Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 714

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Compaction of forest soils. A review

Greacen, EL, Sands, R·1980·Australian Journal of Soil Research

Abstract

The problem of soil compaction in forestry differs from that in agriculture because of differences in the nature of the crop, in particular the weight and size of the plant members and the length of time that they persist. The roots compact the soil as they increase in size, but they also transmit the weight of the tree and forces generated by the wind onto the soil. There are important differences in management practices; in forestry modern harvesting machines apply heavy loads and, for reasons of cost, tend to be kept in operation throughout the year. As a consequence the structure of the soil suffers some damage, often manifested as compaction. Compaction arising from such sources may reduce the growth of the current trees or trees subsequently planted on the site. But it is difficult to predict the extent of such reduction, if any, because of the complex of interactions involved. Important factors concerned, namely, the soil water regime and the organic matter content, are emphasized. A conceptual model is proposed as a predictive tool. The mechanics of soil compaction, the effects of compaction on the physical properties of the soil, and techniques for the prevention and amelioration of compaction of forest soils, are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/sr9800163

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Greacen, E., & Sands, R.
Venue
Australian Journal of Soil Research
Published
1980-06-01
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
163-189
ISSN
  • 0004-9573 (ISSN-L)
  • 1446-568X
OpenAlex
W2007029938
Cited by
714
References
0
FWCI
11.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.