All Issue

2025 Vol.58, Issue 3 Preview Page

Original research article

A Simple field volumetric method for estimating soil bulk density and three-phase composition
Seok-Soon Jeong1
,
Tae-Yol Ko2
,
Kang-Ho Jung3*
,
Jung-Hwan Yoon4
,
Jae E. Yang5
,
Hyuck-Soo Kim6
,
Byung-Jun Park2
,
Hee-Rae Cho7
,
Kyung-Hwa Han8
,
Wi-Young Lee4
,
Yong-Seon Zhang4*
1Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
2Graduate Student, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
3Senior Researcher, Collaboration Planning Team, Rural Development Administration, Jeonju 54875, Korea
4Research Professor, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
5Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, and CTO, SolEnvi Inc., Chuncheon 24341, Korea
6Associate Professor, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
7Researcher, Research Management Division, Rural Development Administration, Jeonju 54875, Korea
8Research Professor, Department of Rural Construction Engineering, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
*Corresponding Author
31 August 2025. pp. 299-313
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Soil bulk density and three-phase composition are critical physical indicators for evaluating soil health and supporting sustainable soil management. In-situ measurement of these properties helps diagnose field-related constraints affecting productivity, such as poor drainage, compaction, aeration, and drought stress. While the oven-dry gravimetric method (OG) is the standard for measuring these parameters, its application in the field is constrained by time and equipment requirements. To address this, a simple field volumetric method (FV) was developed and validated through comparative analysis with the OG method. Both methods were applied to 38 soil samples to measure bulk density and three-phase composition (solid, liquid, and gaseous). Agreement was assessed using linear regression, coefficient of variation (CV), Bland–Altman plots, and Cronbach’s alpha. Regression results showed significant (P < 0.01) correlations between methods, with r2 values of 0.89 - 0.91 and standard errors ranging from 0.05 to 3.92. The solid phase showed the highest compatibility among the three-phase composition. CVs ranged from 4.7 - 17.3 for FV and 3.5 - 15.2 for OG, but differences were not statistically significant. Most values fell within the 95% limits of agreement in Bland–Altman analysis. Cronbach’s alpha values higher than 0.7 (0.95 - 0.97) indicated excellent internal consistency across parameters. These findings demonstrate that the FV method provides a reliable and efficient alternative for rapid field assessment of soil bulk density and three-phase composition.

Linear regression models for bulk density (a) and the three-phase composition (b-d).
Keywords
Bulk density
Field diagnostic tool
Three-phase
Volumetric method
References
1

Al-Shammary AAG, Kouzani AZ, Kaynak A, Khoo SY, Norton M, Gates W. 2018. Soil bulk density estimation methods: a review. Pedosphere 28:581-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60034-7

10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60034-7
2

Bengough AG, Campbell DJ, O’Sullivan MF. 2000. Penetrometer techniques in relation to soil compaction and root growth. pp. 377-404. In Smith KA, Mullins CE (Eds.). Soil and environmental analysis: Physical methods (2nd ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

3

Bland JM, Altman DG. 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:135-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204

10.1177/096228029900800204
4

Chen KP, Wei YB, Wu JC. 2022. Impact of pore characteristics on displacement processes of air and water flow: Modelling and experimental investigation. J. Hydrol. 609:127691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127691

10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127691
5

Eavis BW. 1972. Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. Plant Soil 36:631-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01373511

10.1007/BF01373511
6

George D, Malley P. 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Allyn and Bacon, New York, USA.

10.4324/9780429056765
7

Hur SO, Sohn JW, Ok JH, Hwang SA. 2023. Variation characteristics on soil physical properties of paddy fields in Korea. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 56:354-364. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.354

10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.354
8

Jabro JD, Stevens WB, Iversen WM. 2020. Comparing two methods for measuring soil bulk density and moisture content. Open J. Soil Sci. 10:233-243. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2020.106012

10.4236/ojss.2020.106012
9

Jung YS, Ha SK. 2013. Fundamental and application of soil science for agriculture and environmental, KNU Press, Chuncheon, Korea.

10

Kim CY, Seo YJ, Kwon TY, Park JH, Heo MS, Ha SK. 2010. Correlation between the factors of soil physical property in upland soil. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 43:793-797.

11

McKenzie NJ, Cresswell HP. 2002. Field sampling. pp. 11-34. In McKenzie NJ et al. (Eds.) Soil physical measurement and interpretation for land evaluation. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

10.1071/9780643069879
12

Mubaraka R, Hussain MB, Tariq H, Qayyum M, Tariq I. 2022. Mulches effects on soil physical properties i.e. porosity, aggregate stability, infiltration rates, bulk density, compaction. pp. 41-58. In Akhtar et al. (Eds.). Mulching in agroecosystems. Springer, Singapore.

10.1007/978-981-19-6410-7_3
13

NIAST (National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology). 2010. Methods of soil chemical analysis. RDA, Suwon, Korea.

14

NRCS (Natural Resoruces Convervation Services). 2014. Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual. USDA, Washington D.C., USA.

15

RDA. 2012. Standards for research, survey, and analysis in agricultural science and technology.

16

Rosner B. 2010. Fundamentals of biostatistics (7th ed.). Duxbury Press, Boston, MA, USA.

17

Sacco D, Cremon C, Zavattaro L, Grignani C. 2012. Seasonal variation of soil physical properties under different water managements in irrigated rice. Soil Till. Res. 118:22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.011

10.1016/j.still.2011.10.011
18

Vereecken H, Maes J, Feyen J, Darius P. 1989. Estimating the soil moisture retention characteristic from texture, bulk density, and carbon content. Soil Sci. 148:389-403. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-198912000-00001

10.1097/00010694-198912000-00001
19

Wang X, He J, Bai M, Liu L, Gao S, Chen K, Zhuang H. 2022. The impact of traffic-induced compaction on soil bulk density, soil stress distribution and key growth indicators of maize in North China Plain. Agriculture 12:1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12081220

10.3390/agriculture12081220
20

Williams DM, Blanco-Canqui H, Francis CA, Galusha TD. 2017. Organmic farming and soil physical properties: An assessment after 40 years. Agron. J. 109:600-609. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.06.0372

10.2134/agronj2016.06.0372
21

Wu H, Lei X, Chen X, Shen J, Wang X, Ma T. 2024. Study on effect of particle size distribution on water-retention capacity of coral sand from macro and micro perspective. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 12:341. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12020341 jmse12020341

10.3390/jmse12020341
22

Yang SK, Seo YW, Kim SK, Kim BH, Kim HK, Kim HW, Choi KJ, Han YS, Jung WJ. 2014. Changes in physical properties especially, three phases, bulk density, porosity and correlations under no-tillage clay loam soil with ridge cultivation of rain proof plastic house. Korean J. Soil. Sci. Fert. 47:225-234. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2014.47.4.225 KJSSF.2014.47.4.225

10.7745/KJSSF.2014.47.4.225
23

Zhang YS, Cho HR, Han KH, Ok JH, Hwang SA, Jung KH. 2018. Optimum range on soil physical indicators under plastic film house. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 51:445-456.

10.7745/KJSSF.2018.51.4.445
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국토양비료학회
  • Journal Title :Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국토양비료학회 학회지
  • Volume : 58
  • No :3
  • Pages :299-313
  • Received Date : 2025-05-20
  • Revised Date : 2025-07-23
  • Accepted Date : 2025-07-29
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2025.58.3.299
Journal Informaiton Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
KJSSF Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close