The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using Soil Physical and Chemical Properties to Estimate Bulk Density
Abstract
A stepwise multiple regression procedure was developed to predict oven‐dried bulk density from soil properties using the 1997 USDA‐NRCS National Soil Survey Characterization Data. The database includes both subsoil and topsoil samples. An overall regression equation for predicting oven‐dried bulk density from soil properties ( R 2 = 0.45, P < 0.001) was developed using almost 47000 soil samples. Partitioning the database by soil suborders improved regression relationships ( R 2 = 0.62, P < 0.001). Of the soil properties considered, the stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that organic C content was the strongest contributor to bulk density prediction. Other significant variables included clay content, water content and to a lesser extent, silt content and depth. In general, the accuracy of regression equations was better for suborders containing more organic C (most Inceptisols, Spodosols, Ultisols, and Mollisols). Bulk density was poorly predicted for suborders of the Aridisol and Vertisol orders which contain little or no organic C. Although organic C was an important variable in the suborder analysis, water content explained most (>30%) of the variation in bulk density for Udox, Xererts, Ustands, Aquands, and Saprists. Relationships between bulk density with soil volume measured on oven‐dried natural clods and bulk density with soil volume measured at field‐moisture content and one‐third bar were also determined ( R 2 = 0.70 and 0.69, respectively; P < 0.001). Utilizing the regression equations developed in this study, oven‐dried bulk density predictions were obtained for 71% of the 85608 samples in the database without bulk density measurements. While improving on methods of previous analyses, this study illustrates that regression equations are a feasible alternative for bulk‐density estimation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., & Grandy, A. S. (2014) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-0616.1 · Cited by 846
Optimal organic carbon values for soil structure quality of arable soils. Does clay content matter?
Johannes, A., Matter, A., Schulin, R., Weisskopf, P., Baveye, P. C., & Boivin, P. (2017) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.021 · Cited by 231
A simple soil mass correction for a more accurate determination of soil carbon stock changes
Fowler, A. F., Basso, B., Millar, N., & Brinton, W. F. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29289-2 · Cited by 82
Pedotransfer functions for Irish soils – estimation of bulk density ( ρ b ) per horizon type
Reidy, B., Simo, I., Sills, P., & Creamer, R. E. (2016) · SOIL · doi:10.5194/soil-2-25-2016 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Heuscher, S. A., Brandt, C. C., & Jardine, P. M.
- Venue
- Soil Science Society of America Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-56
- ISSN
- 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0661
- OpenAlex
- W3083662622
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.33
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using Soil Physical and Chemical Properties to Estimate Bulk Density. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2005.0051a
- The paper
- Heuscher, S. A., Brandt, C. C., & Jardine, P. M. (2005). Using Soil Physical and Chemical Properties to Estimate Bulk Density. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0051a
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.