Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Quantitative soil quality indexing of temperate arable management

systems
Mohammad Sadegh Askari * , Nicholas M. Holden
UCD School of Biosystems Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Soil quality assessment can provide a practical approach for early detection of adverse influences of
Received 21 November 2014 management practices. Our objective was to develop soil quality indices (SQI) for assessing the effects of
Received in revised form 7 January 2015 current arable management practices on soil quality for temperate maritime soils. The study was
Accepted 27 January 2015
conducted on twenty arable sites with conventional or minimum tillage and mono-cropping or crop
rotation. Twenty-two soil properties were measured as potential indicators of soil quality, and those
Keywords: indicators that were responsive to management were considered as a total data set. Principal component
Soil quality index
analysis was used to determine a minimum data set (MDS), and four indices of soil quality were
Minimum tillage
Conventional tillage
calculated using linear/non-linear scoring functions and additive/weighted additive methods. Visual
Crop rotation evaluation of soil structure (VESS) was used to validate these indices. Total nitrogen, carbon nitrogen
VESS ratio, magnesium, aggregate size distribution, bulk density, penetration resistance and soil respiration
were identified as the MDS (independent variables with r < 0.7). All four SQI differed significantly by VESS
class (P < 0.05), but the linear additive index showed the best discrimination by management practices
(P < 0.05). The study indicated the positive influences of minimum tillage in combination with crop
rotation on soil quality in Ireland, and indicated a detrimental effect of mono-cropping. The method
developed in this study can provide a practical, quantitative tool for assessing soil quality under
agricultural management systems.
ã 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Agricultural management practices play an important role in
the prevention of soil degradation and the sustainability of crop
productivity in countries with temperate maritime climate such as
Ireland and the United Kingdom (Black et al., 2002; Dillon et al.,
2008, 2010; Munkholm et al., 2013). Arable systems in Ireland
typically use conventional plough cultivation or minimum tillage
for cereal crop production (Lafferty et al., 1999; TSDP, 2012). Most
tillage farms are located in the eastern half of Ireland where this
study was conducted and there is greater management intensity
compared to other regions (TSDP, 2012). Soil quality (SQ), which is
associated with water, food and environmental quality (Lal, 1999,
2001; Monreal et al., 1998), has been suggested as a means of
evaluating the sustainability of land management systems
(Herrick, 2000). While comprehensive information about SQ in
Ireland does not exist, the general consensus based on limited
information is that SQ is good under Irish agricultural systems
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 870979531; fax: +353 1 7167415.
E-mail address: mohammad.askari@ucdconnect.ie (M.S. Askari).
(OECD, 2008). Over the last decade, the pressure on SQ has
increased as a result of management intensification (Brogan et al.,
2002; Lehane and O'Leary, 2012). This indicates the importance of
monitoring the effects of current management on soil condition
and quantification of SQ for early warning of adverse impacts from
change in management.
Mechanized arable agriculture typically uses conventional
ploughed cultivation or conservation tillage for cereal crop
production (Moreno et al., 1997). Quantifying the effects of arable
systems on soil properties is crucial for monitoring, evaluating
and understanding the impact of management practices on soil
condition and the sustainability of soil productivity and agricul-
tural systems (Karlen et al., 2011, 2013b). The soil quality concept,
“the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries, to
sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality,
and promote plant, animal, and human health” (Doran and Parkin,
1994), offers an integrated approach that brings multiple indicator
properties together (Nortcliff, 2002; Ditzler and Tugel, 2002), and
in the context of arable production, can be focused on both
agricultural and environmental sustainability (Govaerts et al.,
2006). There is no universal list of indicator properties suitable for
all regions and ecosystem functions (Arshad and Coen, 1992;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.01.010
0167-1987/ ã 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
58 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67

Seybold et al., 1998), but selected indicators must be sensitive to
management practices and related to the primary purposes of the
SQ evaluation such as the crop production capability of soil, while
not being influenced by short-term weather conditions (Doran
et al., 1996; Hussain et al., 1999). Selected indicators should not be
specific to a soil type in order to be used for monitoring SQ (Brogan
et al., 2002). Soil attributes that have been suggested as important
soil quality indicators are bulk density, penetration resistance,
infiltration rate, organic carbon, soil respiration, microbial
biomass, nutrient availability, pH, particle size distribution and
aggregate stability (Larson and Pierce, 1994; Arshad and Coen,
1992; Doran and Parkin, 1994; Karlen et al., 1997; Fernandes et al.,
2011; Lima et al., 2013). Soil organic carbon (SOC), cation exchange
capacity, base saturation, pH, available phosphate and bulk density
were suggested as potential indicator of SQ in Ireland (Brogan et al.,
2002), and soil respiration was found as practical biological
indicator in a temperate maritime climate (Yuste et al., 2003). In
general, more than one indicator is required for assessing the
effects of tillage management systems (Nannipieri et al., 1990;
Masto et al., 2008; Andrews et al., 2004), but reducing data
redundancy using principal component analysis (PCA) allows for
the definition of a minimum data set for a specific circumstance
(Andrews et al., 2002; Rezaei et al., 2006; Govaerts et al., 2006).
Soil quality indices (SQI) that integrate selected soil properties
into a single index have been developed using a three step process:
(i) indicator selection, (ii) indicator interpretation and scoring, and
(iii) integration of scores into an index (Andrews et al., 2002, 2004;
Karlen and Stott, 1994; Qi et al., 2009). Selection is based on the
purpose of the index and the function of interest (Karlen and Stott
1994; Doran and Parkin, 1994), scoring is used to scale all indicators
into the range 0–1 (Andrews et al., 2002; Masto et al., 2008) and
integration is usually by a defined equation (e.g., Bastida et al.,
2006; Sinha et al., 2009). A simpler, yet still reliable approach that
has been developed in parallel with SQI is visual evaluation of soil
structure (VESS, Guimarães et al., 2011). This is based on the idea
that soil structure is a fundamental integrating indicator of overall
soil quality (Mueller et al., 2013). VESS considers a range of
important soil characteristics such as aggregate strength, shape,
porosity and roots, which are critical for overall soil quality (Askari
et al., 2015; Ball et al., 2007, 2013; Guimarães et al., 2011). The
practical use of VESS and its reliability under arable and grassland
systems in Ireland has been demonstrated by Askari et al. (2013)
and Cui et al. (2014). VESS is a semi-quantitative approach that is a
complementary method to laboratory analyses, (Askari et al., 2013;
Ball et al., 2007), but it is not suitable for all soils. An SQI, sensitive
to tillage management, developed using a minimum number of soil
properties would be valuable for quantitative assessment of the
sustainability of arable management practices.
The objective of this study was to develop a soil quality index for
the production function of soil suitable for evaluating the effects of
arable management practices (conventional and minimum tillage,
rotation and mono cropping) on soil quality. The method was
demonstrated for a particular climatic region and its arable
management systems, but can be used to develop SQI applicable to
any particular situation thus offering a practical SQI tool for
management support, monitoring and policy assessment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site characterization
Twenty arable fields representing different agricultural man-
agement systems typically found in Ireland (between latitude
52
120 400 N and 53
530 300 N; longitude 6
220 4200 W and 7
340 5600 W)
were selected for a cross-sectional survey to collect data for the
development of an SQI sensitive to the effects of management
practices on soil quality. Soil sampling and field measurements
were conducted from August to November 2011. The average
annual precipitation in study area is between 750 mm and
1000 mm, and mean daily temperature varies from 12.3
C to
15.7
C in summer and 4.0
C to 7.6
C in winter (http://www.met.
ie). Minimum and conventional tillage were the dominant tillage
systems (Lafferty et al., 1999; Dillon et al., 2008, 2010) and
more than 80% of crop production at the time was cereals,
especially wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) (TSDP, 2012). Conventional tillage is based on plough
systems, which invert soil and are usually associated with crop
residue burial and secondary seedbed preparation, while
minimum tillage does not invert the soil and the crop residues
are maintained at the surface. The study sites were selected to be

Table 1
VESS score, management and soil information for each site.

Sites Tillage type Crop system Crops Dominant soil type Ave, VESS score

mean Std.
1 MT R Wheat, bean Typical brown earths 1.70 0.43
2 MT R Wheat, potato Typical brown earths 2.64 0.38
3 MT S Barley Typical luvisols 1.56 0.41
4 CT S Barley Typical luvisols 2.00 0
5 MT R Wheat, bean Typical luvisols 1.90 0.62
6a MT R Wheat, bean Typical luvisols – –
7 MT S Wheat Typical luvisols 1.75 0.06
8 MT R Wheat, bean, OSR Typical brown earths 1.76 0.03
9a MT R Wheat, bean, OSR Typical brown earths – –
10a CT S Wheat Typical luvisols – –
11 CT R Wheat, bean, barley Typical brown earths 1.80 0.45
12 CT R Wheat, bean, barley Typical brown earths 1.86 0.5
13 CT R Maize, wheat Typical luvisols 3.21 0.57
14 CT R Maize, wheat Typical luvisols 2.14 0.3
15 CT S Wheat Typical luvisols 2.93 0.53
16 MT R Barley, oat, wheat, bean Typical brown earths 2.40 0.55
17 CT R Barley, oat, wheat, bean Typical brown earths 1.40 0.55
18 CT R Wheat, oat, OSR Typical luvisols 2.60 0.55
19 CT S Barley Typical luvisols 2.60 0.55
20 CT S Barley Typical luvisols 2.4 0.55

MT, minimum tillage; CT, conventional tillage; R, tillage with crop rotation; O, tillage with one crop; OSR, oilseed rape; Ave, Average; VESS, visual evaluation of soil structure;
dominant soil types were identified according to SIS (2014).
a
Excluded sites.
 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67
representative of arable systems in Ireland and were categorized
as conventional tillage system with mono-cropping (CO), conven-
tional tillage system with crop rotation (CR), minimum tillage with
mono-cropping (MO), and minimum tillage system with crop
rotation (MR). Barley and wheat were the dominant cultivated
crops in the crop rotation systems, in rotation with one or more of
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), maize
(Zea mays L.), oat (Avena sativa L.) and oilseed rape (Brassica napus).
Either wheat or barley was produced in the mono-cropping
system. Semi-structured interviews with the farmer responsible
for each field were completed prior to field sampling and necessary
information regarding the management practices was collected.
Table 1 summarizes management treatments and soil type (based
on SIS, 2014) for each site.
2.2. Experimental design and visual structure assessment
On a representative part of each field with uniform soil and land
cover, a 30 m2 plot was laid out with random orientation.
Unusually dry or wet areas, gateways, headlands and highly
trafficked areas were avoided and at each plot, five sub-plots 2 m2
were selected based on walking a ‘W’ along the diagonal of the
square for sampling and field measurements. Soil samples (n = 100)
were collected from the top soil (0–10 cm), sealed and stored in
dark, cool conditions for laboratory analysis, and core samples
were taken for analyses of total porosity and bulk density. Soil
penetration resistance was determined using a portable soil
compaction meter (FIELDSCOUT SC900) from 0 to 10 cm depth
(Lowery and Morrison, 2002). Sorptivity was determined by the
method by Philip (1957) using a ring with 25 cm height and 10 cm
diameter. The initial amount of water for calculation of soil
sorptivity was determined based on top soil permeability
(Sepaskhah et al., 2005). All field measurements were performed
in triplicate and averaged prior to data analysis.
Visual evaluation of soil structure (VESS) has been shown to be
practical for use on arable farms in Ireland (Askari et al., 2013), and
was later employed as an independent validation of the SQI that
was to be calculated from the study data. VESS was performed in
each sub-pot, based on details explained by Guimarães et al. (2011)
and the resulting scores classified according to Ball et al. (2007).
The visual scores were determined by considering friability, size
and shape of aggregates, porosity, mottling, root clustering and
root path deflection (Askari et al., 2013; Ball et al., 2007). The field
scores between 1 and 5 were classified into three classes; “good”
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Indicator selecon
Scoring and integraon
Addive
Soil quality indices
Fig. 1. Process diagram for the development of the soil quality indices tested in this study.
59
(Score < 2) where no changes in management practices are
needed, “fair” (Score = 2 and <3) where long-term improvements
are required and “poor” (Score  3), where rapid, short-term
improvements are needed (Ball et al., 2007).
2.3. Laboratory analysis
Twenty-two indicators, consisting of biochemical and physical
soil properties were measured using standard laboratory method
to develop the SQI. The soils were air dried and passed through a
2 mm sieve, prior to chemical analysis. An inorganic carbon
analyser (Skalar-primacs SLC-IC analyser) and a dry combustion
carbon and nitrogen analyser (LECO Tru-Spec CHN analyzer) were
used to determine soil inorganic carbon, total carbon and total
nitrogen based on the method described by Matejovic (1997), and
Wright and Bailey (2001). An inductively coupled plasma-atomic
emission spectrograph (Varian Inc., Vista-PRO CCD Simultaneous
ICP-AES) was used to determine extractable calcium, magnesium
and potassium (Soltanpour et al., 1996) following extraction using
Morgan solution (Morgan, 1941; McIntosh, 1969). In addition, a
spectrophotometer (Spectronic Helios Alpha, Uni-cam UV6-420)
was used to measure extractable phosphate (P) in Morgan solution
by the colorimetric method (Kuo, 1996). pH was determined by a
standard pH meter in a 1:1 soil–water mixture (Thomas, 1996), and
CEC was calculated using “the sum total of the exchangeable
cations” (Sumner and Miller, 1996). Fresh soils were used to
determine microbial soil respiration based on the CO2 evolution at
20
C (Horwath and Paul, 1994). The pipette method (Gee and Or,
2002) was used to measure particle size distribution, and soil
texture was classified using the USDA system. Dry aggregate size
distribution based on the mean weight diameter (mm, MWD) was
determined by sieving (Nimmo and Perkins, 2002). 100 g of loose
air-dried sample was placed in a column of sieves with 10, 5.6, 4.75,
2, 1, 0.5 and 0.25 mm meshes and shaken (Retsch VS 1000) for
10 min. Bulk density (BD) was determined for 0–10 cm depth using
a 5 cm diameter  5 cm high ring (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002).
Core samples were dried over night at 105
C and BD was
calculated using dry weight and the volume of the ring. The BD
of particles 2 mm (BD2 mm) was calculated by removing gravels of
>2 mm diameter from the bulk samples and subtracting their
weight and volume. Soil water content and total porosity were
determined by oven drying at 105
C overnight (Topp and Ferre,
2002) and the gravimetric method (Flint and Flint, 2002) using the
same cores employed for bulk density. Macro-porosity was
Sensive indicators to management treatments
PCA
Minimum data set
Non- linear Linear
Weighted addive Addive Weighted addive
SQI-1 SQI-2 SQI-3 SQI-4
60 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67

determined according to the method described by Piwowarczyk
et al. (2011), using the core samples taken for measuring BD
covered at the bottom with a filter paper (Whatman number 5) and
a cheese-cloth mesh to prevent soil loss. They were saturated from
the base within 24–36 h on a sand table, covered to prevent
evaporation and were placed on a drainage stand for 24 h in a cold
and dark room (Piwowarczyk et al., 2011).
2.4. Developing and validating the soil quality index (SQI)
Only those indicator properties that showed a response to
management were considered for developing the SQI. Therefore,
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and univariate
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on soil properties
to assess the effect of tillage and rotation on all measured
indicators. Only those attributes that were significantly different
(P < 0.05) by the four management treatments using all 20 sites
were considered as members of the total data set (TDS). Three sites
were excluded from further analysis because the SQI could not be
validated using the VESS method. At one of the sites the soil was of
fine texture and there were no soil aggregates at two of sites (Ball
et al., 2007; Askari et al., 2013, 2015), making them unsuitable for
further analysis (thus 17 sites and n = 85). In order to identify the
most appropriate indicators for assessing soil quality and to
determine a minimum data set (MDS), a principal component
analysis (PCA) was performed on the standardized data matrix of
the TDS. The principal components with eigenvalues 1 were used
for identification of MDS because components with eigenvalues
<1 have less variation than an individual variable (Brejda et al.,
2000). A Varimax rotation was then performed on selected PCs to
enhance the interpretability of the components (Flury and
Riedwyl, 1988; Li et al., 2013a). In each component, the indicators
with a loading value within ten percent of the highest weighted
loading were selected as important indicators from respective
components (Govaerts et al., 2006; Andrews et al., 2002; Yao et al.,
2013). If more than one indicator was chosen for each component,
the correlation among them was analyzed and the variables with
high correlation coefficient and low weighted loading were
assumed to be interdependent variables and one was eliminated
(Rezaei et al., 2006). The remaining independent indicators were
the MDS used for developing the SQI.
Four SQI were developed using the MDS according to the
approach in Fig. 1, in order to identify the most appropriate
indexing approach. The proper curves and the logic algorithms for
scoring indicators’ values were selected and interpreted based on
the purpose of soil productivity. “More is better” and “less is
better” scoring curves (Karlen and Stott, 1994; Hussain et al.,
1999) in combination of linear and non-linear equations were
applied to transfer the values of MDS into unit-less scores. A
sigmoidal type equation (Eq. (1)) was used for non-linear scoring
of variables with asymptote tending to 0 and to 1 (Bastida et al.,
2006).
a
SNL ¼ (1)
1 þ ðx=x0 Þb
SNL is the non-linear score of the soil variable which is between 0
and 1, a is the maximum score which was equal to 1 in this study, x
is the soil variable value, x0 is the mean value of the variable for the
whole data set and b is the slope of equation set to 2.5 for “more is
better” curves and 2.5 for “less is better” curves (Sinha et al., 2009;
Zhang et al., 2011).
Eqs. (2) and (3) were used for linear scoring of “more is better”
and “less is better” curves, respectively.


xl
SL ¼ (2)
hl


xl
SL ¼ 1  (3)
hl
SL is the linear score of soil variable (between 0 and 1), x is the soil
variable value, l is the minimum value and h is the maximum value
of soil variable (Masto et al., 2008).
The scores of indicators were integrated into indices using
additive (Eq. (4)) and weighted additive (Eq. (5)) methods
(Andrews et al., 2002).

Table 2
Soil properties measured as potential indicators of soil quality. Properties that differed by management practices were considered as the total data set (TDS).

Soil quality indicators MR MO CR CO ANOVA

mean Std. mean Std. mean Std. mean Std. F P.v

Aggregate size distribution (MWD)a 2.23 0.65 1.26 0.59 1.98 0.60 1.95 0.79 5.56 0.00
Bulk density (Mg m3)a 1.10 0.12 1.12 0.06 1.07 0.12 1.15 0.10 3.12 0.03
Bulk density in particles <2 mm (Mg m3)a 1.04 0.11 1.06 0.05 0.97 0.12 1.07 0.11 3.64 0.02
Porosity (%)a 52.79 5.71 50.42 2.18 54.40 3.70 52.58 3.89 2.84 0.04
pH 6.12 0.93 6.33 0.23 5.89 0.77 6.21 0.83 1.12 0.35
Total nitrogen (%)a 0.33 0.09 0.26 0.04 0.30 0.05 0.28 0.07 4.13 0.01
Total carbon (%) 3.27 0.62 2.85 0.53 2.97 0.48 3.25 1.12 1.27 0.29
Organic carbon (%) 3.07 0.53 2.81 0.53 2.84 0.33 2.98 0.76 1.22 0.31
C:N ratioa 10.20 1.27 11.10 0.43 9.91 1.02 12.21 5.76 3.12 0.03
calcium (mg kg1) 3554 3424 2081 506 2940 3418 2516 3370 0.91 0.44
magnesium (mg kg1)a 120 44 137 75 98 18 103 84 3.31 0.02
potassium (mg kg1) y 171 75 89 43 141 64 141 88 4.92 0.00
Phosphate (mg kg1)a 12.46 6.75 13.13 8.49 11.09 5.74 7.15 4.32 7.29 0.00
Sorptivity (cm s0.5)a 0.43 0.28 0.37 0.10 0.37 0.19 0.21 0.15 5.34 0.00
penetration resistance (kPa)a 1427 657 1543 558 1095 355 913 343 5.53 0.00
Water content (%) 28.36 7.66 22.46 4.27 27.19 8.98 34.00 8.36 6.03 0.00
Sand (%) 43.43 15.96 56.10 7.74 44.00 9.32 47.12 15.30 2.58 0.06
Silt (%) 32.31 8.51 27.00 4.81 33.53 5.93 32.96 8.99 1.92 0.13
Clay (%) 24.26 7.82 16.90 3.21 22.47 4.37 19.92 6.72 4.64 0.01
CEC (meq/100 gm) 19.16 17.08 11.78 2.17 15.88 17.03 13.48 16.98 0.80 0.50
soil respiration (mg C kg1 day1)a 17.34 6.02 10.73 4.08 9.95 2.46 8.92 2.80 26.41 0.00
Macro porosity (%)a 11.96 3.91 12.18 3.42 14.38 4.55 15.50 2.17 5.33 0.00

MR, minimum tillage with crop rotation; MO, minimum tillage with one crop; CR, conventional tillage with crop rotation; CO, conventional tillage with one crop; MWD, mean
weight diameter; P.v, P-value; Std, standard deviation.
a
Identified indicators as TDS.
 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67 61

Xn Si
SQIA ¼
i¼1 n
X
n 38 to 61%; macro-porosity from 2 to 24%; total nitrogen from
SQIW ¼ W i Si
i¼1
Si is the indicator scores (non-linear or linear), n number of
variables integrated in index, Wi is weighing value of indicators
determined by the variation of each respective PC (%), normalized
to unity (Andrews et al., 2002; Masto et al., 2008).
The SQI were validated using VESS classes interpreted on the
need for change in management. VESS has been shown to be a
reliable tool for overall evaluation of SQ (by Askari et al., 2013,
2015; Ball et al., 2013; Mueller et al., 2013), but is only
semi-quantitative. Indices that were significantly different among
visual soil quality classes were employed for quantitative
evaluation of soil quality by management treatment.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The normality of all data sets was tested using the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and visual examination of histograms.
Consequently, aggregate size distribution (ASD), potassium (K),
phosphate (P), magnesium (Mg), penetration resistance and
respiration were log-transformed, and calcium (Ca) was
inversion-transformed, to improve their normality. Multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) and univariate analysis of variance
(ANOVA), least significant difference (LSD), and all statistical
analysis for selecting TDS, MDS and validating indices were
performed using SPSS v. 18.0 (SPSS Inc.) with a 95% confidence
interval. Scoring and indexing were performed using Microsoft
Excel v. 2007. Data redundancy analysis was by correlation matrix
and principal component analysis (PCA) on the standardized
values of indicators to determine the MDS.
3. Results
Twenty-two soil properties were considered as potential
indicators of soil quality (Table 2). Of the measured indicators,
fifteen were significantly different by management and were
regarded as being responsive to arable management practices
(Table 2). As soil texture is a fixed property not normally affected
by management, and soil water content is dependent on the
short-term weather, these properties were excluded leaving
thirteen measured properties in the TDS: aggregate size
(4) distribution ranged from 0.64 to 3.21 MWD (mean weight
diameter); bulk density from 0.86 to 1.39 Mg m3; bulk density
in 2 mm particle size from 0.77 to 1.36 g cm3; total porosity from
(5) 1.8 to 50 g kg1; CN ratio from 7 to 12; extractable magnesium
from 26 to 237 mg kg1; extractable potassium from 41 to
447 mg kg1; extractable phosphate from 2 to 34 mg kg1;
sorptivity from 0.03 to 1.07 cm s0.5; penetration resistance from
316 to 2540 kPa; and soil respiration from 3 to 33 mg C kg1 day1.
The VESS scores (Table 1) classified using Ball et al. (2007)
indicated 27% of sites were “good”, 55% were “fair” and 18% were
“poor”. There was no evidence of very poor soil structure at any of
the sites.
3.1. Soil quality indices
Four components of the PCA had eigenvalues >1, and explained
71.80% of the variance of original data (Table 3). For the first PC
(Table 3, variance of 31.77%), BD had the greatest loading value and
only BD2 mm had a loading value within 10% of the greatest value.
These two indicators were highly correlated (Table 4,r = 0.94).
Therefore, BD was selected from PC1. For the second PC (Table 3,
variance of 16.43%), penetration resistance had the greatest
loading value and only Mg had a loading value within 10% of
the greatest value. As their correlation was less than 0.7 both were
selected from PC2 as valuable indicators (Table 4, r = 0.61). CN ratio
and TN were identified from PC3, and soil respiration and
aggregate size distribution from PC4 on the same bases
(Tables 3 and 4). Therefore, BD, penetration resistance, Mg, CN,
TN, soil respiration and aggregate size distribution were chosen as
the MDS. Of the seven indicators, BD had the maximum
communality (95%) and CN ratio the minimum communality
(64%). The other properties of MDS had the communalities 70%
(Table 3).
The type of scoring curve, indicator weight and the parameters
used in the scoring equations are summarized in Table 5 for the
four SQI defined in Fig. 1. SQI-2 and SQI-4 were weighted as
described in Eq. (6):
SQI (2 or 4) = (0.284  BD) + (0.147  Penetration) + (0.147  Mg) +
(0.11  CN) + (0.11  TN) + (0.101  Respiration) + (0.101  ASD) (6)
BD had the greatest weight that resulted in most contribution to
the development of these two indices (SQI 2 and 4), while soil
respiration and aggregate size distribution (ASD) had the least
contribution.

Table 3
Results of principal component analysis indicating those properties selected as the minimum dataset (MDS).

PCs parameters PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Eigenvalue 4.13 2.14 1.60 1.47
Variance (%) 31.77 16.43 12.31 11.29
Cumulative (%) 31.77 48.21 60.52 71.80

Indicators Eigenvectors Communalities

Bulk density (Mg m3) 0.96 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.95
Bulk density in <2 mm (Mg m3) 0.95 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.91
Porosity (%) 0.78 0.21 0.32 0.08 0.76
Macro porosity (%) 0.64 0.34 -0.01 0.22 0.58
Sorptivity (cm s0.5) 0.57 0.40 0.43 0.23 0.73
penetration resistance (kPa) 0.07 0.84 0.07 0.11 0.72
magnesium (mg kg1) 0.16 0.81 0.02 0.28 0.76
potassium (mg kg1) 0.31 -0.52 0.18 0.35 0.52
C:N ratio 0.04 0.26 0.76 0.02 0.64
Total nitrogen (%) 0.50 0.01 0.69 0.38 0.84
Phosphate (mg kg1) 0.14 0.23 0.66 0.06 0.51
soil respiration (mg C kg1 day1) 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.81 0.70
Aggregate size distribution (MWD) 0.08 0.20 0.31 0.77 0.73

MWD, mean weight diameter; boldface and underlined loading values correspond to parameters selected from the PCs for correlation analysis.
62 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67

Table 4
Correlation matrix for the total dataset (TDS).

Indicator BD BD2 mm Porosity Macro-porosity Sorptivity PR Mg K CN TN P SR

BD 1
BD2 mm 0.94** 1
Total-porosity 0.75** 0.69** 1
Macro-porosity 0.65** 0.53** 0.27* 1
Sorptivity 0.59** 0.50** 0.44** 0.38** 1
PR 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.26* 0.31** 1
Mg(ppm) 0.26* 0.18 0.04 0.33** 0.34** 0.61** 1
K(ppm) 0.16 0.24* 0.22* 0.07 0.09 0.26* -0.20 1
CN 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.25* 0.22* 0.19 0.01 1
TN 0.56** 0.46** 0.53** 0.43** 0.43** 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.42** 1
P 0.19 0.10 0.27* 0.14 0.37** 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.52** 1
SR 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.29** 0.01 0.02 0.26* 0.16 0.08 0.29** 0.04 1
ASD 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.20 0.22* 0.11 0.21 0.24* 0.40** 0.12 0.36**

BD, bulk density; BD2 mm, bulk density at 2 mm particle size; PR, penetration resistance; Mg, extractable magnesium; K, extractable potassium; P, extractable phosphate; CN,
carbon nitrogen ratio; TN, total nitrogen; ASD, aggregate size distribution; SR, soil respiration. **, Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 (2-tailed); *, correlation is significant at
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).

All four SQI differed significantly by VESS classes (Table 6, Mullen, 2007; Xu et al., 2011). This means the sites were
P < 0.05). The weighted additive method reduced differentiation, representative of dominant soils under arable management in
and SQI-3 showed the best discriminating capability by VESS Ireland. Cereal production dominated, with winter wheat and
class (P < 0.01). All indices were employed for evaluating the spring barley under conventional and minimum tillage being
effects of management practices on soil quality, and the statistical dominant in Ireland (DAFF, 2004; Lafferty et al., 1999). Minimum
parameters of each index are summarized in Table 6. Non-linear tillage is recommended as an appropriate tillage system in Europe
indices (SQI-1 and SQI-2) indicated slightly better soil quality (Van den Putte et al., 2010). The four management treatments used
(Table 6, Sqv = 0.49) and lower standard deviation compared to the combinations of conventional and minimum and crop cultivation
linear indices (SQI-3 and SQI-4, Sqv = 0.45 and 0.47, respectively). systems (Table 1, MR, MO, CR and CO) and were chosen to be
The weighted scoring approach also resulted in slightly greater representative of Irish arable production. In general most tillage
Sqv and lower standard deviation. farms are located in the eastern half of Ireland, where greater
management intensity occurs compare to other parts of Ireland
3.2. The effects of management systems on soil quality (TSDP, 2012). Irish tillage farms have a positive image in terms of
soil protection, and greater productivity compare to other
All SQI were significantly different (Fig. 2, P < 0.05) between European countries (O'Mahony, 2002; TSDP, 2012). Greater levels
minimum tillage with crop rotation (MR) and minimum tillage of soil degradation might be expected under arable compare to
with mono-cropping systems (MO), while none of the indices were grassland, which is the dominant land use in Ireland, but generally
significantly different between conventional tillage with crop low levels of soil erosion and degradation are reported in Ireland
rotation (CR) and conventional tillage with mono-cropping (O'Mahony, 2002; TSDP, 2012). This perception was reflected in the
systems (CO). Significant mean differences between CR and MR soil properties measured (Table 2) and the moderate to good
were obtained by SQI-1, SQI-2 and SQI-3, and between CO and MO structural quality observed by VESS (Askari et al., 2013).
by SQI-3. Therefore, SQI-3 was the most discriminating for the The original indicator set (Table 2) was selected because each
effects of agricultural management system in this study, even was regarded as having an important relationship with arable
though it was not able to differentiate between CR and CO (Fig. 2). management. Soil nitrogen and carbon are associated with
The weighted additive method did not affect the capability of the microbial activity, aggregation and development of root systems
nonlinear SQI but it reduced the discriminating ability of linear SQI.
Each management treatment influenced the MDS indicators in Table 5
Type of scoring curves, the parameters of non-linear and linear equations, and
different ways. For instance MR differentiated from other treat-
calculated weights for the MDS.
ments by TN and respiration, CO by magnesium, and MO by
aggregate size distribution and CN ratio (Fig. 3, P < 0.05). BD, Mg Indicators Scoring Non-linear Linear Weight
and penetration resistance were significantly different between curve
Mean Slope R2 l h
mono-cropping and rotation systems under conventional tillage, (x0) (b)
while the significant difference between mono-cropping and
BD Less is 1.10 2.5 0.99 0.86 1.39 0.28
rotation systems under minimum tillage was by ASD, TN, CN ratio better
and respiration (Fig. 3). The difference in TN and respiration were PR Less is 1145 2.5 0.99 316 2540 0.15
significant between minimum and conventional tillage under crop better
rotation systems, while ASD, Mg, CN ratio and penetration Mg More is 98 2.5 0.99 26 237 0.15
better
resistance were only significantly different between minimum
CN Less is 9.92 2.5 0.99 6.98 12.07 0.11
and conventional tillage under mono-cropping systems. Bulk better
density was not significantly different between minimum and TN More is 0.31 -2.5 0.99 0.18 0.5 0.11
conventional tillage systems. better
SR More is 11.96 2.5 0.99 3 33 0.10
better
4. Discussion ASD More is 1.97 -2.5 0.99 0.64 3.21 0.10
better
Table 2 summarizes the measured soil parameters, showing
BD, bulk density; Mg, extractable magnesium; CN, carbon nitrogen ratio; TN, total
that the range of indicators were similar to previous studies on nitrogen; ASD, aggregate size distribution, PR, penetration resistance; SR, soil
agricultural systems in Ireland (e.g., Fay et al., 2007; Curtin and respiration; l, the minimum value; h, the maximum value.
 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67 63

Table 6 et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2008; Masto et al., 2008; Zhang et al.,
Summary of soil quality indices (SQI) and their differentiation by VESS class.
2012), while Mg is an important element for cereal nutrition that
Index Minimum Maximum Mean St.d ANOVA on VESS can also be influenced by liming with magnesium-rich limestone
F p-value
in Irish agricultural systems (Coulter and Lalor, 2008). Liming with
magnesium limestone is a common approach to correct soil acidity
SQI 1 0.29 0.64 0.49 0.08 3.86* 0.025
SQI 2 0.32 0.62 0.49 0.07 3.40* 0.038
for acid sensitive crops such as beets, beans and peas which are
SQI 3 0.20 0.68 0.45 0.12 5.26** 0.007 part of crop rotation in Ireland (Coulter and Lalor, 2008) and it can
SQI 4 0.21 0.71 0.47 0.11 3.23* 0.045 result in a significant increase of Mg in soil and herbage (Higgins
VESS, visual evaluation of soil structure; SQI 1, non-linear additive index; SQI 2, et al., 2012). Liming has been reported to increase the mineraliza-
non-linear weighted additive index; SQI 3, linear additive index; SQI 4, linear tion of nitrogen (Stenberg et al., 2000; Saarsalmi et al., 2011) and
weighted additive index. **, significant difference at P < 0.01; *, significant phosphate (Higgins et al., 2012), as well as modifying pH,
difference at P < 0.05; St.d, Standard deviation.
improving root growth (Bruce et al., 1988; Kopittke and Menzies,
2007) and microbial activity (Stenberg et al., 2000). The indicators
(Mrabet et al., 2001; Caravaca et al., 2003; Sinha et al., 2009), while identified as the TDS and MDS (Tables 2 and 3) were a combination
CN ratio (Mrabet et al., 2001) and soil respiration (Creamer et al., of biochemical and physical attributes, and effects of management
2014) reflect the availability of N relative to C and thus microbial treatment on selected indicators (Fig. 3) were different. The results
function. Aggregate size distribution (Malhi and Lemke, 2007), of this study confirmed the need to employ several soil chemical,
bulk density (Strudley et al., 2008) and penetration resistance physical and biological indicators related to soil function for
(Vetsch et al., 2007) all reflect tilth and compaction related to integrating into an index for appropriate evaluation of soil quality
tillage and machine traffic. In addition, due to the difference in a specific area (Nannipieri et al., 1990; Andrews et al., 2004;
between BD and BD2 mm (Page-Dumroese et al., 1999) and the Masto et al., 2008).
importance of BD2 mm to soil functions such as water transmission The influences of arable systems on selected indicators were
(Rawls et al., 1998) and root penetration (Pierce et al., 1983), bulk mainly related to rotation (Fig. 3). Similar results were found by
density of the <2 mm fraction was also included. Particle size Wright and Hons (2005) and Melero et al. (2011). The difference in
distribution (Karlen and Stott, 1994; Qi et al., 2009; Li et al., 2013a) aggregate size distribution between crop rotation treatments (MR
and water content (Doran and Parkin, 1994; Doran and Parkin, and MO) under minimum tillage was expected (McVay et al., 2006)
1994) were also suggested as potential indicators of SQ. The and was probably caused by increased biological activity (Elmholt
nutrient elements (TN, P, K) are typically part of fertility et al., 2008) as indicated by soil respiration (Fig. 3). This also could
management and reflect the availability of soil nutrients (Malo result in increased infiltration (Nielsen et al., 2005) and was
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 2. Comparison of soil quality indices among management treatments with 95% confidence interval; MR, minimum tillage with crop rotation (n = 25); MO, minimum
tillage with one crop (n = 10); CR, conventional tillage with crop rotation (n = 30); CO, conventional tillage with one crop (n = 20); charts with the different letter for each
intensity class were significantly different at P < 0.05.
64 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]

Fig. 3. Comparison of MDS among management treatments with 95% confidence interval; BD, bulk density; Mg, extractable magnesium; CN, carbon nitrogen ratio; TN, total
nitrogen; ASD, aggregate size distribution, PR, penetration resistance; SR, soil respiration; MWD, mean weight diameter; MR, minimum tillage with crop rotation; MO,
minimum tillage with one crop; CR, conventional tillage with crop rotation; CO, conventional tillage with one crop; charts with the different letter for each intensity class were
significantly different at P < 0.05.

reflected in the sorptivity data (Table 2). Continuous wheat, which
is the dominant crop in mono-croping systems in this study,
caused smaller aggregate size (Mrabet et al., 2001). The positive
effect of minimum tillage on stability of aggregates cannot be
properly explained without considering crop rotation systems
(Fuentes et al., 2009). Resistance to penetration was lower with
conventional tillage than minimum tillage especially under mono-
cropping as found by Vetsch et al. (2007) and Siri-Prieto et al.
(2007). The range of penetration resistance was mostly less than
the 2500 kPa taken as the threshold for resistance to root growth
(Håkansson and Lipiec, 2000; Hamza and Anderson, 2005). While,
inconsistent results have been reported on the assessment of
tillage systems impact on BD (Strudley et al., 2008), BD was
generally less under conventional tillage compared to minimum
tillage (McVay et al., 2006; Alvarez and Steinbach, 2009). The effect
of tillage systems on BD was not observed in this study and the only
significant difference in BD was discerned under conventional
tillage between CR and CO. The range of BD was less than the limit
 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67
to roots growth that was reported as 1.5 Mg m3 (Hassan et al.,
2007). Under mono-cropping system, CN ratio was lower under
conventional tillage perhaps due to rapid decomposition of crop
residues compared to minimum tillage (Mrabet et al., 2001). TN
was only different under MR compared to the other treatments
(Fig. 3). Crop rotation strongly influences microorganism activity
reflected by soil respiration (Klose and Tabatabai, 2000; Franchini
et al., 2007), and conventional tillage tends to distribute biological
activities uniformly in the ploughed layer by inverting soil
(Eivazi et al., 2003). In this study soil respiration under MR
was significantly different from the other treatments (Fig. 3).
Magnesium was different between CR and CO, perhaps because of
liming with magnesium limestone (Coulter and Lalor, 2008).
SQI 3 calculated using the linear scoring method showed the
best differentiating ability among soil quality classes (Table 6,
p < 0.01), however non-linear indices have been assumed to
present soil function better than linear indices (Andrews et al.,
2002). The weighted additive method reduced the contribution of
CN ratio, TN, respiration and ASD compared to BD, penetration
resistance and Mg, which resulted in a reduced ability for the
weighted indices (SQI 2 and 4 compared to SQI 1 and 3). In
addition, TN, CN, ASD and respiration were significantly different
between MO and MR, which were differentiable by all indices,
while a significant difference between these two treatments was
not noticed for BD, Mg and penetration resistance. Therefore,
SQI 3 was the most useful index for differentiating between
management practices and soil quality classes, and was found to be
the best index for assessing soil quality in the study area.
The comparison of soil quality indices among management
practices indicated that minimum tillage systems could only
improve soil quality in combination with crop rotation systems,
and mono-cropping systems had detrimental impact on soil
quality (Fig. 2). Indices of soil quality, especially SQI-3, showed the
MR treatment improved soil quality. This finding is similar to other
studies (e.g., Hao et al., 2001; Karlen et al., 2013a) and indicated the
positive effects of minimum tillage and crop rotation on soil
quality. The methodology applied in this study has provided a
practical, quantitative tool for evaluating soil quality under
agricultural systems based on multivariate analysis to reduce
data redundancy and to correctly weight the indicators (Govaerts
et al., 2006; Andrews et al., 2002; Yao et al., 2013). As the
methodology is derived from that used in many other circum-
stances (e.g., Andrews et al., 2002; Bastida et al., 2006; Sinha et al.,
2009; Masto et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013b) it offer a
flexible indexing approach for different regions and management
goals that can be rapidly developed and deployed as a practical
tool. A better understanding of soil quality under current
management for temperate maritime arable farms will be possible
by using this approach. Accordingly, SQI-3 calculated from the MDS
can be used as an appropriate index for deployment with Irish
arable systems and regions with similar soil and climatic
conditions for early detection of adverse impacts of management
on the soil quality.
5. Conclusion
Quantifying the effect of tillage and cropping management on
soil quality is essential to better understand the influence of
management systems. The effect of temperate maritime arable
management can be evaluated and monitored using bulk density,
magnesium, total nitrogen, carbon-nitrogen ratio, penetration
resistance, aggregate size distribution and soil respiration. The
most reliable soil quality index was produced using the linear
additive method. This simple indexing approach can provide an
accurate, practical, quantitative tool for assessing soil quality
and evaluating chemical, physical and biological condition of
65
soil under Irish arable farm management. The quantification
of soil quality in this study indicated the positive influences of
minimum tillage in combination with crop rotation on soil quality,
and mono-cropping systems (either continuous wheat or barley
cultivation) under minimum tillage had detrimental effects on
soil quality. There was no difference between crop rotation and
mono-cropping under conventional tillage on soil quality, and the
effects of crop management were compensated due to soil
inversion. Conventional tillage with crop rotation had better
quality than minimum tillage with mono cropping. This study
indicated that the role of crop rotation on the sustainability of soil
productivity was more important than tillage management,
and suggested the incorporation of minimum tillage with crop
rotation as an appropriate agricultural management for arable
production in Ireland.
References
Alvarez, R., Steinbach, H.S., 2009. A review of the effects of tillage systems on some
soil physical properties, water content, nitrate availability and crops yield in the
Argentine Pampas. Soil Till. Res. 104, 1–15.
Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., Cambardella, C.A., 2004. The soil management
assessment framework. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 1945–1962.
Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., Mitchell, J.P., 2002. A comparison of soil quality indexing
methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 90, 25–45.
Arshad, M.A., Coen, G.M., 1992. Characterization of soil quality: physical and
chemical criteria. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7, 25–31.
Askari, M.S., Cui, J., Holden, N.M., 2013. The visual evaluation of soil structure under
arable management. Soil Till. Res. 134, 1–10.
Askari, M.S., Cui, J., O’Rourke, S.M., Holden, N.M., 2015. Evaluation of soil structural
quality using VIS–NIR spectra. Soil Till. Res. 146 (Part A), 108–117.
Ball, B.C., Batey, T., Munkholm, L.J., 2007. Field assessment of soil structural quality –
a development of the Peerlkamp test. Soil Use Manage. 23, 329–337.
Ball, B.C., Munkholm, L.J., Batey, T., 2013. Applications of visual soil evaluation. Soil
Till. Res. 127, 1–2.
Bastida, F., Luis Moreno, J., Teresa, H., García, C., 2006. Microbiological degradation
index of soils in a semiarid climate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 3463–3473.
Black, H.I.J., Garnett, J.S., Ainsworth, G., Coward, P.A., Creamer, R., Ellwood, S.,
Horne, J., Hornung, M., Kennedy, V.H., Monson, F., Raine, L., Osborn, D., Parekh,
N.R., Parrington, J., Poskitt, J.M., Potter, E., Reeves, N., Rowland, A.P., Self, P.,
Turner, S., Watkins, J., Woods, C., Wright, J., 2002. MASQ: Monitoring and
Assessing Soil Quality in Great Britain. Countryside Survey Module 6: Soils and
Pollution. R&D Technical Report E1-063/TR. published by Environment Agency,
Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, BRISTOL, BS32 4UD.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/4297/2/SE1-063-TR-e-p.pdf, Last verified: August 19,
2014.
Brejda, J.J., Karlen, D.L., Smith, J.L., Allan, D.L., 2000. Identification of regional soil
quality factors and indicators II. Northern Mississippi loess hills and palouse
prairie. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 2125–2135.
Brogan, J., Crowe, M., Carty, G., 2002. Developing A Soil Protection Strategy For
Ireland – A Discussion Document, Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown
Castle Estate, County Wexford, Ireland. http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/land/
discussiondocumentondevelopingasoilprotectionstrategyforireland.html#.
U5eBD_ldUaw.
Bruce, R., Warrell, L., Edwards, D., Bell, L., 1988. Effects of aluminium and calcium in
the soil solution of acid soils on root elongation of Glycine max cv. Forrest. Aust.
J. Agric. Res. 39, 319–338.
Caravaca, F., Figueroa, D., Barea, J.M., Azcón-Aguilar, C., Palenzuela, J., Roldán, A.,
2003. The role of relict vegetation in maintaining physical, chemical, and
biological properties in an abandoned stipa-grass agroecosystem. Arid Land Res.
Manage. 17, 103–111.
Coulter, B.S., Lalor, S., 2008. Major and Micro nutrient advice for productive
agricultural crops, third Ed., Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co Wexford, ISBN No. 1,
84170, 501, 2. http://www.agresearch.teagasc.ie/johnstown/Nutrient%20Advice
%203rd%20edition.pdf.
Creamer, R.E., Schulte, R.P.O., Stone, D., Gal, A., Krogh, P.H., Lo Papa, G., Murray, P.J.,
Pérès, G., Foerster, B., Rutgers, M., Sousa, J.P., Winding, A., 2014. Measuring basal
soil respiration across Europe: do incubation temperature and incubation
period matter? Ecol. Indic. 36, 409–418.
Cui, J., Askari, M.S., Holden, N.M., 2014. Visual evaluation of soil structure under
grassland management. Soil Use Manage. 30, 129–138.
Curtin, J.S., Mullen, G.J., 2007. Physical properties of some intensively cultivated soils
of Ireland amended with spent mushroom compost. Land Degrad. Dev. 18,
355–368.
DAFF, 2004. Terms and Conditions of the Rural Environment Protection
Scheme (REPS). Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Dublin, Ireland.
Dillon, E., Hennessy, T., Hynes, S., Commins, V., 2008. Assessing the Sustainability of
Irish Farming at the 107th EAAE Seminar Modelling of Agricultural and Rural
Development Policies, Sevilla, Spain, January 29th–February 1st, 2008. http://
core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/6454277pdf.
66 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67
Dillon, E.J., Hennessy, T., Hynes, S., 2010. Assessing the sustainability of Irish
agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 8, 131–147.
Ditzler, C.A., Tugel, A.J., 2002. Soil quality field tools. Agron. J. 94, 33–38.
Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B., et al., 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.
W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F. (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable
Environment. Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 35, pp. 3–21
(special publication).
Doran, J.W., Sarrantonio, M., Liebig, M.A., 1996. Soil health and sustainability. In:
Sparks, D.L. (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, vol. 56. Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 1–54.
Eivazi, F., Bayan, M.R., Schmidt, K., 2003. Select soil enzyme activities in the historic
sanborn field as affected by long-term cropping systems. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 34, 2259–2275.
Elmholt, S., Schjønning, P., Munkholm, L.J., Debosz, K., 2008. Soil management
effects on aggregate stability and biological binding. Geoderma 144, 455–467.
Fay D., Kramers, G., Zhang, C., McGrath, D., Grennan, E.,2007. Soil Geochemical Atlas
of Ireland, Published by Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency in
2007, SBN: 1, 84170, 489, 1. http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2011/822/
Soil_Geochemical_AtlasofIreland.pdf, Last verified: August 19, 2014.
Fernandes, J.C., Gamero, C.A., Rodrigues, J.G.L., Mirás-Avalos, J.M., 2011.
Determination of the quality index of a Paleudult under sunflower culture and
different management systems. Soil Till. Res. 112, 167–174.
Flint, L.E., Flint, A.L., 2002. Porosity. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series
No. 5, pp. 241–253.
Flury, B., Riedwyl, H., 1988. Multivariate statistics. A Practical Approach. Chapman
and Hall, London, Great Britain.
Franchini, J.C., Crispino, C.C., Souza, R.A., Torres, E., Hungria, M., 2007.
Microbiological parameters as indicators of soil quality under various soil
management and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. Soil Till. Res. 92,
18–29.
Fuentes, M., Govaerts, B., De León, F., Hidalgo, C., Dendooven, L., Sayre, K.D.,
Etchevers, J., 2009. Fourteen years of applying zero and conventional tillage,
crop rotation and residue management systems and its effect on physical and
chemical soil quality. Eur. J. Agron. 30, 228–237.
Gee, G.W., Or, D., 2002. Particle-size analysis. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.),
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of
America Book Series No. 5, pp. 255–289.
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Deckers, J., 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality
assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soild Till.
Res. 87, 163–174.
Grossman, R.B., Reinsch, T.G., 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. In:
Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods.
Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp. 201–225.
Guimarães, R.M.L., Ball, B.C., Tormena, C.A., 2011. Improvements in the visual
evaluation of soil structure. Soil Use Manage. 27, 395–403.
Håkansson, I., Lipiec, J., 2000. A review of the usefulness of relative bulk
density values in studies of soil structure and compaction. Soil Till. Res. 53,
71–85.
Hamza, M.A., Anderson, W.K., 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems: a review
of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Till. Res. 82, 121–145.
Hao, X., Chang, C., Conner, R.L., Bergen, P., 2001. Effect of minimum tillage and crop
sequence on crop yield and quality under irrigation in a southern Alberta clay
loam soil. Soil Till. Res. 59, 45–55.
Hassan, F.U., Ahmad, M., Ahmad, N., Abbasi, M.K., 2007. Effects of subsoil
compaction on yield and yield attributes of wheat in the sub-humid region of
Pakistan. Soil Till. Res. 96, 361–366.
Herrick, J.E., 2000. Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management? Appl.
Soil Ecol. 15, 75–83.
Higgins, S., Morrison, S., Watson, C.J., 2012. Effect of annual applications of
pelletized dolomitic lime on soil chemical properties and grass productivity.
Soil Use Manage. 28, 62–69.
Horwath, W.R., Paul, E.A., 1994. Microbial biomass. In: Weaver, R.W., Angle, J.S.,
Bottomley, P.S. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and
Biochemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp.
753–773.
Hussain, I., Olson, K.R., Wander, M.M., Karlen, D.L., 1999. Adaptation of soil quality
indices and application to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil Till. Res.
50, 237–249.
Karlen, D.L., Stott, D.E., et al., 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and
chemical indicators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W. (Ed.), Defining Soil Quality for
a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication
No. 35, pp. 53–72.
Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris, R.F., Schuman, G.E., 1997.
Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 61, 4–10.
Karlen, D.L., Birell, S.J., Hess, J.R., 2011. A five-year assessment of corn stover harvest
in central Iowa, USA. Soil Till. Res. 115–116, 47–55.
Karlen, D.L., Cambardella, C.A., Kovar, J.L., Colvin, T.S., 2013a. Soil quality response to
long-term tillage and crop rotation practices. Soil Till. Res. 133, 54–64.
Karlen, D.L., Kovar, J.L., Cambardella, C.A., Colvin, T.S., 2013b. Thirty-year tillage
effects on crop yield and soil fertility indicators. Soil Till. Res. 130, 24–41.
Klose, S., Tabatabai, M.A., 2000. Urease activity of microbial biomass in soils as
affected by cropping systems. Biol. Fertil. Soils 31, 191–199.
Kopittke, P.M., Menzies, N.W., 2007. A review of the use of the basic cation
saturation ratio and the ideal soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71, 259–265.
Kuo, S., 1996. Phosphorus, Part 3 Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America
Book Series No. 5.
Lafferty, S., Commins, P., Walsh, J.A., 1999. Irish Agriculture in Transition, a census
atlas of agriculture in the republic of Ireland.
Lal, R., 1999. Soil quality and food security: the global perspective. In: Lal, R. (Ed.),
Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3–16.
Lal, R., 2001. Managing world soils for food security and environmental quality.
Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, pp. 155–192.
Larson, W.E., Pierce, F.J., 1994. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of
sustainable management. In: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdiek, D.F., Stewart,
B.A. (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., pp. 37–51.
Lehane, M., O'Leary, B., 2012. Ireland's Environment – An Assessment,
Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland.
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/indicators/00061_EPA_SoE_2012.pdf, Last
verified: August 19, 2014.
Li, P., Zhang, T., Wang, X., Yu, D., 2013a. Development of biological soil quality
indicator system for subtropical China. Soil Till. Res. 126, 112–118.
Li, Y., Dong, S., Wen, L., Wang, X., Wu, Y., 2013b. Assessing the soil quality of alpine
grasslands in the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau using a modified soil quality index.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 185, 8011–8022.
Lima, A.C.R., Brussaard, L., Totola, M.R., Hoogmoed, W.B., de Goede, R.G.M., 2013. A
functional evaluation of three indicator sets for assessing soil quality. Appl. Soil
Ecol. 64, 194–200.
Lowery, B., Morrison, J.E.J.R., 2002. Soil penetrometers and penetrability. In:
Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods.
Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp. 422–427.
Malhi, S.S., Lemke, R., 2007. Tillage, crop residue and N fertilizer effects on crop
yield, nutrient uptake, soil quality and nitrous oxide gas emissions in a second
4-yr rotation cycle. Soil Till. Res. 96, 269–283.
Malo, D.D., Schumacher, T.E., Doolittle, J.J., 2005. Long-term cultivation impacts
on selected soil properties in the northern Great Plains. Soil Till. Res. 81,
277–291.
Masto, R., Chhonkar, P., Singh, D., Patra, A., 2008. Alternative soil quality indices for
evaluating the effect of intensive cropping, fertilisation and manuring for
31 years in the semi-arid soils of India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 136, 419–435.
Matejovic, I., 1997. Determination of carbon and nitrogen in samples of various soils
by the dry combustion. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 28, 1499–1511.
McIntosh, J.L., 1969. Bray and morgan soil extractants modified for testing acid soils
from different parent materials. Agron. J. 61, 259–265.
McVay, K.A., Budde, J.A., Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., Schlegel, A.J., Peterson,
D.E., Sweeney, D.W., Thompson, C., 2006. Management effects on soil physical
properties in long-term tillage studies in Kansas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70,
434–438.
Melero, S., López-Bellido, R.J., López-Bellido, L., Muñoz-Romero, V., Moreno, F.,
Murillo, J.M., 2011. Long-term effect of tillage, rotation and nitrogen fertiliser on
soil quality in a Mediterranean Vertisol. Soil Till. Res. 114, 97–107.
Monreal, C.M., Dinel, H., Schnitzer, M., Gamble, D.S., Biederbeck, V.O., 1998. Impact
of carbon sequestration on functional indicators of soil quality as influenced by
management in sustainable agriculture. In: Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follett, R.F.,
Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, pp. 435–457.
Moreno, F., Pelegrín, F., Fernández, J.E., Murillo, J.M., 1997. Soil physical properties,
water depletion and crop development under traditional and conservation
tillage in southern Spain. Soil Till. Res. 41, 25–42.
Morgan, M.F., 1941. Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system.
Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 450.
Mrabet, R., Saber, N., El-Brahli, A., Lahlou, S., Bessam, F., 2001. Total, particulate
organic matter and structural stability of a Calcixeroll soil under different wheat
rotations and tillage systems in a semiarid area of Morocco. Soil Till. Res. 57,
225–235.
Mueller, L., Shepherd, G., Schindler, U., Ball, B.C., Munkholm, L.J., Hennings, V.,
Smolentseva, E., Rukhovic, O., Lukin, S., Hu, C., 2013. Evaluation of soil structure
in the framework of an overall soil quality rating. Soil Till. Res. 127, 74–84.
Munkholm, L.J., Heck, R.J., Deen, B., 2013. Long-term rotation and tillage effects on
soil structure and crop yield. Soil Till. Res. 127, 85–91.
Nannipieri, P., Greco, S., Ceccanti, B., 1990. Ecological significance of the biological
activity in soil. In: Bollag, J.M., Stozky, G. (Eds.), Soil Biochemistry, vol. 6. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 293–354.
Nielsen, D.C., Unger, P.W., Miller, P.R., 2005. Efficient water use in dryland cropping
systems in the Great Plains. Agron. J. 97, 364–372.
Nimmo, J.R., Perkins, K.S., 2002. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In:
Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods.
Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp. 317–327.
Nortcliff, S., 2002. Standardisation of soil quality attributes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
88, 161–168.
O'Mahony, J., 2002. The tillage enterprise-efficiency and future prospects. National
Tillage Conference 2002. Oak Park Research Centre, Teagasc, Ireland.
OECD, 2008. Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD countries since
1990, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/ireland/40802125pdf, Last verified:
August 19, 2014.
Page-Dumroese, D.S., Brown, R.E., Jurgensen, M.F., Mroz, G.D., 1999. Comparison of
methods for determining bulk densities of rocky forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
63, 379–383.
Philip, J., 1957. The theory of infiltration: 4: sorptivity and algebraic infiltration
equations. Soil Sci. 84, 257–335.
 M.S. Askari, N.M. Holden / Soil & Tillage Research 150 (2015) 57–67
Pierce, F.J., Larson, W.E., Dowdy, R.H., Graham, W.A.P., 1983. Productivity of soils:
assessing long-term changes due to erosion. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38, 39–44.
Piwowarczyk, A., Giuliani, G., Holden, N.M., 2011. Can soil moisture deficit be used to
forecast when soils are at high risk of damage owing to grazing animals? Soil
Use Manage. 27, 255–263.
Qi, Y., Darilek, J.L., Huang, B., Zhao, Y., Sun, W., Gu, Z., 2009. Evaluating soil quality
indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma 149,
325–334.
Rawls, R.J., Gimenez, D., Grossman, R., 1998. Use of soil texture, bulk density, and
slope of the water retention curve to predict saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 41, 983–988.
Rezaei, S.A., Gilkes, R.J., Andrews, S.S., 2006. A minimum data set for assessing soil
quality in rangelands. Geoderma 136, 229–234.
Rodriguez, M.B., Godeas, A., Lavado, R.S., 2008. Soil acidity changes in bulk soil and
maize rhizosphere in response to nitrogen fertilization. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 39, 2597–2607.
Saarsalmi, A., Tamminen, P., Kukkola, M., Levula, T., 2011. Effects of liming on
chemical properties of soil, needle nutrients and growth of Scots pine
transplants. For. Ecol. Manage. 262, 278–285.
Sepaskhah, A.R., Ahmadi, S.H., Shahbazi, A.R.N., 2005. Geostatistical analysis of
sorptivity for a soil under tilled and no-tilled conditions. Soil Till. Res. 83,
237–245.
Seybold, C.A., Mausbach, M.J., Karlen, D.L., Rogers, H.H., 1998. Quantification of soil
quality.. In: Lal, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. CRC
Press, USA.
Sinha, S., Masto, R.E., Ram, L.C., Selvi, V.A., Srivastava, N.K., Tripathi, R.C., George, J.,
2009. Rhizosphere soil microbial index of tree species in a coal mining
ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1824–1832.
Siri-Prieto, G., Reeves, D.W., Raper, R.L., 2007. Tillage systems for a cotton–peanut
rotation with winter-annual grazing: impacts on soil carbon, nitrogen and
physical properties. Soil Till. Res. 96, 260–268.
SIS, 2014. Irish Soil Information System, Synthesis Report, the Environmental
Protection Agency. Teagasc, Cranfield University and University College, Dublin.
http://gis.teagasc.ie/soils/index.php.
Soltanpour, P.N., Johnson, G.W., Workman, S.M., Jones, J.B.J., Miller, R.O., 1996.
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry and Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Mass Spectrosmetry Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 Chemical Methods.
Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp. 91–139.
Stenberg, M., Stenberg, B., Rydberg, T., 2000. Effects of reduced tillage and liming
on microbial activity and soil properties in a weakly-structured soil. Appl. Soil
Ecol. 14, 135–145.
67
Strudley, M.W., Green, T.R., Ascough Ii, J.C., 2008. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic
properties in space and time: state of the science. Soil Till. Res. 99, 4–48.
Sumner, M.E., Miller, W.P., 1996. Cation exchange capacity and exchange
coefficients, Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 Chemical Methods. Soil Science
Society of America Inc., Madison, pp. 1201–1229.
Thomas, G.W., 1996. Soil pH and Soil Acidity Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3
Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5.
Topp, G.C., Ferre, P.A., 2002. Method for measurement of soil water content,
gravimetric method. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis.
Part 4. Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 5, pp.
422–427.
TSDP, 2012. A Plan for the Development of The Irish Tillage Crop Sector, Teagasc
Tillage Crop Stakeholder Consultative Group. published by Teagasc Tillage Crop
Stakeholder Consultative Group, Ireland. http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/
2012/1602/Tillage_Sector_Plan_2012_FINALlowres.pdf, Last verified: August 19,
2014.
Van den Putte, A., Govers, G., Diels, J., Gillijns, K., Demuzere, M., 2010. Assessing the
effect of soil tillage on crop growth: a meta-regression analysis on European
crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 33, 231–241.
Vetsch, J.A., Randall, G.W., Lamb, J.A., 2007. Corn and soybean production as affected
by tillage systems. Agron. J. 99, 952–959.
Wright, A., Hons, F., 2005. Carbon and nitrogen sequestration and soil aggregation
under sorghum cropping sequences. Biol. Fertil. Soils 41, 95–100.
Wright, A.F., Bailey, J.S., 2001. Organic carbon, total carbon, and total nitrogen
determinations in soils of variable calcium carbonate contents using a Leco
CN-2000 dry combustion analyzer. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32,
3243–3258.
Xu, X., Liu, W., Zhang, C., Kiely, G., 2011. Estimation of soil organic carbon stock and
its spatial distribution in the Republic of Ireland. Soil Use Manage. 27, 156–162.
Yao, R., Yang, J., Gao, P., Zhang, J., Jin, W., 2013. Determining minimum data set for
soil quality assessment of typical salt-affected farmland in the coastal
reclamation area. Soil Till. Res. 128, 137–148.
Yuste, J.C., Janssens, I.A., Carrara, A., Meiresonne, L., Ceulemans, R., 2003. Interactive
effects of temperature and precipitation on soil respiration in a temperate
maritime pine forest. Tree Physiol. 23, 1263–1270.
Zhang, C., Xue, S., Liu, G.-B., Song, Z.-L., 2011. A comparison of soil qualities
of different revegetation types in the Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil 347,
163–178.
Zhang, D., Zhou, Z., Zhang, B., Du, S., Liu, G., 2012. The effects of agricultural
management on selected soil properties of the arable soils in Tibet, China.
Catena 93, 1–8.