sandy and silty soils have less well defined structures and are more likely to
slump, especially if they have been subject to excessive cultivation and have been
weakened. The different composition and orientation of the structures within a soil
vary with depth and also crop stage during the season.
During soil formation weathering of the soil parent material generates particles of
various shapes and sizes. These particles are then rearranged by, for example,
swelling and shrinking, wetting and drying, root growth, dissolution and deposition of
solids by water and the activities of soil organisms. The particles become bound
together by cementing agents (e.g. iron oxides), by dead organic matter (e.g.
biological exudates), by fine material like clay and silt and by roots and hyphae. Soil
structure requires a very long time to develop but can be changed rapidly by
management. In agriculture soils, the processes of building-up and breaking down of

soil structure occur simultaneously, resulting in the combined presence of clods,
crumbs and peds (Diaz-Zorita et al., 2002) which represented in Fig. 2.4.
Building up processes Breaking down processes
 Cohesion  Tillage
 Organic bonding  Freezing/thawing
 Inorganic  Slaking
cementation  Dispersion
 Roots and fungal
hyphae
Fig. 2.4 Schematic representation of the process of building up and breaking down soil structure
2.1. 3. 1. Characterization of soil structure and its importance
The characterization of soil structure can be quickly performed on the basis of size,
shape and grade, i.e. degree of distinctiveness of the secondary soil units and depends
on inter and intra aggregate adhesion, cohesion or stability (Soil Science Society of
America, 1997). Size is commonly used in relation to agronomic and environmental
processes. Another measurement used to characterize the soil matrix is stability which
is the ability of the soil to retain its arrangement of solid when exposed to stress. Soil
structure stability and aggregate stability are often considered synonymous. However,
aggregates are normally more stable than bulk soil (Hom, 1990). Aggregation is
important for increasing stability against erosion, for maintaining porosity and soil
water movement, and for improving fertility and carbon sequestration in the soil
(Nichols et al., 2004).
Soil structure is a complex condition that is related to many Biological, chemical and
physical processes in soil (Table 2.1) and has been the subjected of a number of
review articles (kay and Angers, 1999; Dexter, 1997). The presence of poorly or
unstable soil structure favors the detachment of soil particles and the formation of
crusts that impede normal shoot elongation and establishment of seedlings (Rathore et
al., 1983). The size distribution of soil structural unit has been proposed as parameter
to predict pore size distribution and soil water retention (Nimmo, 1997; Wu et al.,

1990). Soil microbial processes are directly and indirectly influenced by soil
structure. The presence of small pores reduces accessibility of organic materials to
decomposer, causing the physical protection of C and reduction in N mineralization
(Van veen and Kuikman, 1990; Seech and Beauchamp, 1988)
Table 2.1 Biological, chemical and physical processes influenced by soil structure.
Processes
Biological Chemical Physical
Microbial and meso-fauna protection Sorption and desorption of Wind and water erosion
organic and inorganic
compounds
Nutrient cycling and storage Solute transport Infiltration, water movement

(denitrification, C sequestration, etc.) and aeration
Water imbibitions by crops and seeds Crusting

emergence
Shoot and root growth Soil water retention,

evaporation
Soil with good structure as one which is soft, friable, readily yields the correct tilth
and is stable towards water and traffic. Soil structure has a major influence on the
ability of soil to support plant growth, cycle C and nutrients receive, store and
transmit water and to resist soil erosion and the dispersal of chemicals of
anthropogenic origin. Particular attention must be paid to soil structure in managed
ecosystem where human activities can cause both short and long-term changes that
may have positive or detrimental impacts on the function that soil fulfils. Soil
structure affects the retention and transmission of fluids in the soil, including
infiltration and aeration (Fig. 2.5). When soil structure is poor, then crop yield and
quality suffers, erosion occurs, and tillage, fertilizer spreading and spraying
operations are affected. A poor soil structure will reduce crop and farm profits by
restricting plant performance and increasing the cultivation costs needed to correct
matters.

Fig. 2.5 well structured and poorly structured soil with capacity of function
2.1. 4. Bulk Density (Db)
Soil bulk density is a basic and dynamic soil property that varies with the structural
condition of the soil and can be altered by cultivation, trampling by animals,
agricultural machinery, weather, i.e. raindrop impact (Arshad et al., 1996) and
alternation is influenced by some other soil physical and chemical properties. It is an
indicator of soil compaction and soil health which affects infiltration, rooting
depth/restrictions, available water capacity, soil porosity, plant nutrient availability,
and soil microorganism activity, which influence key soil processes and productivity.
Soil bulk density (Db = ms/Vt) is the ratio of the mass of oven-dried solids (ms) to the
bulk volume (Vt) of the soil, which includes the volume of the solids and the pore
space between the soil particles (Blake and Hartge, 1986a). Knowledge of soil bulk
density is essential for soil management, and information on the soil bulk density of
soils is important in soil compaction and structure degradation as well as in the
planning of modern farming techniques. Bulk density values are required for
converting gravimetric soil water content to volumetric and to calculate soil porosity
which is the amount pore space in the soil (Blake and Hartge, 1986a). Akgul and
Ozdemir (1996) studies on relationships between soil bulk density and some soil
properties explained that these constants can be estimated by means of developed
regression models. Sandy soils have relatively high bulk density since total pore space
in sands is less than silt or clay soils. The heavy textured soil show greater variability
in their bulk density values, probably due to their swelling and shrinking properties
(Bouman et al., 2007). Bulk density typically increases with soil depth since
subsurface layers are more compacted and have less organic matter, less aggregation,
and less root penetration compared to surface layers, therefore contain less pore space.
It is generally desirable to have soil with a low bulk density <1.5 g cm-3 (Hunt and
Gilks, 1992) for optimum movement of air and water through the soil. Root growth
can be restricted by increasing soil density. Several authors have measured critical
soil densities above which root growth is impeded (Bertrand and Kohnke, 1957;
Veihmeyer and Hendrickson, 1948) that may inhibit or even prohibit shoot and root
growth (Taylor et al., 1966). It is generally agreed that for medium- to fine-textured
soils, a bulk density of 1.5-1.6 g cm-3 is critical for root growth of most plant species.
Bulk densities that restrict plant growth vary for soils of different textural classes
Table 2.2 (Arshad et al., 1996). Agricultural activities, which could involve tillage or
the wheels of heavy machinery compacting soils, can have a great effect on bulk
density and porosity (Osunbitan et al., 2005; Cameira et al., 2003; Gysi et al., 2000).
Table 2.2 General relationship of soil bulk density to root growth based on soil texture
Texture Ideal bulk Bulk densities that Bulk densities that

densities may affect root restrict root growth
(g cm-3) growth (g cm-3) (g cm-3)
Sands, loamy sands <1.60 1.69 >1.80
Sandy loams, loams <1.40 1.63 >1.80
Sandy clay loams, loams, clay <1.40 1.60 >1.75

loams
Silts, silt loams <1.30 1.60 >1.75
Silt loams, silty clay loams <1.40 1.55 >1.65
Sandy clays, silty clays, some <1.10 1.49 >1.58

clay loams (35–45% clay)
Clays (>45% clay) <1.10 1.39 >1.47
In a compacted soil, strength of soil (resistance to a metal probe forced into the soil)
and bulk density increase, and subsequent reduction of conductivity, permeability and
diffusivity of water and air through the soil-pore system take place that all have an
important bearing on plant growth (Soane et al., 1981).

Any management practice that increases organic matter will increase the granular
structure of the soil, increase the pore space, and decrease the bulk density (Shaver et
al., 2003). Management that influences bulk density is given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Management factors influencing bulk density
Increases bulk density Decreases bulk density
 Continuous tillage  Continuous cropping

 Removing or burning residue  Adding organic amendments
 Trafficking on wet soils
As aggregation and clay content increase, bulk density decreases (Lal, 1985). Soil
bulk density decreases with increasing organic carbon concentration (Bauer and
Black, 1992). Soil density and porosity are the two most important parameters in
assessing anthropogenic change in soil. Both the bulk density and the water content
are dynamic properties that can change dramatically over short periods of time.
Changes in soil volume due to changes in water content will alter bulk density. Soil
mass remains fixed, but the volume of soil may change as water content changes
(Blake and Hartge, 1986a).
2.1. 5. Particle Density (Dp)
The particle density is an important property needed for understanding and measuring
many other soil physical properties including bulk density and porosity. By definition
particle density (Dp= ms/Vs) refers to the mass (ms) of a unit volume of solid soil
particles (Vs). No account is taken for the pore space between the particles (Blake and
Hartge, 1986b). Particle density is distinguished from bulk density, which includes
pore spaces between particles and obviously, bulk density is always smaller than
particle density (Hillel, 1982). If both, bulk density and particle density are known,
the total porosity can be calculated by using these values (Hillel, 1982). Particle
density is used in most mathematical expressions where the volume or weight of a soil
sample is being considered. Thus, interrelationships among porosity, bulk density, air
space, and rates of sedimentation of particles in fluids depend on particle density. For
soils, it is often sufficient to assume a particle density of 2.65 g cm-3; however, when
high accuracy is needed, or non-silicate minerals are present, the particle density
should be determined by measurement.

Table 2.4 Particle density of different textural class
Textural class Particle density gcm3
Coarse sand 2.655
Fine sand 2.659
Silt 2.798
Clay 2.837
The Dp of a soil represents the composite average of the density of all the particles
that comprise the soil. The density of individual soil particles is dependent on their
mineralogy and composition. The density of minerals commonly found in soils varies
from 2.6 to 2.75 g cm-3. Quartz, feldspars, and colloidal silicates predominate in
mineral soils and their densities fall within this range. However, if unusually higher
amounts of „„heavy‟‟ minerals such as magnetite, zircon, tourmaline, and hornblende
are present in a soil, the particle density of the soil may be greater than 2.75 g cm-3.
Values for different minerals can be found Klein and Hurlbut (1985). Its value also
varies with soil textural class. Typical particle density with soil texture is given in
Table 2.4.
Particle density can vary widely between soils, even within a soil series. Particle
density may also vary with position on a slope, due to the variability in clay
mineralogy (Ball et al., 2000) associated with tillage or with variation in type and
content of heavy minerals. Ball et al., (2000) recommend that particle density be
measured whenever it is to be used in calculating porosities. The particle density of
organic matter is far less than mineral particles, typically ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 g
cm-3. Thus, relatively small amounts of organic matter can have a considerable effect
on a soil‟s composite particle density. Surface soils, because of their higher organic
matter content, usually possess lower particle densities than subsoil. Thus particle
density provides information about the kind of material present in a soil. It also
provides information about the potential release of carbon from the soil to the
atmosphere.
2.1. 6. Soil Porosity
Porosity is a useful index to gauge soil response to different management and tillage
systems (Carter, 1988). It is the percentage of the soil volume occupied by pore

spaces. A soil porosity and pore size distribution characterize its pore space, that
portion volume of the soil that is not occupied by or isolated by solid material
(Nimmo, 2004). Anthropogenic change in soil is assessed by soil density and
porosity. According to Nimmo (2004) the porosity of a soil depends on several
factors, including
i. packing density,
ii. the breadth of the particle size distribution (polydisperse vs. monodisperse),
iii. the shape of particles,
iv. cementing
Agricultural activities, which could involve tillage or the wheels of heavy machinery
compacting soils, can have a great effect on porosity (Osunbitan et al., 2005; Cameira
et al., 2003; Gysi et al., 2000). Low porosity tends to inhibit root penetration, water
movement and gas movement. The ability of soil to hold and transmit water and air is
impacted by the types of pores and the amount of pore space present in a soil.
Knowing the number, size, configuration, and distribution of soil pores is useful for
assessing the physical condition and structure of the soil (Carter and Ball, 1993), but
classification of pore sizes lacks standardization. The basic character of the pore space
affects and is affected by critical aspects of almost everything that occurs in the soil:
the movement of water, air, and other fluids; the transport and the reaction of
chemicals; and the residence of roots and other biota (Nimmo, 2004). Pore spaces are
filled with air is termed air-filled porosity and filled with water called Water-filled
porosity or relative saturation. Pore space is divided into different categories by pore
diameter, especially the large soil pores that are associated with the transfer and
movement of both water and air (Carter and Ball, 1993). Deeks et al. (2004) define
macropores as those having nominal diameter >50 mm whereas micropores are <50
mm.
In many cases, pore-size distribution is considered the best indicator of the soil
physical condition. Associated porosity factors, such as macrospore volume, pore
continuity, and air-filled pore space are also important guides to characterize soil
structure. The texture and arrangement of solid soil particles determines soil porosity.
Porosity of sandy surface soils may range from 35% to 50%, whereas finer textured
soil typically ranges from 40% to 60%. Compact subsoils may have as little as 25%–3
0% total pore space. Bulk density values generally reflect soil porosity. In general, the
higher the Db, the lower the porosity. Fine-textured soils are dominated by micro
pores, and although total porosity is greater in fine-textured soils compared to soils of
coarser texture, the smaller size of the micro pores restrict s movement of air and
water. Pore-size distribution has proven useful for predicting water infiltration rates,
water availability to plants, water storage capacity, aeration status (Cary and Hayden,
1973), and classification of soil structure (McKeague et al., 1986; Thomasson, 1978).
Macropores mainly facilitate the flow of water when soil is saturated. Pore-size
distribution is useful for predicting hydraulic conductivity (Suleiman and Ritchie,
2001). There is a strong relationship between saturated hydraulic conductivity and
pore size distribution. (Aimrun et al., 2004) represented in Table 2.5. Clay subsoils
often restrict water movement to depth and have a low porosity. Therefore, the
porosity of the subsoil is often a good indicator of potential water logging of the
surface soil.
Table 2.5 General relationship between water conductivity and soil pores
Number of soil pores Soil water conductivity Irrigation classification

(per 25mm x 25mm area) (mm/h)*
10 0.6 Poor
15 1.3
20 2.3
25 3.5
30 4.9
40 8.5
50 12.9 Excellent
Water-filled pore space, sometimes called „„relative saturation,‟‟ expresses the

volume of water in the soil relative to the total volume of pores. It ranges from 0% in
a dry soil to 100% under saturated conditions. A relative saturation over 65%–70%
can indicate that the soil may become anaerobic (Linn and Doran, 1984) and has
proved a useful index for porosity studies in wet soils (Carter, 1988). In fine-textured
soils (clay content above 30%), shrinkage can change the pore-size distribution over
time, whereas in very sandy soils (sand content above 80%), low water adhesion
causes gravitational loss of water.

Attempts have been made to classify pores in regard to function rather than size alone.
Various terminologies for effective pore-space distribution are used to describe the
functional properties of pore-size groups as Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Pore size classification based on function.
Functional properties Pore size
Fissures >500 mm
Transmission pores 500–50 mm
storage pores 50–0.5 mm
Residual pores <0.5 mm
Emphasis has also been placed on large pores, above 50 mm in diameter, which are
associated with saturated hydraulic conductivity (Germann and Beven, 1981). The
presence of macropores generally leads to heterogeneity of flow within the soil (Ligon
et al., 1977). The size of macropores and their connectivity, which may change within
a few centimeters, can influence the infiltration behavior of soil (Beven and Germann,
1982). Passioura (1991) notes that the presence of continuous macropores increases
the extent of the root system even in hard soils. In contrast, soil structure or tillage
studies require information about macroporosity (>50 mm). Studies on infiltration and
preferential flow of water require information on pores >1 mm EPD in addition to
lower pore sizes (Luxmoore et al., 1990). Soil aeration can be characterized by
measuring the diffusion rate of a gas in the soil or by measuring the air-filled pore
space of the soil. It has been suggested that 10-12% by volume of air in the soil is the
lower limit for optimum growth of most common crops (Grable and Siemer, 1968;
Bateman, 1963). The relative diffusivity is a function of the air-filled pore space and it
has been suggested that no diffusion occurs when the air-filled porosity becomes less
than 10-15% due to the discontinuity of the air-fllled pores (Grable and Siemer, 1968;
Marshall, l959; Penman, 1940).
2.1. 7. Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity of a soil is a measure of the soil's ability to transmit water
when submitted to a hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic conductivity is defined by Darcy's
law, which, for one-dimensional vertical flow (Fig. 2.6). Hydraulic conductivity of a
soil at saturation is one of the most important hydraulic parameters and is an
important soil property which affects water and solute transport, and water availability
for plants that varies along vertical and lateral flow paths depending on directional
changes in soil density, and structure (Jutras and Arp, 2011; Crawford, 1994).
Saturated hydraulic conductivities vary over orders of magnitude depending on the
soil texture that is represented in Table 2.7 (Clapp and Hornberger, 1978). It is also
highly variable in space and time. Changes in weather and climate also affect K
through freezing and thawing (Chi, 2008; Steeves, 2004), swelling and shrinking
(Bouma, 1980), extent of rooting and related organic matter build-up (Löfkvist,
2005). In regions, where precipitation is scarce and unevenly distributed, the capacity
of the soil to conduct and store water is crucial. For example, Kadu et al., (2003)
found low crop yields in soils with low K values. Furthermore, reduced K values can
lead to reduced infiltration and soil aeration and increased surface runoff and soil
erosion (Ben-Hur and Lado, 2008; Kadu et al., 2003), with consequent alterations to
the hydrological cycle, soil fertility, and soil biotic conditions.
Fig. 2.6 Hydraulic conductivity measurement of certain soil
Low hydraulic conductivities restrict flow of water through natural drains and
therefore, there are problems of persistent standing water on fields following periods
of heavy rain falls. The design and functioning of subsurface drainage systems
depends to a great extent on the soil's saturated hydraulic conductivity (K). All drain-
spacing equations make use of this parameter. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K) is
a function of pore-size distribution and tortuosity (Hillel, 2004), and also of aggregate

stability (Ben-Hur et al., 2009). In soil, the volume of water transmitted and the rate
of transmission is greater for larger than smaller pores (Moutier et al., 1998).
Table 2.7 Representative values of saturated hydraulic conductivity
Texture Saturated hydraulic conductivity(m yr -1)

Sand 5.55 x 103
Loamy sand 4.93 x 103
Sandy loam 1.09 x 103
Silt loam 2.27 x 102
Loam 2.19 x 102
Sandy clay loam 1.99 x 102
Silty clay loam 5.36 x 101
Clay loam 7.73 x 101
Sandy clay 6.84 x 101
Silty clay 3.21 x 101
Clay 4.05 x 101
In the absence of raindrop impact, clay swelling and dispersion are two major
mechanisms that have been hypothesized to cause the K reduction in soils when they
are leached with water (Shainberg and Letey, 1984). They suggested that plugging of
pores with dispersed clay particles was the main cause of K reduction. Swelling is
expected in soils with high contents of smectitic clay minerals, high exchangeable
sodium percentage (ESP), and a low electrolyte concentration in the soil solution.
Swelling of clay particles increases the content of small, water-retaining pores at the
expense of larger water-conducting pores (Moutier et al., 1998). Dispersion of soil
clay occurs instantaneously once the electrolyte concentration of the soil solution falls
below a threshold value, termed the flocculation value (Oster et al., 1980), and the
dispersed clay particles may migrate and plug water-conducting pores, causing a
reduction in soil K (Frenkel et al., 1978). One property that is highly dependent on
soil structure, and may, therefore, be affected, is hydraulic conductivity (K) (Hillel,
2004; Shainberg and Letey, 1984). Although many studies have determined the
effects of OM content on aggregate stability and on the mechanical properties of soil
(e.g. Castro Filho et al., 2002), few have investigated the effects of OM content on

soil K. The aggregate-size distribution in the soil determines the soil bulk density and
the volume and shape of the pores, which in turn, affect the soil K. Ben-Hur et al.,
(2009) and Lado et al., (2004) found that an increase in organic matter content
improved the stability of soil structure, which, in turn, augmented the soil K value.
The reduction in soil organic matter content, alteration of soil porosity, soil
compaction, and decline in aggregate stability could adversely affect soil K (Azooz
and Arshad, 1996; Radford et al.,)
2.1. 8. Aggregate Stability
By definition, an aggregate is a composite body or granule of loosely bound mineral

particles within a soil, the binding of which is characteristically mediated by a
relatively minor amount of organic matter (Encyclopedia of Soil Science, 2008). Soil
aggregate stability is the ability of aggregates to resist disruptive forces (Hillel, 1982),
is an important soil property that affects the movement and storage of water, aeration
(Amézketa et al., 2003) and is also an important indicator of soil physical quality
(Castro Filho et al., 2002). Aggregate stability is the result of complex interaction
among physical, biological and chemical processes in the soil (Marquez et al., 2004;
Diaz-Zorita et al., 2002; Tisdales and Oades, 1982). Soil aggregate stability affects
the profitability and sustainability of agricultural systems. Different-sized structural
units have different stability mechanisms and respond differently to such external
factors as rain, wind, irrigation and management. The combination of the macro and
micro-aggregate stability tests is a consistent way for describing the structural
stability of the studied soils (Amézketa et al., 2003). Of particular importance is the
ability of the soil to retain its arrangement of solid and void spaces during rainfall or
irrigation events. Soils are subjected to spatial and temporal alterations of aggregates
and pores caused by natural (pedogenesis) and anthropogenic (management) factors
(Lal and Shukla, 2004). Soil structure can collapse: (i) by direct impact of raindrops
that break surface soil aggregates and result in soil surface crusts; and (ii) by
spontaneous slaking through breakdown of soil aggregates during rapid wetting both
at the soil surface (contributing to soil crust formation) and within the soil (resulting
in soil compaction) (Lal and Shukla, 2004; FAO, 2003; and Arshad and Mermut,
1988) (iii) Crusting effects of tillage, or because of the use of certain agrochemicals
(Haynes and Naidu, 1998), which cause the decomposition of aggregates into

fragments and primary particles and alter their natural distribution in aggregate size
and therefore cause decline of soil aggregate. In both cases, the break-down of
aggregates into small particles leads to clogging of soil pores forming surface seals,
reducing the hydraulic conductivity of the soil (Lal and Shukla, 2004). Degradation at
the soil surface and at the sub-soil results in reduced rainfall water infiltration into the
soil, and thus increased incidence of runoff and soil erosion, leading to low water use
efficiency. In other words, the erodibility of the soil increases as aggregate stability
decreases (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986). Aggregate collapse also influences solute
transport processes in the soil as well as resistance to penetration by roots and shoots
in seedbeds (Diaz-Zorita et al., 2002; Rathore et al., 1983). Soil organic matter
(SOM) plays a key role in the formation and stabilization of soil aggregates (Oades
1984) and continual addition of crop residue increases labile SOM near the soil
surface, which increases soil aggregation and has a large impact on soil structure (Lu
et al., 1998). Maintenance of a high aggregate stability in soils is desirable for
sustainable land use as it is essential for the preservation of agricultural production,
minimizing soil erosion and degradation and reducing environmental pollution
(Amezketa, 1999). Aggregation of soil particles will result in conditions that are
favorable for plant growth and soil microbial and faunal activity (Whitbread, 1995),
while good soil structure is the most important soil characteristic for sustaining
agricultural productivity and retaining environmental quality (Amezketa, 1999).
Physical disturbance of soil structure (e.g. through tillage) has resulted in decreasing
aggregate stability paralleled by a loss of soil organic matter (Six et al., 2000a; Beare
et al., 1994; Elliott, 1986), indicating a link between soil organic matter and soil
aggregate dynamics. According to Tisdall and Oades (1982), cultivation causes a
reduction in the amount of macro-aggregates, but it does not affect micro-aggregate
stability. Hams et al. (1966) summarized their review of Dynamics of Soil
Aggregation by stating that a soil's aggregate status usually deteriorates rapidly if the
soil is repeatedly cropped with annuals that supply little organic matter to the soil,
require extensive cultivation, and provide minimal vegetative cover. However, not all
continuous row-cropping systems have deteriorated soil structure (Cary and Hayden,
1974).
2.1. 8.1. Macro-aggregate stability or water stable aggregates (WSA)

Macro-aggregate stability may be quantified by means of the parameter water stable
aggregates (WSA) (Amézketa et al., 2003). Wet aggregate stability suggests how well
a soil can resist raindrop impact and water erosion, while size distribution of dry
aggregates can be used to predict resistance to abrasion and wind erosion (USDA,
2008). Rapid wetting of structurally unstable soils results in aggregate disintegration,
soil densification, reduced porosity, and changes in the pore-size distribution and
intake hydraulic properties (Nemati et al., 2002). Wetting of soil generally increases
soil bulk density and decreases soil porosity near the soil surface through aggregate
disintegration and the filling of inter aggregate pores by micro-aggregates (Or, 1996;
Kemper et al., 1988; Collis-George and Greene, 1979). Wet sieving has been
proposed as a methodology to study aggregate stability against water erosion (Kemper
and Rosenau, 1986; Yoder, 1936). Resistance of soil structural units against
disrupting effects and therefore soil structural quality might be investigated by wet
sieving (Six, 2000). The mean weight diameter (MWD) is commonly used to express
aggregate stability as it determines the size distribution of aggregates and is
essentially a measure of macro-aggregate stability as the aggregates that remained on
each sieve must be stable to the wetting and sieving processes (Amezketa, 1999). The
MWD will increase as the percentage of large aggregates retained in the sieves
increases. The more MWD score is high the more “water-stable” is soil. MWD varies
according to the soil management practices and is a good indicator to see if physical
conditions are being improved or not. According to Six et al. (2000b) MWD is an
index of aggregate stability that characterizes the structure of the whole soil by
integrating the aggregate size class distribution into one number.
2.1. 8.2. Micro-aggregate stability
Micro-aggregate stability may be quantified by measuring clay-size particles (≤ 2 mm

diameter) (van Olphen, 1977), specific silt-size particles (≤ 5 and/or ≤ 20 mm) (Abu-
Sharar et al.,1987), or specific sand size particles (≤ 125 mm) (Loch and Foley,
1994), although it is best quantified by analysing the overall size distribution of the
fragments that result from the breakdown of aggregates in the macro-aggregate tests
(Le Bissonnais, 1996; Chan and Mullins, 1994). Oades and Waters (1991) also
indicated that there is an aggregate hierarchy in which micro aggregates are associated
by the binding action of hydrous oxides of Fe and Al and OM, to form macro-

aggregates. Levy and Miller (1997) indicated that breakdown of unstable aggregates
results in the collapse of soil pores and production of finer particles and
microaggregates.
Microaggregate stability is normally assessed by the extent of dispersion of

microaggregates into granules and/or primary particles. This is difficult to do under
field conditions where the dynamic nature of this soil property may not permit
attainment of reliable data. Consequently, most methods of assessment of
microaggregates stability are based either on conceptual model of micro aggregation
involving the finer and colloidal particles or on the response of isolated
microaggregates to simulated dispersive force in the laboratory. Some of the methods
that have been applied to asses microaggregates are degree of aggregation (Zhang and
Horn, 2001), clay Ratio (Bouyoucos, 1935) to compute which the result of particle size
distribution was used, dispersion Ratio (Igwe,2005; Mbagwu, 1986). Igwe (2005)
remarked that the clay-dispersion ratio and dispersion ratio were found to be good
indices for predicting erodibility in some soils of southeastern Nigeria. Clay and silt
dispersion when soils are submerged in water affect a lot of soil physical and
chemical properties such as shrink-swell for soils with very high clay contents, water-
retention characteristics and hydraulic conductivity, water pollution, including
crusting and sealing (Heathwaiteet et al., 2005). Clay ratio dassifies soils with high
day content as stable and sandy soils as detachable.

CHAPTER THREE Materials and methods
3. Materials and methods
The present investigation was carried out on two representative profile of two soil
series from Ganges flood plain soils of Khulna division in Bangladesh to examine soil
morphological and physical properties and in relation to soil physical fertility. One
profiles of each series have been studied is presented in the data.
First study area was Jessore district where Sara soil series was studied and second
study area was Khulna district where Bajoa soil series was studied. The sara soil
series cover 1942.5 squire kilometer where Bajoa soil series cover 341.88 squire
kilometer of total land area in Bangladesh The environmental settings of Sara and
Bajoa series is given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Environmental settings of Soil Series
Soil Relief Drainage Physiography Land type Calcareousness

Series
Sara Middle slopes Imperfectly Ganges Meander Medium Calcareous

of very gently to poorly Floodplain High Land
undulating drained.
ridges.
Bajoa Basin Poorly Ganges Tidal Medium Slightly

drained Flood Plain Soil High Land Calcareous
3.1. Sampling Site
Geographically the first pedon sampling sites are located at Noyapara union,
Avoynagar upazila of Jessor district and was situated in Ganges Meander
floodplain area and second pedon sampling sites are located at Jalma union,
Batiaghata upazila of Khulna district and was situated in Ganges Tidal floodplain
area (AEZ-13) (Muslem et al., 2005). General description of sampling site is given in
Table 3.2.
Chapter 3 | Methods and Materials 25

Table 3.2 Description of sampling site
Characteristic features Soil series
Sara Bajoa
Location Mohakal Milemara
Longitude and Latitude 23003′64.5 ′′N 22043′21.6 ′′N

89022′51.6 ′′E 89028′86.2 ′′E
Land use/ Vegetation Seasum- Boro- Fallow Vegetable- Rice- Rice
Taxonomic classification* Aeric Endoaquepts Typic Endoaquepts
Parent Material Ganges river alluvium Ganges river alluvium
*Subgroups of US Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999)
3.2. Collection and Processing of Soil sample
Mastrer pit of 1m x 1m x 1m was first dug then total 10 soil samples from two distinct
profile were collected with the help of core sampler, spade, knife etc representing the
study site. The soil sampe was then placed into polythin bags and carefully preserved
for physical analysis with proper leveling. Bulk sample and core sample are both
collected from all horizon of soil profile for laboratory analysis of soil. Soil cores
collected and prepared for hydraulic Conductivity and bulk density as described by
Rogers and Carter (1986). Bulk soil samples were air dried by spreading on separate
sheet of paper. The air dried sample was then broken by crushing it gently by a
wooden hammer and crushed soils were passed through 2mm seive which were
preserved in plastic bag for analysis.
3.3. Morphological Properties
The morphological characteristics of soil profiles were recorded in the field by

following standard techniques as given in the Soil Survey Manual of USDA (Soil
Survey Staff, 1995).
3.4. Physical Properties Analysis
3.4.1. Particle size distribution (PSD) and Texture
Particle size analysis was carried out by combination of sieving and hydrometer
method as described by Bouyocus (1962) herein, which was the method used to

estimate sand, silt, and clay content in the laboratory and then the texture triangle
(Marshal, 1947) is used to determine the texture class.
3.4.2. Soil Bulk Density (Db)
Bulk density was determined on intact soil sample cores (Blake and Hartge, 1986a).
Core samples were oven-dried at 105o C for 24 h, used to determine the bulk density
of the soils.
3.4.3. Particle Density (Dp)
Determination of particle density (Dp) is carried out by pycnometer method as

outlined by Blake and Hartge (1986b) and (ASTM, 2000).
3.4.4. Hydraulic Conductivity
Soil hydraulic conductivity was determined in undisturbed soils by the constant head
parameter method as described by Klute and Dirksen (1986). Darcy’s equation was
used for the computation of K.
𝑄𝐿
𝐾 =
𝐴𝑇∆𝐻
Where Q is water discharge (cm3), L is length of soil column (cm), A is the interior
cross-sectional area of the soil column (cm2), H is the head pressure differenc causing
the flow (dimensionless), T is the time of flow (sec.).
3.4.5. Soil Structure
A visual method of soil structure was followed to determine the soil structure, was
described by Peerlkamp (1967).
3.4.6. Maximum Water Holding Capacity
Maximum water holding capacity was analyzed by the method described by Piper
(1950).

3.4.7. Aggregate stability
3.4.7. 1. Micro aggregate Analysis
For micro aggregate stability, this involved the determination of the amounts of silt
and clay in calgon-dispersed as well as water-dispersed samples using Bouyoucos
hydrometer method of particle size analysis described by Gee and Bauder (1986) The
degree of aggregation (Zhang and Horn, 2001), clay Ratio (Bouyoucos, 1935) to
compute which the result of particle size distribution was used, dispersion Ratio
(Igwe,2005; Mbagwu, 1986) and aggregated silt + clay (Igwe et al., 1999) were
determined by using the following equations.
%Sand+%Silt
Clay Ratio (CR) =
%Clay
(%Silt + Clay (H2O)

Dispersion Ratio (DR) = × 100
Total %(Silt + Clay)
Wa - Wb
Degree of aggregation (DA) = × 100
Wa
Where Wa and Wb stand for the proportion of particles between 0.25 and 0.05 mm
obtained by microaggregate size analysis and by particle size analysis, respectively.
3.4.7.2. Macro-Aggregate or Water Stable Aggregate Analysis
The wet-sieve method is used to determine the Mean Weight Diameter (MWD)
proposed by van Bavel (1949), is equal to the sum of products of (i) the mean
diameter, Xi, of each size fraction and (ii) the proportion of the total sample weight,
Wi, occurring in the corresponding size fraction, where the summation is carried out
over all n size fractions, including the one that passes through the finest sieve:
𝑛
𝑀𝑊𝐷 = = Xi Wi
𝑖=0

3.4.8. Soil Porosity
Soil porosity (P) is calculated from the particle density and bulk density as
P = [1 - (Db/Dp)] ×100
3.5. Chemical Analysis
3.5. 1. Soil pH
Soil pH was determined by glass-electrode pH meter (Jackson, 1962). The result was
reported as “Soil pH measured in water” (Soil-Water ratio being 1:2.5)
3.5. 2. Electrical Conductivity (EC)
Electrical conductivity (EC) expresses ion contents of solution which determine the
current carrying capacity thus giving a clear idea of the soluble salts present in the soil
(Wagh et al., 2013). It was measured at a soil: water ratio of 1:5 with the help of EC
meter and converted into 1:1 ratio as USDA (2004).
3.5. 3. Soil Organic Carbon(%C)
The total organic carbon content is determined titrimetrically by using Walkley Black
(1934) procedure with wet oxidation of organic carbon with potassium dichromate in
a sulphuric medium (Rowell, 1997).
3.5.5. Cataion Exchange Capacity (CEC)
The CEC of the soils were determined by extracting the soil with 1N KCl (pH 7.0)
followed by the replacing the potassium in the exchange complex by 1 N NH4OAc.
The displaced potassium was determined by a flame analyzer at 589 nm respectively
(Jackson, 1967).

CHAPTER FOUR Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
The present investigation output on two representative profile from two soil series of
Ganges flood plain is shown, discussed and represented through table and graphs,
provided with probable reason behind obtained results.
4.1. Profile Description of Soil Series
4.1.1. Sara Soil Series
Location : Mohakal, Noyapara, Avoynagar, Jessore.

Topography : Middle slopes of very gently undulating ridges.
Drainage : Imperfectly to poorly drained.
Land use : Sesame-Boro-Fallow
Horizon Depth Description

(cm)
Ap1 0-9 Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) moist; silt loam; massive; dry
slightly hard, moist very firm, slightly sticky; strongly
calcareous; common very fine roots; common very fine and
fine tubular pores; abrupt, smooth boundary; pH 7.41;
electrical conductivity (EC) 1.58 dm-1
Ap2 09-17 Dark Grayish Brown (5YR 5/1) moist; silt loam; subangular
blocky; dry slightly hard, moist firm, wet slightly sticky;
strongly calcareous; common very fine roots; common very
fine and fine tubular pores; abrupt, smooth boundary; pH
8.43; electrical conductivity (EC) 1.56 dm-1
B 17-29 Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/4) moist with fine distinct
mottles (7.5YR 3/2); silt loam; subangular blocky; dry
slightly hard, moist friable, wet slightly sticky; strongly
calcareous; common fine tubular pores; abrupt, smooth
Chapter 4| Results and Discussion 30

boundary; pH 8.40; electrical conductivity (EC) 1.20 dm-1
C 29-100 Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) moist with fine distinct

mottles (7.5YR 3/2); silt loam; subangular blocky; dry
slightly hard, moist very friable, wet slightly sticky; strongly
4.1.2. Bajoa Soil Series
Location : Milemara, Jalma, Batiaghata, Khulna

Topography : Basin
Drainage : Poorly drained
Land use : Vegetable-Rice-Rice
Horizon Depth Description

(cm)
Ap1 0-6 Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) moist; silty clay loam; massive; dry
slightly hard, moist firm, non-sticky; slightly calcareous;
common very fine roots; common very fine and fine tubular
pores; abrupt, smooth boundary; pH 7.0; electrical
conductivity (EC) 5.52 dm-1
Ap2 7-12 Very Dark Grayish Brown (2.5Y 3/2) moist; silty clay loam;
massive; dry hard, moist very firm, slightly sticky; slightly
calcareous; common very fine roots; common very fine and
B1 12-19 Light Olive Brown (2.5Y 5/4) moist; silty clay loam;
subangular blocky; dry slightly hard, moist very firm,
slightly sticky; slightly calcareous; common very fine and
B2 19-37 Olive (5Y 4/3) moist with fine distinct dark Yellowish

Brown (10YR 3/6) mottles; silty clay loam; subangular
blocky; dry very hard, moist very friable, slightly sticky;
slightly calcareous; common fine tubular pores; abrupt,
wavy boundary; pH 7.03; electrical conductivity (EC) 2.30
dm-1
C1 37-54 Dark Olive Brown (5Y 3/2) moist with fine and coarse
distinct abundant dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 3/6) and
dark Reddish Brown (5YR 3/2) mottles; silty clay loam; dry
very hard, moist very friable, slightly sticky; slightly
calcareous; common fine tubular pores; abrupt, wavy
C2 54-100 Very Dark Grayish Brown (2.5Y 3/2) moist with fine and
coarse distinct abundant dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 3/6)
and dark Reddish Brown (5YR 3/2) mottles; silty clay loam;
dry loose, moist very friable, slightly sticky; slightly
4.2. Soil Color
The soils have developed color profiles and color pattern of soils of the pedons
encompass very dark grayish brown at dry condition to dark brown at wet condition
where sub soil of the pedons are distinguished by dark olive brown for Sara series soil
and by black soil for Bajoa series soils at depth of 17 cm and 12 cm, respectively. The
color of different horizon both at dry and moist condition is presented in Table 4.1
with mottles. Mottles of variously colored due to oxidation-reduction of iron and
manganese containing minerals are mostly concentrated in the zone where the ground
water table fluctuates seasonally as these soils are flooded either by river water or rain
water and may remain flooded for a variable part of the year. The development of
mottles differ considerably in the pedons are assumed by field conformation due to
apparently similar moisture regime. The study of color in the pedons suggests that the
effect of flooding is quiet conspicuous. However, Very Dark Grayish Brown in dry to
dark brown color in moist condition of the surface soils of vegetable growing areas

could be attributed to the presence of considerable amount of organic carbon in soils.
The presence of very dark brown to dark reddish brown mottles (mostly 10YR5/6 to
7.5YR5/8, 5YR 3/2) was the common phenomenon in the rice growing soils. The
development of mottles in abundant quantity in deeper zone of both soil series
indicates drainage impedance of soils. The black color of soil at a depth of 54 cm of
Bajoa series soils is an indication of considerable amount of organic content of the
soil due to effect of formal mangrove forest destroyed and buried in the soil by
siltation. The dark brown to dark grayish brown soil is also sign of the occurrence of
considerable amount of iron containing mineral coupled with organic matter.
4.3. Soil Structure
The structures of studied areas were weak fine subangular blocky. It ranges from
angular to subangular blocky structure and with the evidence of breaking down from
coarser prismatic or blocky structure. Subsoils that are mottled indicate poor drainage,
and a high risk to structural damage. Surface soils of both profiles were massive due
to tillage operation for cultivation coupled with anthropogenic disturbance. The
capacity of blocky structure to conduct water is moderate.
4.4. Particle Size Distribution and Soil Texture
The particle size distribution showed range in texture from silt loam among horizon of
the Sara series and to slity clay loam that of the Bajoa series of the studied profiles.
The results on particle size distribution of soils were presented in Table 4.1. The
percentage of sand, silt and clay ranged from 3 to 33, 54 to 67 and 13 to 31 and mean
values were 14.2, 60.3 and 25.5 respectively (Table 4.1). Islam et al. (2009)
conducted an experiment with Bajoa and other three soil series of the Gangetic
alluvium and found approximately same percentage of sand, silt, clay content. Silt is
the dominant soil particles of the studied profile due to the annual siltation and
sedimentation during the flooding time and its distribution in the pedon is relatively
uniform. The vertical distribution of clay is more or less regular and distribution is
geogenic rather than pedogenic. The textures of the soils are related to their parent
materials (Akamigbo and Asadu, 1983) which accounted for the similarity in particle
size distribution obtained.

Table 4.1 Results of Particle size distribution of the soils
Particle Size Distribution

Profile Depth Textural Class Sand/Silt Silt/Clay CEC/Clay
Percent Percent Percent ratio ratio ratio
Sand Silt Clay
0-9 21 56 23 Silt Loam 0.38 2.43 0.48
9-17 22 55 23 Silt Loam 0.40 2.39 0.38
Sara 17-29 20 62 18 Silt Loam 0.32 3.44 0.40
>29 33 54 13 Silt Loam 0.61 4.15 0.55
Profile Mean 24 56.75 19.25 0.43 3.10 0.45
0-6 8 62 30 Silty Clay Loam 0.13 2.07 0.37
7-12 3 67 30 Silty Clay Loam 0.04 2.23 0.40
Bajoa 12-19 5 64 31 Silty Clay Loam 0.08 2.06 0.31
19-37 8 61 31 Silty Clay Loam 0.13 1.97 0.36
37-54 11 61 28 Silty Clay Loam 0.18 2.18 0.28
>54 11 61 28 Silty Clay Loam 0.18 2.18 0.31
Profile Mean 7.67 62.67 29.67 0.12 2.12 0.34
Igwe et al. (1999) made similar observations as they reported that soils derived from
different geologic formations varied in particle size distribution. Even though, it is
one of the most common cause for low production of crops in loamy textured soil due
to frequent change of its physical properties (Wilson and Card, 2003), from
agricultural viewpoint loam and silt loam are good (Weir, 1949). In this regard silt
loam soil of textural classes is more suitable for crop production because this soil can
easily be kept in a state of good tilth which is favorable for germination of seed and
easy root penetration and has considerable water holding capacity. The textural
classes observed coupled with the low CEC (<12 cmol (+)/kg) suggest potential
leacheability of nutrient elements especially nitrogen as nitrate (Dowuona, et al.,
2012; Phiri, et al., 2014). Clay for example has been reported to interact with organic
matter and increase water and nutrient holding capacity (Landon, 1991). Wakindiki
and Ben-Hur (2002) expressed that in soils containing more than 20% clay, the clay
particles act as a cementing agent and will increase aggregate stability against
raindrops and decrease surface sealing.

4.4.1. Sand/Silt, Silt/Clay and CEC/Clay Ratios
Silt/clay ratios have been used to study the degree of pedogenic weathering in soils
(Sombroek and Zonneveld, 1971) and the soil susceptibility to detachment and
transport. Generally low values (< 0.75) indicate old age of soils; values between 0.75
and 1.5 indicate moderate pedogenic weathering processes, while high values (>1.5)
indicate recent pedogenic processes (Sombroek and Zonneveld, 1971). Silt/clay ratios
among different horizon soils of the profile studied are shown in table 12. These ratios
ranging from 1.97 to 4.15 indicate recent pedogenic processes in the profiles of soil
series studied. This could be attributed to annual aeolian superficial deposition in the
area. In addition, the silt/clay ratio less than the threshold of 0.4 (Wanjogu, 1992)
imply low resistance to erosion. So, selective erosion of clay by surface washes
leaving behind silts and sands could be responsible for the observed silt to clay ratios.
The sand/silt ratio of the soils is less than 1.0 with a mean value of 0.25 (Table 4.1)
which indicate that studied soil profiles have developed on a relative homogeneous
fine-textured parent material with much higher silt content than sand within and
among the pedons. The CEC/Clay ratio of the soils ranges from 0.31 to 0.55 with
mean of 0.38 which indicates that clay reaction has mixed mineralogy.
4.5. Bulk density (Db)
Bulk density, one of the most variable parameter of soil is that varies due to organic
matter content, texture, structure and total pore space. The value of bulk density in
soils ranged from (1.30-1.61) with the mean value of 1.46 g cm-3 which indicates
suitable value for crops grow and horizon wise values of bulk density of the studied
soil profile is represented in Table 4.2. The bulk density of surface layer becomes
higher due to greater compaction in Sara soil due to anthropogenic disturbance and
wheel of Tractor in comparison to deeper depth in contrast that of surface layer
becomes lower due to presence of high porosity and high content of organic matter in
comparison to subsoil. Agricultural activities, which could involve tillage or the
wheels of heavy machinery compacting soils, can have a great effect on bulk density
and porosity (Osunbitan et al., 2005).

Table 4.2 Profile distribution of bulk density, particle density and soil porosity of studied profile
Profile Depth Bulk Density(Db) Particle Density (Dp) Soil Porosity %

-3 -3
g cm g cm
0-9 1.50 2.52 40.40
9-17 1.61 2.59 37.95
Sara 17-29 1.45 2.63 44.87
>29 1.41 2.62 46.13
Profile Mean 1.49 2.59 42.34
0-6 1.37 2.47 44.53
7-12 1.54 2.50 38.40
Bajoa 12-19 1.55 2.67 41.95
19-37 1.41 2.63 46.39
37-54 1.39 2.59 46.33
>54 1.30 2.45 46.94
Profile Mean 1.43 2.55 44.09
Subsoil of both soil series exhibit higher bulk density in comparison of surface layer
and deeper zone, may be in response of plow pan formation of subsequent rice
cultivation. But plow pan is very important for rice growth (Sing et al., 1991). Joshi et
al (1994) showed that bulk density is related to hydraulic conductivity which decrease
with increasing Db and this point bear so much important in case of rice and other
water tolerant as well as water intolerant crops. This ultimately affects crop growth
and yield. The values of bulk density in the subsurface horizons observed (Table 4.2)
suggest root growth and development is restricted in this soil (Landon, 1991).
Therefore, deep subsoiling is required to improve the bulk density and thus soil water
uptake (Landon, 1991; Pikul, and Aase, 2003). The bulk density of Batiaghata soil
which is predominantly saline soil ranged 1.3 to 1.55 g cm-3. Joshi and Kadrekar
(1998) also found similar result and stated that the bulk densities of saline soils are
within the range of 1.3 to 1.6 g cm-3. In the soil profile of Bajoa soil series Db reduce
with depth which is because of presence of peat and where the lowest Db found at 54-
100 cm depth that value is 1.30 g cm-3 and the highest value found is 1.61 g cm-3 at 9-
17 cm depth of Sara soil.

4.6. Particle density (Dp)
The particle density of studied soils ranged from 2.45 to 2.65 g cm-3 with the mean
value of 2.57 g cm-3. The highest and lowest value of particle density was 2.45 and
2.67 g cm-3 at depth of >54 cm and 12-19 cm, respectively in the same soil profile
(Bajoa Soil Series) in which the lowest value indicates the soil did not contain more
mineral matter, on the other hand the highest value of particle density supposed to be
cause of relative compaction of soils. The values of particle density of studied soils
were presented in Table 4.2. Relatively high organic matter content in the surface
soils causing lower values of particle density of soils (Acharya and Sood, 1990) which
is consistent with our observation, as the particle density of surface soils of both soil
series is relatively lower and these were 2.52 g cm-3 and 2.47 g cm-3 for Sara series
and Bajoa series, respectively.
4.7. Soil Porosity
In studied soils profile the total porosity values (Table 4.2) ranged from 37.95 to
46.94% with the mean values of 43.23%, thus not liable to restrict crop growth
(Gachene and Kimaru, 2003). There was a very little variation in porosity between
and within soils profiles, which ranging from 37.95% to 46.13% and 38.4% to
46.94% for Sara and Bajoa soil series profiles respectively where the lowest value of
porosity (37.95%) was found in Sara series at depth 17 cm and the highest value of
porosity (46.94%) were found in Bajoa soils at depth deeper than 54 cm. Total
porosity usually varies from 35 to 50% for the sandy surface soils and from 40 to 60%
medium to fine texture soils (Brady, 1996). Since porosity is calculated from the
relation between bulk density and particle density of soil, it is very much influenced
by the soil bulk density as the particle density is not greatly altered by agricultural
manipulations (Lal and Shukla, 2004). Texture, shape of individual soil particle, bulk
density, amount of organic matter content and the management of the soil causing
variation of soil porosity. Soil porosity mainly depends upon the micro-pores present
in a soil. Pore characteristics are highly influenced by sodium concentration in saline
soils. Gouda et al. (1989) reported that all sodium salts in saline soils decreased
macro-pores and increased non-drainable pores. Joshi and Kadrekar (1988) where
they found that the salt affected soils had porosity within the range of 35 - 55% which
supports our observation in case of Bajoa series that is typical saline soil. Lower

porosity is observed in both soil profiles mainly in plow pan zone which is due to
continues tillage operation at certain depth causing little bit compaction of the soils.
For any given soil, the higher the bulk densities, the more compacted the soil is and
the lower the pore space as also observed in this soils. This also affects the soil water
transmission properties (Abu-Hamdeh, 2003) and causing poor drainage condition of
soils.
4.8. Maximum Water Holding Capacity (MWHC)
Maximum Water Holding Capacity (MWHC) values show wide ranges from 35.52 to
60.93% with the mean values of 51.00% (Table 4.3). The highest MWHC was found
in surface soil of Bajoa series 60.93% that was significantly higher overall other soils
horizon of the studied profile. The lowest maximum water holding capacity was
found in Sara series 35.52% at depth (>29 cm) was significantly lower than overall
other soils horizon of the studied profile. High organic matter and clay content might
contribute for maximum water holding capacity of soils. Power and Mehta (1999)
stated that MWHC values varied from 50 to 87% in salt affected area which advocate
obtained result. The maximum water holding capacity of soil of Sara series decrease
might be due to higher sand particle, in contrast that of Bajoa series increase due to
presence of high organic matter and peat in the deepest horizon of the studied soil.
Since Bajoa soils contains greater amount of OM and clay particle, the value of
maximum water holding capacity (MWHC) of that soils are higher in comparison to
Sara series (Table 4.3), was a reflection of high organic matter content and clay
particle as well as a manifestation of the affinity of organic matter for water (Oguike
and Mbagwu, 2004; Mbagwu et al., 1994).
4.9. Hydraulic Conductivity
The rate of movement of water through a porous medium is defined as hydraulic

conductivity of which the mean value determined in studied soil was 1.03 cm h-1 and
overall value of K ranging from 0.58 to 1.66 cm h-1 which is moderately slow water
conductivity class. In Table 4.3, the value of hydraulic conductivity of different
horizon of studied soils is represented which exhibit variable value throughout studied
soil profiles.

Table 4.3 Hydraulic Conductivity and Maximum water holding capacity of studied profile
Profile Depth Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Maximum Water Holding

(cm/h) Capacity (%)
0-9 0.86 46.79
9-17 0.58 47.02
Sara 17-29 0.73 39.33
>29 0.78 35.52
Profile Mean 0.74 42.17
0-6 1.32 65.93
7-12 0.99 49.65
12-19 0.86 54.39
Bajoa 19-37 1.16 51.02
37-54 1.33 58.67
>54 1.66 61.64
Profile Mean 1.22 56.88
The value of hydraulic conductivity of surface soil is comparatively higher than that
of subsurface horizon and that might be effect of higher organic matter coupled with
relative compaction of subsurface soil in response of tillage effect. The lowest and
highest value of K observed is 1.66 cm h-1 and 0.58 cm h-1 at depth of 54 cm in Bajoa
series and at depth of 17 cm in Sara series, respectively. Profile distributions of
hydraulic conductivity of studied soil show increasing trend with depth but subsurface
soil and of course similar findings were also reported by Landon (1991) (Table 4.3).
These might be due to decrease in clay particle and subsequent increase in sand
content in the profile as sand particle conduct water very quickly having low in
moisture holding capacity. The values of hydraulic conductivity have considerable
importance on irrigation, drainage and evapotranspiration studies (De Datta, 1981).
4.10. Aggregate Stability
4.10.1. Macro aggregate stability
Mean weight diameter (MWD) is used to quantify macro-aggregate stability or water

stable aggregate of soils. The profile distribution of mean weight diameter value is

presented in Table 4.4. The mean weight diameter of studied soil varies from 0.11
mm to 0.23 mm with average of 0.19 mm.
Table 4.4. Macro and micro aggregate stability of soils of studied profiles
Profile Horizon Depth Macro aggregate Micro aggregate
MWD CR DR DA (%)
mm
Ap1 0-9 0.15 3.35 0.96 28.92
Sara Ap2 9-17 0.21 3.35 1.03 39.09
B 17-29 0.13 4.56 0.98 42.80
C >29 0.11 6.69 1.24 29.00
Profile Mean 0.15 4.49 1.05 34.95
Ap1 0-6 0.23 2.33 0.96 71.68
Ap2 7-12 0.21 2.33 0.95 44.68
Bajoa B1 12-19 0.17 2.23 0.98 65.62
B3 19-37 0.23 2.23 1.03 62,79
C1 37-54 0.23 2.57 0.98 60.46
C2 >54 0.21 2.57 1.00 61.68
Profile Mean 0.21 2.38 0.98 50.69
*DR= Dispersion Ratio, CR= Clay Ratio, DA= Degree of Aggregate
As, Bajoa series soils posses considerable amount of higher organic matter, Sara
series soils have relatively lower aggregate stability (average MWD 0.15 mm) in
comparison Bajoa series of which the average value of mean weight diameter of soil
is 0.21 mm. Rachman et al. (2003) and Chenu et al. (2000), who observed that greater
aggregate stability, occurred in soils with higher organic matter. The reduced mean
weight diameter may cause of puddling. Chaudhury and Ghildyal (1969) state that the
puddling reduced mean weight diameter of aggregates from 1.7 to 0.36 mm. the
highest and lowest value of MWD was found at Bajoa series and Sara series,
respectively.

4.10.2. Micro aggregate stability
4.10.2. 1. Clay Ratio
The mean clay ratio of studied soil varies from 2.23 to 6.69 with an average of 3.22.
Decrease of clay ratio in soils reflects the increase of resistance to erosion
(Singh and Khera, 2008). The clay ratio status of different horizon of studied
profiles is presented in table 4.4. The soils of Bajoa series posses greater resistance or
stability of microaggregates level than Sara series. The soils of Sara series exhibit
decreasing trend of CR with depth and lowest CR (6.69) were found at a depth deeper
than 29 cm.
4.10.2.2. Dispersion Ratio
Mean contents of dispersion ratios for studied soils were generally high (> 0.71)
indicating the high vulnerability of the soil to erosion. Values of dispersion ratio (DR)
ranges from 0.95 to 1.24 with Mean values of 1.01 and presented in Table 4.4. Igwe
(2005) observed that the higher the dispersion ratio the greater the ability of the soil to
disperse. Mean value of dispersion ratio was 1.05 for Sara soil suggesting higher rates
of soil erosion in those areas in comparison to Bajoa soil and the highest value was
found at depth deeper than 29 cm soils of Sara series. The study area, as a result of the
activities of man over the centuries, has been rid of much of its vegetation through
bush burning, cultivation, grazing, firewood gathering and cutting for building
purposes such that most of the land area is exposed to agents of soil erosion (Blair-
Rains et al., 1977).
4.10.2. 3. Degree of Aggregation
The profile distribution of degree of aggregation value is presented in Table 4.4. The
degree of aggregation of studied soil varies from 28.92 to 71.68% with an average of
44.39%. Highest degree of aggregation was found in surface soil (Bajoa series)
having value 71.68% in contrast the lowest value (28.92) was found in the surface soil
of Sara series. The soils of Bajoa series posses greater degree of aggregation than Sara
series. This might be due to higher amount of organic matter content and presence of
Fe and Al in soils of Bajoa series.

4.10.2.4. Particle size and micro aggregate distribution
A plot of the summation percentage against the corresponding particle size for particle
size analysis and micro aggregate analysis on a semi-logarithmic graph paper give an
idea of the state of micro aggregation of the soil (Fig. 4.1 & 4.2.). The higher the area
between the two curves the higher the state of micro aggregation of the soil. Soils of
Sara series exhibited relatively higher micro aggregation at the upper horizons. Soils
of Bajoa soil series exhibit relatively higher micro aggregation in comparison to soils
of Sara soil series.
100 100
Summation Percentage
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Diameter of Particles (micrometer) Diameter of Particles (micrometer)
Ap1 Ap2
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30
30
20
20
10
10
1 10 100 1000
1 10 100 1000
Diameter of Particles (micrometer)
Diameter of Particles (micrometer)
C
B
Fig. 4.1. Particle size and micro aggregate distribution of soils of Sara soil series

100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Ap1 Ap2
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
B1 B2
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
C1 C2
Fig. 4. 2. Particle size and micro aggregate distribution of soils of Bajoa soil series

4.11. Some basic properties of soil
Some basic properties of soils which have great influence on soil morphological and
physical properties for Sara and Bajoa series are presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Some basic properties of soil
Soil Series Horizon Depth (cm) Soil pH EC ds-1 % OC CEC
Ap1 0-9 7.41 1.58 0.56 11.12
Ap2 9-17 8.43 1.56 0.50 8.74

Sara
B 17-29 8.4 1.20 0.43 7.15
C >29 8.67 1.18 0.37 7.15
Profile mean 8.23 1.38 0.47 8.54
Ap1 0-6 7.00 5.52 1.51 11.12
Ap2 7-12 7.78 2.46 1.13 11.91
B1 13-18 7.45 2.49 1.13 9.53

Bajoa
B2 19-37 7.03 2.30 0.95 11.12
C1 37-54 6.24 2.56 1.51 7.94
C2 >54 5.50 2.50 1.42 8.74
Profile mean 6.83 2.97 1.28 10.06

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion
5. Summary and conclusion
This study was carried out to examine soils morphological and physical properties
which are related to physical fertility of soil. The study revealed that the texture of
surface soils in the study area are generally silt loams and silty clay loam for Sara and
Bajoa soil series, respectively which should normally provide more or less right
conditions for plant growth. However, the soils have undergone a great deal of sub
soil compaction most likely due to continuous mechanized farming and puddling for
rice cultivation over the years. The high risk of the soils to dispersion and aggregate
braking down coupled with low saturated hydraulic conductivity encountered, the soil
implies high runoff rates and subsequent soil erosion. The erosional processes if not
checked are likely to impoverish the soils while soil particles carried away with
precious nutrients for plant growth in runoff water are likely to pollute and reduce
storage capacity of nearby water reservoirs overtime. It is therefore recommended that
increase of organic matter and conservation tillage systems be employed on a long
term basis in place of the conventional tillage system being practiced in the area.
Though physical properties of the soil do not cause serious limitations for use and
management, But it is still need to improve on bulk density, K and infiltration
through deep tillage. This will help loosening the soil and breaking the plough pan
observed hence allows crop roots to penetrate into the soil and explore more nutrients
and water.
If chemical fertility and related physico-chemical phenomena are already well known
and described, the evolution of the soil physical properties needs further investigation
for an improvement of water – soil – plant model establishment..
Chapter 5 | Summary and conclusion 45

References
Abu-Hamdeh, N.H. 2003. Soil compaction and root distribution for okra as affected
by tillage and vehicle parameters. Soil and Tillage Research, 74: 25-35.
Abu-Sharar, T.M.; Bingham, F.T. and Rhoades J.D. 1987. Stability of soil aggregates
as affected by electrolyte concentration and composition. Soil Science Society
America Journal, 51: 309-314.
Acharya, C. and Sood, L.M.C. 1990. Effect of tillage practices on soil physical
properties, water expense, nutrient uptake and yield of wet land rice in acidic
alfisol of North-West India. Transaction of 14th International Conference of
Soil Science. pp.352.
Ahn, P.M. 1968. The effect of large scale mechanized agriculture on the physical
properties of West African soils. Ghana Journal of Agriculture science, 1: 35-
40.
Aimrun, W.; Amin, M.S.M. and Eltaib, S.M. 2004. Effective porosity of paddy soils
as an estimation of its saturated hydraulic conductivity. Geoderma, 121: 197-
203.
Akamigbo, F.O.R. and Asadu, C.L.A. 1983. Influence of parent materials on the soils
of southeastern Nigeria. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 48:
81-91.
Akgül, M.; Özdemir, N. 1996. Regression models for predicting bulk density form
measured soil properties. Turkish journal of agriculture & forestry, 20: 407-
413.
Amezkeka, E. 1999. Soil aggregate stability: a review. Journal of Sustainable

Agriculture, 14: 83-151
Amézketa, E.; Aragüés, R.; Carranza, R. and Urgel, B. 2003. Macro- and micro-
aggregate stability of soils determined by a combination of wet-sieving and
laser-ray diffraction. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(4): 83-94
| References 46
Amoozegar, A. 1992. Compact constant head permeameter: A convenient device for
measuring hydraulic conductivity, in Advances in Measurement of Soil
Physical Properties: Bringing Theory Into Practice, edited by Topp, G. C. and
Reynolds, W. D. pp. 31-42, Soil Science Society America, Madison, Wisc.
Arshad, M.A. and Mermut, A.R. 1988. Micromorphological and physicochemical

characteristics of soil crust types in northwestern Alberta, Canada. Soil
Science Society of American journal, 52: 724-729.
Arshad, M.A.; Lowery B.; and Grossman. B. 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil
quality. pp. 123-142. In: Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds.), Methods for
assessing soil quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication,
49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
ASTM, 2000. Standard test method for density of hydraulic cement, C 188-95.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4: Construction. Vol. 04.01.
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, pp. 177-
178.
Azooz, R. and Arshad, M., 1996. Soil infiltration and hydraulic conductivity under
Long-term no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, 76: 143-152.
Ball, B.C. and Hunter, R. 1988. The determination of water release characteristics of
soil cores at low suctions. Geoderma 43: 195-212.
Ball, B.C.; Campbell, D.J. and Hunter, E.A. 2000. Soil compactibility in relation to
physical and organic properties at 156 sites in UK. Soil Tillage Research, 57:
83-91.
Bateman, H. P. 1963. Effect of field machine compaction on soil physical properties

and crop response. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 6: 19-25,
Bauer, A.; Black, A. L. 1992. Organic carbon effects on available water capacity of
three soil textural groups. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56:248-
254.
Baver, L.D. and Rhoades, H.F. 1932. Soil aggregate analysis as an aid in the study of
soil structure. Journal American Society of Agronomy, 24: 920-21
| References 47
Beare, M.H.; Hendrix, P.F. and Coleman, D.C. 1994. Water-stable aggregates and
organic matter fractions in conventional and no-tillage soils. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 58: 777-786.
Ben-Hur, M. and Lado, M. 2008. Effect of soil wetting conditions on seal formation,
runoff, and soil loss in arid and semiarid soils - a review. Australian
Journal of Soil Research, 46: 191-202.
Ben-Hur, M.; Yolcu, G.; Uysal, H. Lado, M. and Paz, A. 2009. Soil structure
changes: aggregate size and soil texture effects on hydraulic conductivity
under different saline and sodic conditions. Australian journal of Soil
Research, 47: 688-696.
Bertrand, A.R. and Kohnke, H. 1957. Subsoil conditions and their effects on oxygen
supply and the growth of corn roots. Soil Science Society America Proceeding,
21: 135-140.
Beven, K. and Germann, P. 1982. Macropores and water flow in soils; Water
Resource Research, 18(5): 1311-1325.
Blair-Rains, A.; Lawton, R.M.; Mansfield, J.E. and Rose-Innes, R. 1977.

Environmental Aspects of the Kaduna Plains. Land resources of central
Nigeria, Land Resource Report, volume 2, climate and vegetation, No. 19.
Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. 1986a. Bulk density. In: A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. (2nd ed.).
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 363-375.
Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. 1986b. Particle density. In: A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. (2nd ed.).
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 377-382.
Boul, S.W.; Whole, F.D. and McCracken, R.J. 1973. Soil Genesis and Soil
Classification. The Iowa State University Press Ames, Iowa
Bouma, J. 1980. Field measurement of soil hydraulic properties characterizing water

movement through swelling clay soils. Journal of Hydrology, 45: 149-158.
Bouman, B.A.M.; Feng, L.; Tuong, T.P.; Lu, G.; Wang, H. and Feng, Y. 2007.
Exploring options to grow rice under water short conditions in northern China
| References 48
using a modeling approach. II. Quantifying yield, water blance components,
and water productivity. Agricultural Water Management, 88: 23-33.
Bouyocus, G. J. 1962. A hydrometer method improved for making particle-size

analysis of soils. Agronomy Journal, 54: 464-465.
Bouyoucos, G.J. 1935. The clay ratio as a criterion of susceptibility of soils to

erosion. Journal of American Society of Agronomy, 27: 738-751.
Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. 2002. The Nature and Properties of soils. 12th edition.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey.
Bronick, C.J. and Lal, R. 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma
124: 3-22.
Cameira, M.R.; Fernando, R.M. and Pereira, L.S. 2003. Soil macropore dynamics
affected by tillage and irrigation for a silty loam alluvial soil in southern
Portugal. Soil Tillage Research, 70: 131-140.
Carter, M.R. 1988. Temporal variability of soil macroporosity in a fine sandy loam
under mouldboard ploughing and direct drilling. Soil Tillage Research, 12: 37-
51.
Carter, M.R. 1996. Analysis of soil organic matter storage in agroecosystems. In

Carter, M.R. & Stewart, B.A. (ed.), Structure and organic matter storage in
agricultural soils, pp. 3-14. (Advances in soil science) CRC Pres, Inc
Carter, M.R. and Ball, B. 1993. Soil porosity. In M.R. Carter, Ed. Soil Sampling and
Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Lewis Publishers,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 581-588.
Cary, J.W. and Hayden, C.W. 1973. An index for soil pore size distribution.
Geoderma 9: 249-256.
Cary, J.W. and Hayden, C.W. 1974. Soil strength and porosities associated with
cropping sequences. Soil Science Society of America Proceeding, 38: 840-843
Castro Filho, C.; Lourenco, A.; Guimaraes, M.D.F. and Fonseca, I.C.B. 2002.
Aggregate stability under different soil management systems in a red latosol in
the state of Parana, Brazil. Soil Tillage Research, 65: 45-51.
| References 49
Chan, K.Y. and Mullins, C.E. 1994. Slaking characteristics of some Australian and
British soils. European Journal of Soil Science, 45: 273-283.
Choudhary, T.N. and Ghildyal, B.S. 1969. Aggregate stability of puddled soil during
rice growth. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 17: 261–265.
Chenu, C.; Le Bissonnais, Y. and Arrouays. D. 2000. Organic matter influence on

clay wettability and soil aggregate stability. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 64: 1479-1486.
Chi, X. 2008. Hydrogeological assessment of stream water in forested watershed:

temperature,dissolved oxygen, pH, and electrical conductivity. MSc. Thesis.
Fredericton: University of New Brunswick, Department of Forestry.
Chisci, G. and Zanchi, C. 1981. The influence of different tillage systems and
different crops on soil loss on hilly silt-clayey soil. pp: 211-217. In: Soil
Conservation: Problems and Propects. Morgan, R.P.C. (Eds.). John Wiley,
NY.
Clapp, R.B. and G.M. and Hornberger. 1978. Empirical Equations for Some Soil
Hydraulic Properties. Water Resources Research, 14: 601-604.
Cockroft, B. 1970. Estimation of soil permeability from counts of visible pores,

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 10
(45): 460.
Collis-George, N. and Greene, R.S.B. 1979. The effect of aggregate size on the
infiltration behavior of a slaking soil and its relevance to ponded irrigation,
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 17: 65-73.
Crawford, J.W. 1994. The relationship between structure and the hydraulic
conductivity of soil. European Journal of Soil Science, 45: 493-502.
De Datta, S.K. 1981. Principle and practice of rice production. Wily, New York.
Deeks, L.K.; Bengough, A.G.; Low, D.; Billett, M.F.; Zhang, X.; Crawford, J.W.;
Chessell, J.M. and Young, I.M. 2004. Spatial variation of effectiveporosity
and its implications for discharge in anupland headwater catchments in
Scotland. Journal of Hydrology, 290: 217–228.
| References 50
Dexter, A.R. 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil and Tillage
Research, 11: 199-238.
Dexter, A.R. 1997. Physical properties of tilled soils. Soil Tillage Research, 43: 41-
63.
Díaz-Zorita, M.; Perfect, E. and Grove, J.H., 2002. Disruptive methods for assessing
soil structure. Soil Tillage Research, 64: 3-22.
Dormaar, J.F. 1979. Organic matter characteristics of undisturbed and cultivated

Chernozemic and Solonetzic A horizon. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 59:
349-456.
Dowuona, G.N.N.; Atwere, P.; Dubbin, W.; Nude, P.M.; Mutala, B.E.; Nartey, E.K.
and Heck, R.J. 2012. Characteristics of termite mounds and associated
Acrisols in the coastal savanna zone of Ghana and impact on hydraulic
conductivity. Natural Science, 4(7): 423-437
Elliott, E.T. 1986. Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in native
and cultivated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 50: 627-633.
Encyclopedia of Soil Science, 2008. Aggregate stability to drying and wetting. In

Ches‐ worth C (Ed). Encyclopedia of Soil Science, Springer. pp. 28-33.
Eshel, G.; Levy, J. Mingelgrin, U. and Singer, M.J. 2004. Critical evaluation of the
use of laser diffraction for particle-size distribution analysis. Soil Science
Society of American Journal, 68: 736-743.
FAO, 2003. Optimizing soil moisture for plant production; The significance of soil
porosity. By Francis Shaxson and Richard Barber. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 79.
FAO, Rome.
Filgueira, R.R.; Fournier, L.L.; Cerisola, C.I.; Gelati, P. and Garcia, M.G. 2006.
Particle-size distribution in soils: a critical study of the fractal model
validation. Geoderma, 134: 327-334.
Flury, M. 2009. Soil Physics Laboratory manual. Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Frenkel, H.; Goertzen, J.O. and Rhoades, J.D. 1978. Effects of clay type and
content, exchangeable sodium percentage, and electrolyte concentration on
| References 51
clay dispersion and soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Science Society of
American Journal, 42: 32-39.
Gachene, C.K.K. and Kimaru, G. (Ed.) 2003. Soil fertility and Land productivity: A
guide for extension workers in the Eastern Africa Region. RELMA Technical
handout Series 30. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land Management Unit
(RELMA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA),
pp. 164.
Gee, G.W. and J.W. Bauder, 1986. Particle size analysis. pp: 91-100. In: Methods of
Soil Analysis Part 1. Klute, A. (Eds). Monograph No. 9, American Society of
Agronomy. Madison, WI.
Germann, P. and Beven, K. 1981. Water flow in soil macropores III. A statistical
approach. Journal of Soil Science, 32: 31-39.
Gouda, M.; Hammad, S.A. and Omar, M.S. 1989. Effects of soluble sodium salts on
soil moisture characteristics and pore size distribution in alluvial loamy soils.
Egyptian Journal of Soil Science, 29 (4): 445-455.
Grable, A.R. and Siemer, E.A. 1968. Effects of bulk density, aggregate size, and soil
water suction on oxygen diffusion, redox potentials, and elongation of corn
roots. Soil Science Society of America Proceeding, 32: 180-186.
Gregorich, E.G.; Turchenek, L.W.; Carter, M.R. and Angers, D.A. (Eds.) 2001. Soil
and Environmental Science Dictionary. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gysi, M.; Klubertanz, G. and Vulliet, L. 2000. Compaction of an Eutric Cambisol

under heavy wheel traffic in Switzerland-field data and modeling. Soil Tillage
Research, 56: 117-129.
Hams, R.F. Chesters, G. and Allen. O.N. 1966. Dynamics of soil aggregation.
Advances Agronomy, 18: 107-169.
Haynes, R.J. and Naidu R. 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications
on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems, 51: 123-137.
Heathwaite, A.L.; Sharpley, A.; Bechmann, M. and Rekolaine, S. 2005. Assessing the
risk and magnitude of agricultural nonpoint source phosphorus pollution. In:
| References 52
(eds.) Sims, J.T. and Sharpley, A.N. Phosphorus: Agriculture and the
Environment, Agronomy. ASA Press, Madison, WI, USA.
Hillel, D. 1982. Introduction to Soil Physics. 2nd Edition. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA.
Hillel, D. 2004. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics. Elsevier Science,

Oxford, UK.
Hobbs, J.A. and Brown, P.L. 1957. Nitrogen and organic carbon changes in cultivated
western Kansas soils. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station(s) Bulletin .
89.
Horn, R.; Taubner, H.; Wuttke, M. and Baumgartl, T. 1994. Soil physical properties
related to soil structure. Soil Tillage Research, 30: 187-216.
Hunt, N. and Gilks, R. 1992. Farm Monitoring Handbook. The University of Western
Austrelia, Netherlands, WA.
Igwe, C.A. 2005. Erodibility in relation to water-dispersible clay for some soils of
eastern Nigeria. Land Degradation and Development, 16: 87-96.
Igwe, C.A.; Akamigbo, F.O.R. and Mbagwu, J.S.C. 1999. Chemical and
mineralogical properties of soils in southeastern Nigeria in relation to
aggregate stability. Geoderma, 92: 111-123.
Islam, A.B.M.S; Islam, M.S. and Uddin, M.N. 2009. Study of some soil profile of
gangetic alluvium. Journal of Patuakhali Science and Technology University,
1(1): 11-17.
Jackson, M.L. 1962. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentic Hall Inc. Engle Wood Clitts,
New Jercy USA.
Jackson, M.L. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi. pp. 498.
Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi. pp. 495-498.
Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology.

McGraw-Hill, New York.
Joffe, J.S. 1949. Pedology, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jercy.
| References 53
Joshi, R.C.; Haokip, D.D. and Singh, K.N. 1994. Effect of green manuring on the
physical properties of soil under the rice-wheat cropping system. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 122: 107-113.
Joshi, R.G. and Kadrekar, S.B. 1988. Physico-chemical characteristics of protected

lateritic coastal salt-affected soils of Maharashtra. Journal of Maharashtra
Agricultural University. 13(1): 1-4.
Jutras, M.F. and Arp, P.A. 2011. Determination of hydraulic conductivity from soil
characteristics and its application for modelling stream discharge in forest
catchments. In (Ed.) LE, editor. Hydraulic Conductivity - Issues,
Determination and Applications.: In Technology, pp. 189-202.
Kadu, P.R.; Vaidya, P.H.; Balpande, S.S.; Satyavathi, P.L.A. and Pal, D.K. 2003.
Use of hydraulic conductivity to evaluate the suitability of Vertisols for
deep-rooted crops in semiarid parts of central India. Soil Use and
Management, 19: 208-216.
Kay, B.D. and Angers, D.A. 1999. Soil structure. pp. 229-276. In: Summer, M.E.
(eds.), Handbook of Soil Science. Crc Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kay, B.D. and Angers, D.A. 2000. Soil structure. pp. 229-276. In: Handbook of Soil
Science, (Eds. Sumner, M.E.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Kemper, W.D. and Rosenau, R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. pp.
425-442. In: Klute, A.; Campbell, G.S.; Jacson, R.D.; Mortland, M.M. and
Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I, Agronomic Society of
America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA,
Kemper, W.D.; Trout, T.J.; Humpherys, A.S. and Bullock, M. S. 1988. Mechanisms
by which surge irrigation reduces furrow infiltration rates in silty loam soil.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 31: 821-829.
Khodaverdiloo, H.; Homaee, M.; Van Genuchten, M.T. and Dashtaki, S.G. 2011.
Deriving and validating pedotransfer functions for some calcareous soils.
Journal of Hydrology, 399: 93-99.
Klein, C. and Hurlbut, C.S.Jr. 1985. Manual of Mineralogy. John Wiley and Sons:
NewYork, NY.
| References 54
Klute, A. and Dirksen, C. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and di_usivity: Laboratory
methods. In: Klute, A. (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and
Mineralogical Methods. (2nd eds.) American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wisconsin. pp. 687-734.
Kogano, K.; Toriyama, K. and Sekiya, H. 1991. Studies on nitrogen application on

clayey gley paddy soil and very early drainage for rice. Bulletin of the
Hokuriku National Agricultural Experiment Station, Japan, 33: 107-125.
Koorevaar, P.; Menelik, G. and Dirksen, C. 1983. Elements of Soil Physics, pp. 131-
134, Elsevier Science, New York,
Lado, M.; Paz, A. and Ben-Hur, M. 2004. Organic Matter and Aggregate-Size
Interactions in Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity. Soil Science Society of
American journal, 68: 234-242
Lal, R. 1985. Tillage in lowland rice based cropping systems. In: Lovy, D. (ed.), Soil
Physics and Rice. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos,
Philippines. pp. 283-307.
Lal, R. and Shukla, M.J. 2004. Principles of Soil Physics. Marcel Dekker, New York,
716 pp.
Lal, R., 1986. Conversion of tropical rainforest: Agronomic potential and ecological
consequencies. Advances Agronomy, 39: 173-263.
Landon, J.R. 1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual. A handbook for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Longman Scientific
and Technical Publishers, Essex, pp. 474.
Le Bissonnais, Y. 1996. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and

erodibility: I. Theory and methodology Journal of Soil Science, 47: 425-437.
Levy G.J. and Miller W.P. 1997. Aggregate stability of some southeastern US soil.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61: 1176-1182.
Ligon, J.T.; Wilson. T.V.; Allen, J.F. and Singh, U.P. 1977. Tracing vertical
translocation of soil moisture. Journal of the hydraulics division Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 103(HY 10) 1147–1158.
| References 55
Linn, D.M. and Doran, J.W. 1984. Effect of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide
and nitrous oxide production in tilled and non-tilled soils. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 48: 1267-1272.
Loch, R.J. and Foley, J.L. 1994. Measurement of aggregate breakdown under rain:
Comparison with tests of water stability and relationships with field
measurements of infiltration. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 32: 701-
720.
Löfkvist, J. 2005. Modifying soil structure using plant roots. PhD Thesis. Uppsala:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Soil Science.
Lu, G.; Sakagami, K.; Tanaka, H.and Hamada, R. (1998). Role of soil organic matter
in stabilization of water-stable aggregates in soils under different types of land
use. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 44: 147-155.
Luxmoore, R.J.; Jardine, P.M.; Wilson, G.V.; Jones, J.R. and Zelazny, L.W. 1990.
Physical and chemical controls of preferred path flow through a forested
hillslope. Geoderma, 46: 139-154.
Marquez, C.O.; V.J. Garcia, C.A.; Cambardella, R.C.; Schultz, and Isenhart. T.M.
2004. Aggregate-size stability distribution and soil stability. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 68: 725–735.
Marshal, T.J. 1947. Mechanical Composition of Soils in relation to field description

of texture. Common Wealth of Australia, Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research. Melbourne, Australia. Bulletin, 224.11 pp: 20
Marshall, T.J. 1959. The difiusion of gases through porous media. Journal of Soil
Science 10: 79-82.
Marshall, T.J. 1962. The nature, development and significance of soil structure.
Transactions of the International Society of Soil Science Communications IV
and V, N.Z. pp. 243-257.
Marshall, T.J.; Holmes, J.W. and Rose, C.W. 1996 Soil Physics 3rd Edition.
Cambridge University Press.
Mbagwu, J.S.C. 1986. Erodibility of soils formed on a catenary toposequence in

southeastern Nigeria as evaluated by different indexes. East African
Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 52: 74-80.
| References 56
Mbagwu, J.S.C.; Unamba-Opara, I. and Nevo, G.O. 1994. Physico-chemical
properties and productivity of two-tropical soils amended with dehydrated
swine waste. Bioresource Technology, 49: 163-171.
McGarry, D. 2007. A methodology of a visual soil-field assessment tool to support,

enhance and contribute to a LADA program. Queensland Govterment,
Australia.
McKeague, J.A.; Wang, C. and Coen, G.M. 1986. Describing and interpreting the
macrostructure of mineral soils-a preliminary report. LRRI Contribution No.
84-50. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 47
pp.
McLean, E.O. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. pp. 199-224. In Page, A.L.,
Miller, R.H. and Keeney D.R. (eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2:
Chemical and microbiological properties. 2nd ed.Agron. Monogr. 9.
Agronomic Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
WI.
Moutier, M.; Shainberg, I.; and Levy, G.J. 1998. Hydraulic gradient, aging, and
waterquality effects on hydraulic conductivity of a Vertisol. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 62: 1488-1496.
Munsell Colour Company Inc., 1954. Munsell Soil Colour Charts (1954 ed.) Munsell
Colour Company Inc., 10 East Franklin Street, Baltimore, Md.
Muslem, M.; Farid, A.T.; Miah, M.A.; Jahiruddin, M.; Rahman, A.M.; Quayyum,
M. A.; Sattar, M.A.; Motalib, M.A.; Islam, M.F.; Ahsan, M. and Razia,
M.S. 2005. Fertilizer Recommendation Guide. Bangladesh Agricultural
research Council. Farmgate, New Airport Road, Dhaka 2005, 1215
Nemati, M.R.; Caron, J. and Gallichand, J. 2000. Using paper de-inking sludge to
maintain soil structural form: Field measurements. Soil Science Society of
American Journal, 64: 275-285.
Nemati, M.R.; Caron, J. and Gallichand, J. 2002. Predicting hydraulic conductivity

changes from aggregate mean weight diameter, Water Resource Research,
38(9): 1170.
| References 57
Nichols, K.A.; Wright, S.F.; Liebig, M.A. and Pikul J.L.Jr. 2004. Functional
significance of glomalin to soil fertility. Proceedings from the Great Plains
Soil Fertility Conference Proceedings, Denver, CO, March 2-4, 2004.
Nimmo, J.R. 1997. Modeling structural influences on soil water retention. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 61: 712-719.
Nimmo, J.R. 2004. Porosity and Pore Size Distribution, In Hillel, D. (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment. London, Elsevier, 3: 295-303.
Oades, J.M. 1984. Soil organic matter and structural stability: Mechanisms and
implications for management. Plant and Soil 76, 319-337.
Oades, J.M. and Waters, A.G. 1991. Aggregate hierarchy in soils. Australian Journal
of Soil Research, 29: 815-820.
Oguike, P.C. and Mbagwu, J.S.C. 2004. Changes in some physical properties of two
degraded soils treated with water hyacinth residues. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Science, 3: 47-52.
Olmstead, L.B. 1946. The effect of long-time cropping systems and tillage practices
upon soil aggregation at Hays. Kansas. Soil Science Society of America
Proceeding, 11: 89-92.
Or, D. 1996. Wetting-induced soil structural changes: The theory of liquid phase
sintering. Water Resource Research, 32: 3041-3049.
Oster, J.D.; Shainberg, I. and Wood, J.D. 1980. Flocculation value and gel structure
of sodium/calcium montmorillonite and illite suspensions. Soil Science
Society of America journal, 44: 955-959.
Osunbitan, J.A.; Oyedele, D.J. and Adekalu, K.O. 2005. Tillage effects on bulk
density, hydraulic conductivity and strength of a loamy sand soil in
southwestern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research, 82: 57-64.
Page, A.L.; Miller, R. H. and D. R. Keeney. 1989. Methods of soil analysis. Part-2,
2nd ed. American Society of Agronomy. Inc. Pub. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Passioura, J.B. 1991 Soil Structure and Plant Growth. Australian Journal of Soil
Research, 29: 717-728.
| References 58
Peerlkamp, P.K. 1967. A visual method of soil structure evaluation. In: West
European methods for soil structure determination and edited by the west
European Working group on Soil structure of the International Soil Science
Survey, Ghent. pp. 216-223.
Penman, H.L. 1940. Gas and vapour movements in the soil. I. The diftusion of
vapours through porous solids. Journal of Agricultural Science. 30: 437-462.
Phiri, A.T.; Msaky, J.J.; Mrema, J.; Kanyama-Phiri, G.Y. and Msanya, B.M. 2014.
Effects of pigeon pea - groundnut intercropping system on selected soil
properties. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 3(4): 397-407.
Pikul, J.L. and Aase, J.K. 2003. Water infiltration and storage affected by sub soiling
and subsequent tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67: 859-866.
Piper C.J. 1950. Soil and Plant Analysis. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Power, S. L. and Mehta. V. B. 1999. Characteristics of soils of the Knonkan Coast.

Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 47(2): 334-337.
Rachman, A.; Anderson, S.H.; Gantzer, C.J. and Thompson. A.L. 2003. Influence of
long-term cropping systems on soil physicalproperties related to soil
erodibility. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67: 637–644.
Rasool, R.; Kukal, S.S. and Hira, G.S. 2007. Soil physical fertility and crop
performance as affected by long term application of FYM and inorganic
fertilizers in rice–wheat system. Soil and Tillage Research, 96: 64-72.
Rathore, T.R.; Ghildyal, B.P. and Sachan, R.S. 1983. Effect of surface crusting on
emergence of soyabean (Glycine max L. Merr.) seedlings.I. Influence of
aggregate size in the seedbed. Soil and Tillage Research, 3: 111-121.
Rawls, W. J., T. J. Gish, and D. L. Brakensiek. 1991. Estimating soil water retention
from soil physical properties and characteristics. Adv. Soil Sci. 16: 213-234.
Rogers, J.S. and Carter, C.E. 1986. Soil core sampling for hydraulic conductivity and
bulk density. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51: 1393–1394.
Sarker 2012: Study on Mineralogy of Some Selected Soil Series of Ganges Tidal
Floodplain (AEZ 13), MS Thesis, Department of Soil Science, Bangladesh
Agricultural University Mymensingh.
| References 59
Seech, A.G. and Beauchamp, E.G. 1988. Denitrification in soil aggregates of different
sizes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 52: 1616-1621.
Shainberg, I. and Letey. J. 1984. Response of soils to sodic and saline conditions.
Hilgardia, 52: 1-57.
Shaver, T.M.; Peterson, G.A. and Sherrod, L.A. 2003. Cropping intensification in
dryland systems improves soil physical properties: regression relations.
Geoderma, 116: 149-164.
Sing, S.; Sharma, S.N. and Prasad, R. 2001. The effect of seedling and tillage methods
on productivity of rice-wheat cropping system. Soil Tillage Research, 61: 125-
131.
Singh, M.J. and Khera, K.L. 2008. Soil erodibility indices under different land
uses in lower Shiwaliks. Soil and Water, 49(208): 113–119.
Six, J., Elliott, E.T., Paustian, K., 2000a. Soil macroaggregate turnover and
microaggregate formation: a mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage
agriculture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32: 2099–2103.
Six, J.; Paustian, K.; Elliot, E.T. and Combrink, C. 2000b. Soil structure and organic
matter: Distribution of aggregate-size classes and aggregate-associated carbon.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64: 681-689
Skidmore, E.L.; Carstenson, W.A. and Banbury, E.E. 1975. Soil changes resulting
from cropping. Soil Science Society of America Proceeding, 39: 964-967.
Skopp, J. 1992. Concepts of soil physics. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Soane, B.D.; Blackwell, P.S.; Dickson, J.W. and Painter, D.J. 1981. Compaction by
agricultural vehicles: A review, Soil and wheel characteristics. Soil & Tillage
Research, 1: 207-237.
Soil sampling and methods of analysis / edited by M.R. Carter and E.G. Gregorich.
2nd ed. p. cm.
Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary of Soil Science Terms 1996. Soil
Science Society of America, pp. 138-138. Madison, WI.
Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil Taxonomy. USDA Handbook no. 436 United States
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
| References 60
Soil Survey Staff, 1995. Soil Taxonomy. Handbook of United State, Departmnt of
Agriculture 436, Government Printing Office, Washington, USA.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Sombroek, W.G. and Zonneveld, I.S. 1971. Ancient dune fields and fluviatile
deposits in the Rima-Sokoto River Basin (NW Nigeria). Soil Survey Paper
no.5, Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, Wageningen. Pp 109-109.
Stanchi, S.E.; Bonifacio, E.Z. and Perfect, E. 2008. Chemical and physical treatment
effects on aggregate breakup in the 0- to 2-mm size range. Soil Science
Society of American Journal, 72(5): 1418-1421
Steeves, M.T. 2004. Pre- and post-harvest groundwater temperatures and levels, in
upland forest catchments in Northern New Brunswick. MSc. Thesis.
Frederiction, University of New Brunswick, Department of Forestry.
Suleiman, A.A. and Ritchie, J.T. 2001. Estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity
from soil porosity. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 44: 235–239.
Taylor, H.M.; Roberson, G.M. and Parker, J.J.Jr. 1966. Soil strength-root penetration
relations for medium- to coarse textured soil materials. Soil Science, 102: 18-
22.
Thomasson, A.J. 1978. Towards an objective classification of soil structure. Journal

of Soil Science, 29: 38-46.
Tisdale J.M. and Oades. J.M. 1982. Organic matter and water stable aggregates in
soils. Journal of Soil Science, 33: 141 - 163.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. Soil survey laboratory manual, soil
survey investigation report no. 42, version 4.0, USDA-NRCS, Nebraska,
USA.
Van Bavel, C. 1949. Mean weight diameter of soil aggregates as a statistical index of
aggregation. Soil Science Society of America Proceeding 14: 20–23.
Van Olphen, H. 1977. An introduction to clay colloid chemistry. 2nd eds. Interscience
Publications, New York
| References 61
Van Veen, J.A. and Kuikman, P.J. 1990. Soil structural aspects of decomposition of
organic matter by micro-organism. Biogeochemistry, 11: 213-233.
Veihmeyer, F.J. and Hendrickson, A.H. 1948. Soil density and root penetration, Soil
Science 65: 487-493.
Wagh G. S.; Chavhan D. M. and Sayyed M. R. G. 2013. Physicochemical Analysis of

Soils from Eastern Part of Pune City. Universal Journal of Environmental
Research and Technology, 3(1): 93-99.
Wakindiki, I.C.; Ben-Hur, M. 2002. Soil mineralogy and texture effects on crust
micromorphology, infiltration and erosion. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 66: 597-605.
Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for
determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic
acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29-38.
Wanjogu, S.N. 1992. The genesis, classification and erosion susceptibility of the soils
of the semi-arid Sirima and Mukogodo Catchments, Laikipia District, Kenya.
MSc. Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Whitbread, A.M. 1995. Soil organic matter: its fractionation and role in soil structure.
In ‘Soil Organic Matter Management for Sustainable Agriculture’. (Eds RDB
Lefroy, GJ Blair, ET Craswell) ACIAR Proceedings No 56 Ubon Thailand,
24-26 August 1994 pp. 124-130.(ACIAR: Canberra, ACT).
Wier, W.W. 1949. Soil Science, its Principles and Practices. J. B. Lippingcot Co.,
Philadelphies, pa, USA.,
Wischmeier, W. H., C. B. Johnson and B. V. Cross. 1971. A soil erodibility

nomograph for farmland and construction sites. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 26: 189-193.
Wu, L.; vomocil, J.A. and Childs, S.W. 1990. Pore size, particle size, aggregate size,
and water retention. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 54: 952-956.
Yoder, R.A. 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the
physical nature of erosion losses. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 28: 337–351.
| References 62
Zhang, B. and Horn, R. 2001. Mechanisms of aggregate stabilization in Ultisols from
subtropical China. Geoderma, 99: 123-145.
Zorita, M.D.; Grove, J.H. and Perfect, E. 2001. Laboratory Compaction of Soils using
a Small Mold Procedures. Soil Science Society of America, 65: 1593-1598.
| References 63

Emon SS101347 Thesis Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emon SS101347 Thesis Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MORPHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SARA AND BAJOA

Md. Moshiur Rahman

Student ID: 101347

Soil Science Discipline

1.1. General idea

Bangladesh is an agro-based developing country despite of its reducing agricultural

1.3. Objective of the study

 The objective of the study is to investigate soil morphological and physical

2.1. Morphological and Physical properties

2.1. 1. Soil Color

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 4

1) The organic matter content

2.1. 1.1. Soil Color and its interpretation

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 5

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 6

2.1. 2. Particle Size Distribution and Soil Texture

Fig. 3.2 Soil particles (Sand, Silt and Clay)

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 7

Fig. 5.3. Textural Triangle

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 8

2.1. 3. Soil Structure

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 9

Building up processes Breaking down processes

2.1. 3. 1. Characterization of soil structure and its importance

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 10

Biological Chemical Physical

Nutrient cycling and storage Solute transport Infiltration, water movement

Water imbibitions by crops and seeds Crusting

Shoot and root growth Soil water retention,

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 11

2.1. 4. Bulk Density (Db)

Texture Ideal bulk Bulk densities that Bulk densities that

Sands, loamy sands <1.60 1.69 >1.80

Sandy loams, loams <1.40 1.63 >1.80

Sandy clay loams, loams, clay <1.40 1.60 >1.75

Silts, silt loams <1.30 1.60 >1.75

Silt loams, silty clay loams <1.40 1.55 >1.65

Sandy clays, silty clays, some <1.10 1.49 >1.58

Clays (>45% clay) <1.10 1.39 >1.47

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 13

Table 2.3 Management factors influencing bulk density

Increases bulk density Decreases bulk density

 Continuous tillage  Continuous cropping

2.1. 5. Particle Density (Dp)

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 14

Textural class Particle density gcm3

Coarse sand 2.655

Fine sand 2.659

2.1. 6. Soil Porosity

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 15

Number of soil pores Soil water conductivity Irrigation classification

Water-filled pore space, sometimes called „„relative saturation,‟‟ expresses the

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 17

Table 2.6 Pore size classification based on function.

Functional properties Pore size

Transmission pores 500–50 mm

storage pores 50–0.5 mm

Residual pores <0.5 mm

2.1. 7. Hydraulic Conductivity

Fig. 2.6 Hydraulic conductivity measurement of certain soil

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 19

Table 2.7 Representative values of saturated hydraulic conductivity

Texture Saturated hydraulic conductivity(m yr -1)

Chapter 2 | Literature Review 20