Received: 16 November 2020 Accepted: 19 February 2021 Published online: 24 May 2021

DOI: 10.1002/saj2.20240

SOIL PHYSICS & HYDROLOGY

Soil structure recovery following compaction: Short-term

evolution of soil physical properties in a loamy soil
Thomas Keller1,2 Tino Colombi2,3 Siul Ruiz4,5 Stanislaus J. Schymanski4,6
Peter Weisskopf1 John Koestel1,2 Marlies Sommer1 Viktor Stadelmann1
Daniel Breitenstein4 Norbert Kirchgessner3 Achim Walter3 Dani Or4,7
1 Agroscope, Dep. of Agroecology & Environment, Reckenholzstrasse 191, Zürich 8046, Switzerland
2 Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences, Dep. of Soil & Environment, Box 7014, Uppsala 75007, Sweden
3 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitätsstrasse 2, Zürich 8092, Switzerland
4 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Dep. of Environmental Systems Science, Universitätstrasse 16, Zürich 8092, Switzerland
5 Univ. of Southampton, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Bioengineering Group, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
6Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Environmental Research and Innovation Dep., Catchment and Eco-hydrology Research Group, 41 rue du
Brill, Belvaux 4422, Luxembourg
7 Desert Research Institute, Division of Hydrologic Sciences, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA

Correspondence
Thomas Keller, Agroscope, Dep. of Agroe- Abstract
cology & Environment, Reckenholzstrasse Soil compaction by farm machinery may persist for decades, hampering soil produc-
191, Zürich, 8046 Switzerland
Email: thomas.keller@agroscope.admin.ch tivity and functioning. Assessing compaction costs and guiding recovery strategies
are hindered by paucity of data on soil structure recovery rates. A long-term Soil
Assigned to Associate Editor Vilim Filipović.
Structure Observatory was established on a loamy soil in Switzerland to monitor
Funding information soil structure recovery after prescribed compaction, and to better assess the roles of
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur natural processes (vegetation, macrofauna, and shrink–swell cycles) on recovery pat-
Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen
terns. The aim of this study was to quantify short-term soil structure recovery under
Forschung, Grant/Award Number:
406840-143061; National Research Fund, natural conditions in the presence and absence of plant cover (ley and bare soil).
Grant/Award Number: ATTRACT pro- We measured soil porosity and gas and water transport capabilities at 0.1 and 0.3 m
gramme (A16/SR/11254288)
depth. Two years after the compaction event, soil physical properties have not recov-
ered to precompaction levels, even within the topsoil. Surprisingly, no differences
were observed in the recovery patterns of ley and bare soil treatments. Measure-
ments show that recovery rates differ among soil properties with the most severely
affected properties by compaction (permeability) exhibiting highest recovery rates.
Total soil porosity shows no recovery trend, suggesting lack of soil decompaction.
Improved soil functions and decompaction are distinct aspects of soil structure recov-
ery, with the latter requiring net upward transport of soil mass. We suggest that soil
structure recovery proceeds at two fronts: from the soil surface downward, and
expanding around local biologically-active pockets (marked by biopores) into the
compacted soil volumes. This concept could be tested with additional data of longer
time series at our site as well as in other soils and climates.

Abbreviations: SSO, Soil Structure Observatory.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Soil Science Society of America Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Soil Science Society of America

1002 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/saj2 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2021;85:1002–1020.

KELLER ET AL. 1003

1 INTRODUCTION
Core Ideas
Soil compaction of agricultural fields due to passage of trac-
tors and implements is a major threat to soil productivity and ∙ Soil physical properties have not recovered to pre-
its ecological and hydrological functioning. The persistent compaction values within 2 yr.
trend toward more powerful and heavier agricultural vehicles ∙ Recovery rates vary among soil physical proper-
is aggravating this acute but often poorly diagnosed threat of ties.
soil compaction (Keller et al., 2019). Despite challenges to ∙ Decompaction (increase in total porosity) requires
reliably quantify the direct damage of soil compaction, esti- upward transport of soil mass.
mated costs in terms of loss of soil functioning and reduced ∙ Functional recovery such as improved permeabil-
productivity are substantial (Graves et al., 2015; Sondereg- ity does not require decompaction.
ger et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that compaction affects ∙ A concept for soil structure recovery patterns is
25–45% of arable land area of modern mechanized agricul- proposed.
ture in Europe (Brus & van den Akker, 2018; Schjønning
et al., 2015). The associated costs of soil compaction vary with
soil type, climate, and levels of mechanization. Compaction is Håkansson, 1996; Weisskopf et al., 2010). Tillage is mostly
not restricted to arable lands only with compaction signatures restricted to the upper 0.1–0.3 m depth of the soil profile.
found under different soil management and land use, such as Occasional subsoiling may loosen deeper layers, but this is
use of construction machinery (Berli et al., 2004) or military not a sustainable soil management option. In addition, sub-
maneuvers (Vennik et al., 2019). The management of perma- soiling may often not result in the expected positive effects
nent grassland often involves the use of heavy equipment (har- (Olesen & Munkholm, 2007). This implies heavy reliance of
vest, manure and slurry spreading) with associated risks of arable subsoils and untilled soils such as no-till, rangelands,
soil compaction (Bouwman & Arts, 2000). Pastures may also and forests soils on natural soil structure recovery processes.
be compacted by grazing animals (Greenwood & McKenzie, Key processes of natural recovery of compacted soil have
2001). In addition to agricultural soils, forest soils may be been extensively studied. These include abiotic processes
compacted during logging and harvest operations (DeArmond (soil shrinkage and swelling induced by drying and wetting
et al., 2019; Nordfjell et al., 2019), and soils in natural ecosys- or freezing and thawing), biotic processes (root penetration,
tems may be at risk of compaction by grazing animals, hikers, burrowing by earthworms and other soil fauna, changes in
and any type of off-road vehicle traffic (Kissling et al., 2009; surface properties due to microbial activity), and combined
Waever & Dale, 1978). biotic–abiotic processes (shrinkage of soil induced by root
The economic and ecological consequences of compaction water uptake, soil aggregation) (Dexter, 1991). What is lack-
result from a complex function of the magnitude of the com- ing for prediction of soil structure and function restoration
paction event (i.e., the immediate change of soil functions fol- is a quantitative description of rates and ranking of the rel-
lowing the compaction event) and the recovery time to pre- ative importance, interactions, and feedbacks among these
compaction conditions (Keller et al., 2017). In other words, key processes. Because compaction results in a decrease in
compaction costs are incurred over the cumulative loss of soil total porosity, decompaction must involve an increase
soil functions integrated over the recovery time. The effects in overall porosity. However, a change in overall porosity
of compaction are relatively well documented (Håkansson is not a prerequisite for the restoration of certain ecolog-
et al., 1988; Horn et al., 1995; Lipiec & Hatano, 2003; Nawaz ical and hydrologic functions. One such example is root
et al., 2013); however, much less information is available on penetration, which may result in new continuous macrop-
the rates of soil function and structure restoration from com- ores that, after roots have decayed, improve soil aeration
paction. Evidence from field studies suggests that recovery and infiltration without any change in total porosity (Dexter,
of compacted soil, especially subsoil, is an exceedingly slow 1987a). On the other hand, certain recovery processes such
process extending over periods of decades or even centuries as tillage may decompact the soil (i.e., increases in pore vol-
(Schjønning et al., 2015). ume) without greatly improving other functions such as gas
Whereas compacted soil surfaces may be rapidly loos- exchange (Weisskopf et al., 2010). Knowledge of compaction
ened by soil tillage, tillage does not simply “uncompact” recovery is based on a few field studies that measured a
a compaction-damaged soil. Tillage may increase soil bulk limited number of soil properties at different times after
porosity and reduce mechanical impedance in the tilled layer; a compaction event (e.g., Berisso et al., 2012; Blackwell
however, tillage-created soil fragments remain largely com- et al., 1985; Peng & Horn, 2008) or land use change (Beck-
pacted and lack ecological traits of uncompacted soil. Con- Broichsitter et al., 2020), often with poor temporal reso-
sequently, compaction effects often persist in the topsoil for lution (e.g., only two sampling times, shortly after com-
several years even under conventional tillage (Arvidsson & paction and several years later). Besson et al. (2013) reported
1004 KELLER ET AL.

limited soil structure recovery after compaction in a silt loam asl). The SSO has two experimental factors (compaction level
soil but their study was limited to 1 yr of observations. Gre- and postcompaction soil management, see below) in a strip-
gory et al. (2007) monitored penetration resistance in three plot design with three field replications of each compaction
soils during 1.3 yr following compaction and concluded that by management combination (plot size is 10 m by 17 m; total
coarse textured soils are less resilient to compaction stress. experimental area ∼1 ha). A detailed description of the SSO is
Laboratory and lysimeter studies have contributed some quan- reported in Keller et al. (2017). The soil is a deep gleyic Cam-
titative information on compaction recovery, but typically bisol (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015) with a loamy texture
addressed one or two processes only (drying–wetting, Barze- (average texture 27% clay, 48% silt, 25% sand). Soil organic
gar et al., 1995; freezing–thawing, Viklander, 1998; drying– C content is 1.7% in the topsoil (0–0.2 m depth), 0.8% in the
wetting and freezing–thawing, Arthur et al., 2012; Gregory subsoil (0.3–0.5 m depth), and average soil pH(CaCl2 ) is 6.9.
et al., 2009; root penetration, Pulido-Moncada et al., 2020). A meteorological station from the Swiss Federal Office of
Arthur et al. (2013) performed experiments with sieved soil Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss) is located within
in boxes placed outdoors and reported that clay type was a 200 m of the experimental site. Mean annual temperature is
crucial factor for soil structure evolution. There is a need for 9.4 ˚C, and mean annual precipitation is 1,054 mm.
a more mechanistic description of how compacted soil recov- In preparation for the compaction experiment, the site was
ers that captures time scales of respective processes and dis- sown (April 2013) with a perennial grass–legume mixture
entangles these processes with respect to their contribution to (SM 442; Suter et al., 2008) reinforced with an additional 4 kg
functional recovery and decompaction. ha−1 of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.). Prior to the establish-
To obtain systematic information necessary for quantify- ment of our experiment, the experimental site was a conven-
ing soil structure recovery rates following compaction, we tionally managed arable field (arable crop rotation, conven-
initiated a long-term field experiment, termed the Soil Struc- tional soil, and crop management with moldboard plowing
ture Observatory (SSO). The primary objectives of the SSO to about 0.25 m depth). The primary treatment for the SSO
were to monitor soil structure recovery after compaction con- was a one-time compaction event in March 2014, using three
sidering different compaction patterns and postcompaction passes of a self-propelled two-axle agricultural vehicle (front
soil management treatments. The experiment, arranged in wheel load 8,900 kg, rear wheel load 7,200 kg; 1,050/50R32
three replicates, permits the quantification of soil structure tires on all wheels with an inflation pressure of 330 kPa). We
and function recovery rates under natural conditions with focus here on monitoring physical soil properties from two
and without plants and under crop rotations with and with- compaction levels: compaction of the entire plot area (track-
out tillage (Keller et al., 2017). The aim of this study was to by-track; Figure 1a), and control (i.e., no experimental com-
quantify short-term soil structure recovery under natural con- paction). Following the compaction under moist conditions
ditions in the presence and absence of plant cover (ley and (soil matric potential slightly decreasing between −60 hPa at
bare soil) during the first 2 yr after compaction. We measured 0.1 m depth to −100 hPa at 0.7 m depth; Keller et al., 2017)
soil macropore features and soil gas and water transport prop- in March 2014, four postcompaction soil management treat-
erties, and discussed mechanisms of soil structure recovery. ments were established: permanent ley (continuation of the
This study addresses the following research questions: in-sown lay), bare soil, crop rotation without tillage, and crop
rotation with tillage. In this study we present data from the
∙ Are the temporal characteristics of recovery different for ley and bare soil treatments. The SSO is arranged as a block
different soil physical properties? design with three replications (Keller et al., 2017). Because
∙ How does recovery of physical properties vary with soil the compaction treatment was applied on the ley that was sown
depth? uniformly over the entire experimental site 1 yr prior to com-
∙ How does the presence or absence of vegetation affect soil paction, all postcompaction management treatments (ley, bare
structure recovery? soil) started with similar conditions. For the bare soil treat-
ment, we terminated the ley immediately after compaction
We hypothesized that recovery rates (a) differ between soil
using herbicides.
physical properties, (b) are not constant over time, and (c) are
Following the compaction treatment, no machinery traf-
promoted by vegetation (and associated biological activity).
fic or other soil disturbances (tillage) were permitted in the
ley and the bare soil treatments apart from a one-axle motor
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS mower (total mass ∼200 kg) to cut the ley. Hence, we con-
sider observations from these treatments as indicative of nat-
2.1 Experimental site and design ural soil structure recovery in the presence and absence of
plants, respectively. For the bare plots, we suppressed emer-
The study summarizes observations obtained from the SSO, gence and establishment of vegetation through periodic appli-
located near Zürich, Switzerland (47.4˚ N and 8.5˚ E, 444 m cation of nonselective herbicides (frequency, dosage, and
KELLER ET AL. 1005

F I G U R E 1 Impressions from the experimental site. Soil surface of the track-by-track treatment (compaction of the entire plot area; tire width
1.05 m, one tire track is indicated by dashed white lines in each photo) (a) at the day of compaction infliction (end of March 2014) after the passage of
the two-axle self-propelled agricultural vehicle, (b) at the end of October 2014 (7 mo after compaction), and (c) in the beginning of May 2015 (13 mo
after compaction). (d) Ponding water in the compacted plot of the bare soil treatment in the beginning of May 2016, 25 mo after the compaction event

herbicide product based on need). Occasional growth of tions within each block and depth for precompaction mea-
weeds cannot be avoided but was kept at a minimum as herbi- surements (Keller et al., 2017) were 3–5% for total porosity
cide application was frequent. The ley was cut 4–5 times per and 20–28% for saturated hydraulic conductivity. All post-
year and manually removed from the experimental plots. compaction measurements were done at the plot level at 2–3
Sampling and measurements of all soil properties described randomly selected locations in each experimental plot.
in this study were made in autumn 2013 (approximately 5 mo
before compaction), in spring 2014 shortly after compaction,
and about 6 mo (autumn 2014), 12 mo (spring 2015), and 24 2.2 Water infiltration
mo (spring 2016) after compaction. That is, the sampling fre-
quency was higher (every 6 mo) during the initial phase of the We measured steady-state infiltration at the soil surface at
experiment. All in situ measurements and sampling were done three locations per experimental plot using a constant head
at similar soil moisture conditions (around field capacity). single-ring infiltrometer (diameter 0.2 m) (Perroux & White,
Characterization of the precompaction state (autumn 2013) 1988). After placing the ring, vegetation inside the ring was
involved sampling and measurements at 12 randomly selected cut with scissors as close to the soil surface as possible with-
locations in each experimental block. Coefficients of varia- out disturbing the soil, worm casts were collected, and stones
1006 KELLER ET AL.

or lumps of soil that extended above the rim of the ring were and saturated hydraulic conductivity was measured using the
carefully removed. No material was added to level the ground. constant head method (Klute & Dirksen, 1986). Hereby, the
If the ground inside the randomly placed ring was too uneven pressure was adjusted for each sample to ensure laminar flow
for the measurement, a new random location was chosen. The (average pressure ∼5 kPa). Finally, all samples were dried in
applied pressure head was about 5 mm (Perroux & White, an oven at 105 ˚C for at least 24 h and then their dry weight
1988) and the rate of infiltration was deduced from the drop in was determined, which served as a basis for the calculation
water reservoir with time and translated to a cumulative infil- of bulk density, soil water contents, and air-filled porosities at
tration vs. time relationship. each matric potential.

2.3 Soil penetration resistance 2.5 X-ray micro-computed tomography:

Image acquisition, processing, and analysis
Soil penetration resistance was measured with five random
insertions per plot to 0.8 m depth using an Eijkelkamp pen- All x-ray images were acquired using a GE Phoenix v|tome|x
etrologger with a cone base of 1 cm2 and a cone angle of 240 S industrial x-ray scanner with a four megapixel detector
60˚ (Eijkelkamp Soil & Water). For further analysis in this (GE DRX250). Scanner setup and reconstruction parameters
study, we calculated the average penetration resistance at are given in Supplemental Table S1. We deliberately compro-
0.05–0.15 m (mean 0.1 m depth) and 0.25–035 m (mean 0.3 m mised on the resolution (and hence the detectable features)
depth) for each plot and sampling date. Due to a malfunction using binning in favor of being able to scan more samples.
of the penetrometer device, data from autumn 2013 and spring The obtained image voxel size of 60 μm allows for detection
2014 had to be discarded. of objects with diameters of approximately 120 μm or larger.
We used ImageJ/Fiji (Schindelin et al., 2012; Schneider
et al., 2012) with the SoilJ plugin (Koestel, 2018) to process
2.4 Soil core sampling and measurements and evaluate the three dimensional x-ray images (parameters
are summarized in Supplemental Table S1). Soil column out-
Undisturbed cylindrical soil cores (diameter 0.05 m, height lines within each image were automatically detected using
0.05 m) were sampled at the 0.1 and 0.3 m depth (depths SoilJ. We applied a median filter with a radius of two vox-
refer to the center of a soil core) using an Eijkelkamp sam- els to reduce image noise, followed by an unsharp mask with
ple ring kit model C (Eijkelkamp Soil & Water). We used SD of two voxels and a weighting factor of 0.6 to sharpen
custom-made sample rings in aluminum that are better suited phase boundaries in the images. We compensated for resid-
for use in an x-ray scanner (Section 2.4). At each sampling ual beam-hardening, using an exponential function to capture
event, we collected three (spring 2014) or two (autumn 2014, averaged radial brightness biases. The greyscale of all three-
spring 2015, spring 2016) soil cores per plot and depth. dimensional images was calibrated to the grey-value of the
The difference in number of sampling points reflects char- column wall (aluminum) and the 0.1 percentile of the grey-
acterization of the compaction impact (spring 2014) and values corresponding to soil (the latter serves as a proxy for
monitoring (autumn 2014 and subsequent sampling events). the grey-value of air filled pores; Koestel et al., 2018). The
Moreover, we compromised on the number of samples per plot greyscale calibration process was applied on individual hor-
and depth in favor of being able to sample more frequently. izontal image layers, which enables the correction of image
The samples were stored at 2 ˚C until further processing. A illumination biases in the vertical direction (Koestel, 2018).
similar measurement procedure was applied to all samples. We then calculated two-dimensional histograms (featuring
The soil samples were gradually saturated from below and the grey-values and their first spatial derivative) of all three-
then drained to a matric potential of −10 kPa on ceramic plates dimensional x-ray images and segmented the x-ray images
(Ecotec). Next, we measured air permeability and then gas into three distinct image phases (air-filled macropores, par-
diffusivity. Air permeability was obtained by measuring the ticulate organic matter including roots, and all denser imaged
air flow through the sample at an overpressure of 2 hPa, and phases) as described in Koestel and Schlüter (2019).
gas diffusivity was measured in a one-chamber apparatus that We used SoilJ in combination with two other ImageJ plu-
uses O2 as the diffusing gas assuming steady-state diffusion; gins, MorphoLibJ (Legland et al., 2016) and BoneJ (Doube
both methods are described in Martínez et al. (2016). Next, we et al., 2010), to quantify the morphology of the imaged air-
randomly selected one sample per plot and depth and scanned filled macropore network. We investigated the macroporos-
them using three-dimensional x-ray computed tomography ity (m3 m−3 ), the macropore surface area (m2 ), the critical
for quantification of soil macropore architecture as detailed pore diameter (m) and the hydraulic radius (m), as well as
below. For this, samples were drained to −30 kPa to ensure all three connectivity measures: the connection probability, also
visible pores were air-filled. All samples were saturated again known as Γ-connectivity (-), the Euler-Poincaré number (-),
KELLER ET AL. 1007

and the percolating porosity (m3 m−3 ). We refer to Jarvis et al. LSD tests at p < .05 as implemented in the R-package agrico-
(2017) for a detailed description of these properties. lae (de Mendiburu, 2017). Furthermore, we calculated Pear-
son correlation coefficients between properties obtained from
x-ray imaging (Section 2.4) and fluid transport properties (air
2.6 Earthworm biomass and surface cast permeability, gas diffusivity, saturated hydraulic conductiv-
production ity).

Earthworms were collected in a squared area of 0.25 m2 , with

two replicates in each experimental plot. First, we excavated 3 RESULTS
the top 0.3 m and collected earthworms by hand sorting. Then,
a 0.5% formaldehyde solution was applied to extract earth- Images from the experimental site at various points in time
worms from the subsoil (Kramer et al., 2008). Adults were after compaction are shown in Figure 1 for general impres-
determined to the species level and juveniles to ecological sion of compaction effects. The soil surface on the day of
groups. An estimate of earthworm egestion rates at the soil compaction after the passage of the vehicle is depicted in
surface was obtained in 2014 by collecting earthworm casts Figure 1a. The tire imprints (tire lug pattern) were clearly visi-
on the surface. Two locations were randomly selected in each ble 7 mo (Figure 1b) after compaction, and still recognizable 1
plot, and casts were collected within circular areas of 0.2 m yr (Figure 1c) and 2 yr (Figure 1d) after compaction. The first
diameter at each location. winter with occasional snow cover led to slaking and surface
levelling in the bare soil plots (Figure 1c). Compaction effects
on water infiltration capacity are obvious after rain events as
2.7 Soil state variables monitored in the shown in Figure 1d.
SSO

The SSO includes an extensive network of soil-embedded 3.1 Infiltration at the soil surface
sensors used for continuous in situ measurements of state
variables (soil water content, soil matric potential, soil tem- Following compaction, the rate of surface water infiltration
perature, O2 diffusion rate, redox potential, and O2 and CO2 significantly decreased (p < .05) by three orders of magni-
concentrations) at various depths (see Keller et al. [2017] for tude from ∼10 mm min−1 to ∼0.01 mm min−1 (Figure 2). We
details). The sensors were installed in two of the three exper- observed a rapid recovery of infiltration rates 6 mo after com-
imental blocks. In this study, we present data on soil water paction, the infiltration rates were about 1 mm min−1 in the
contents and on O2 concentrations in soil air. Water contents compacted plots irrespective of vegetation cover (Figure 2).
were measured using in-house–produced two-prong (∼0.15 m Soil recovery continued in the ley treatment during winter,
length) time-domain reflectometry probes (Jones et al., 2002), and 1 yr after compaction (spring 2015) there was no signif-
with two probes per plot and depth and recorded every 30 min. icant difference (p > .05) in infiltration between compacted
Soil O2 concentrations were measured biweekly from porous and control plots of the ley treatment (Figure 2). It is unlikely
polypropylene tubes inserted in the soil at various depths (two that the very brief freezing and thawing events had signifi-
tubes per plot and depth) using a CheckMate 9900 head space cantly contributed to improved infiltration, as air temperature
analyzer (PBI Dan-sensor A/S) as described in Weisskopf was only occasionally below zero in Zürich (on average 21 d
et al. (2010). per year with mean air temperature below 0 ˚C; Supplemental
Figure S1). For the bare soil, the improvement in infiltration
during winter 2014–2015 was marginal (Figure 2), and infil-
2.8 Statistical analyses tration in bare soil was significantly lower (p < .05) than in
the ley treatment in spring 2015. Apart from a tendency of
Data were analyzed with linear mixed models followed by decreasing infiltration in the compacted bare soil treatment,
analysis of covariance using the nlme package in R (Pinheiro no changes in infiltration were measured between 1 yr (spring
et al., 2021). The effects of compaction, postcompaction man- 2015) and 2 yr (spring 2016) after compaction (Figure 2).
agement (ley, bare soil), and their interaction were set as fixed
factors, and the sampling time point was set as a fixed covari-
able. To account for repeated measurements, the plot effect 3.2 Soil penetration resistance, bulk
was set as a random factor. Results obtained at different depths density, porosity, and fluid transport properties
were analyzed separately. The statistical model is given in
Supplemental Figure S1, Equation S1. In addition, treatment As expected, the soil bulk density increased significantly (and
mean values within one sampling time were compared using total porosity decreased) due to compaction at the measured
1008 KELLER ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 Infiltration at the soil surface of the compacted and noncompacted (control) plots of the ley and bare soil treatments. Error bars
represent SE (n = 3)

0.1 and 0.3 m depths (p < .05; Supplemental Table S2). plemental Tables S5 and S7). Nonsignificant difference for
Compaction significantly increased penetration resistance and the latter may also be related to the generally higher vari-
reduced air-filled porosity, gas diffusivity, air permeability, ability of fluid transport properties than bulk properties in
and saturated hydraulic conductivity (p < .05; Supplemental combination with the limited number of field replicates (three
Table S2 and S4), with effects more pronounced at 0.1 than experimental blocks; Section 2.1). Considering the fact that
at the 0.3 m depth. Compaction affected various soil physi- all measured values were consistently lower (porosity, fluid
cal properties to different extents, with the smallest relative transport properties) and consistently higher (bulk density,
reduction (∼5% at 0.3 m depth and ∼15% at 0.1 m depth) for penetration resistance), respectively, in the compacted than in
bulk density (Figure 3) and the largest reduction (one to two the noncompacted soil, the statistical analyses indicate very
orders of magnitude) for air permeability (Figure 4). limited recovery for bulk properties (porosity, bulk density,
The temporal evolution of soil physical properties at 0.1 penetration resistance) and trends of recovery for functional
and 0.3 m depths for the ley and bare soil treatments within soil properties (gas and water transport) within the first 2 yr
the first 2 yr after compaction are shown in Figures 3 and 4 after compaction.
and Supplemental Figures S2–S5. We did not find any sig- From soil bulk density measurements, we recognize a cer-
nificant change with time for any of the measured prop- tain degree of temporal variability between sampling times
erties obtained from soil core samples (i.e., no significant (Figure 3), which could be due to swell–shrink effects (as
recovery trends [p > .05; Supplemental Table S2]). Soil soil moisture conditions were slightly variable between sam-
penetration resistance revealed significant changes with time pling times; e.g., Goutal et al., 2012) and spatial variability
(Supplemental Table S4), but these were not associated with within experimental plots. To better reveal trends related to
recovery (Supplemental Figure S5). Bulk density and pen- compaction recovery, and minimize impacts due to temporal
etration resistance showed no signs of recovery (Figure 3; variability between samplings of soil properties of control
Supplemental Figure S5). Trends of recovery were observed plots, we plotted relative values as the ratio of measured
for air permeability (Figure 4), air-filled porosity, gas dif- data on compacted plots to measured data on noncompacted
fusivity, and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Supplemental plots for each sampling time. This made differences in impact
Figures S2–S4). When comparing treatments for each sam- of compaction and differences in recovery rates among soil
pling time separately, differences between compacted and properties evident (Figure 5). Generally, properties that were
noncompacted plots were generally still significant (p < .05) most severely affected by compaction showed signs of recov-
2 yr after compaction for penetration resistance, bulk den- ery. Total porosity revealed no signs of recovery, whereas an
sity, and air-filled and total porosity, whereas they were not increase in air-filled porosity, gas diffusivity, and air perme-
statistically significant anymore (p > .05) for gas diffusivity, ability was measured during the first year following com-
air permeability, and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Sup- paction (Figure 5). However, measurements revealed little
KELLER ET AL. 1009

FIGURE 3 Evolution of bulk density at (a) 0.1 m and (b) 0.3 m depth as a function of time after compaction. Error bars represent SE (n = 3)

signs of recovery during the second year following com- soil treatments during the second year following compaction
paction for any soil property (Figure 5). The constancy of (Figure 4; Supplemental Figures S2–S4).
soil bulk density or total porosity in the compacted treatments
(Figures 3 and 5) indicates that decompaction by upward
transport of soil particles and internal soil volume expansion 3.3 Macropore system architecture based
were limited. on computed tomography imaging
Little differences between the ley and the bare
soil treatment (Figures 3 and 4; Supplemental Figure 6a shows illustrative examples of cross-sections
Figures S2–S4) suggest that the presence or absence of through soil core samples before compaction, immediately
vegetation had no significant effect (p > .05; Supplemental after compaction, and 2 yr after compaction. The differences
Table S2) on the recovery of soil physical properties in the in porosity are clearly visible with numerous macropores
first 2 yr following compaction. However, we observed a (rounded pores are presumably biopores and planar pores
tendency toward deteriorating physical properties in the bare are presumably shrinkage cracks) present before compaction,
1010 KELLER ET AL.

F I G U R E 4 Evolution of air permeability at a matric potential of −10 kPa at (a) 0.1 m and (b) 0.3 m depth as a function of time after
compaction. Error bars represent SE (n = 3)

only a few remaining macropores after compaction, and a tributing to the decline in air permeability (Figure 4) and
gradual reappearance of macropores 2 yr after compaction. saturated hydraulic conductivity (Supplemental Figure S4).
Deduced macroporosity (equivalent pore diameter >120 μm) Macropore properties obtained from x-ray imaging were
decreased due to compaction by more than 80% (Figure 6b). strongly correlated with fluid transport properties (r = .45–
This is a larger decrease than we measured for air-filled .78; Supplemental Table S6). These results indicate a strong
porosity at a matric potential of −10 kPa corresponding to negative effect of compaction on large pores and their connec-
pores with an equivalent diameter of 30 μm (Supplemental tivity, resulting in stronger decrease of fluid transport proper-
Figure S2), indicating that large macropores were more ties than air-filled or total porosity (Figures 3 and 4; Supple-
affected by compaction than smaller macropores. Percolating mental Figures S2–S4).
porosity and connectivity decreased by 60–90% due to com- The improvement of macroporosity, critical pore diam-
paction (Figure 6b), illustrating that compaction had adverse eter, percolating porosity, and connectivity with time after
impacts on pore connectivity. Compaction also caused a compaction (Figure 6b) indicates signs of structural recov-
strong reduction in critical pore diameter (Figure 6b), con- ery, although differences between sampling times were not
KELLER ET AL. 1011

F I G U R E 5 Different soil physical properties are differently affected by compaction (c.f., data some days after compaction) and recover at
different rates. The figure shows relative values of the compacted plots (noncompacted = 1.0) for total porosity, air-filled porosity, gas diffusivity,
and air permeability of the ley treatment at 0.1 m depth. Error bars represent SE (n = 3)

statistically significant (p > .05) due to relatively high local Compaction resulted in generally lower soil water con-
variability (Supplemental Table S3). Similar to porosity and tents, which was particularly pronounced in the ley treatment
fluid transport properties (previous section), we found no sig- (Figure 8b). The control (no compaction) treatments tended
nificant change with time for any of the measured proper- to wet more gradually following rainfall (c.f., the slope of
ties (Supplemental Table S3), and we found nonsignificant the increase in water content of the compacted vs. control
differences between compacted and noncompacted soil 2 yr ley in the beginning of November 2016 in Figure 8b). Bare
after compaction (Supplemental Table S6), indicating recov- soil remained wetter compared with soil under ley due to the
ery trends. The high correlations between macropore charac- absence of water uptake by vegetation (Figure 8b).
teristics and gas transport properties (Supplemental Table S8)
indicate that the re-creation of a connected macropore sys-
tem is crucial for the improvement of fluid transport prop- 3.5 Earthworm biomass
erties. We therefore suggest that the creation of new macro-
pores in an initially compacted bulk soil plays an important Earthworm biomass for the three classical ecological groups
role in the recovery of gas and water transport properties, and is presented in Table 1. Total earthworm biomass was about
hypothesize that this promotes the progression of the recovery 2,000 kg per hectare in the noncompacted ley, except in 2015
front from pockets (hotspots) into the bulk soil, as discussed when only ∼600 kg of earthworms were found. This could be
below. due to unfavorably dry conditions during sampling in 2015 (or
other unknown temporal variation). The compaction event in
spring 2014 significantly reduced (p < .05) total earthworm
3.4 Soil moisture and aeration conditions in biomass to about one-third of the precompaction population.
the soil profile The relative decline in earthworm abundance was similar
for epigeic and endogeic earthworms, whereas anecic earth-
Figure 8 illustrates impacts of deteriorated gas and water worms were slightly less affected by compaction (Table 1).
transport properties on O2 concentration levels in soil air and The ratio of earthworm biomass of the compacted to the
on soil water contents. The reduced gas transport capability control treatment increased slightly in the ley (to about 56%)
of the compacted soil (Figure 4; Supplemental Figure S3) but remained very low for the bare soil (only 13% biomass in
reduced O2 concentrations in the topsoil (not shown) and the compacted relative to control) 1 yr after compaction (2015;
subsoil (Figure 8a). Oxygen concentrations as low as 5% were Table 1). In that same year we measured the highest earth-
measured in the compacted treatments in the first 2–3 mo worm biomass in the bare soil control treatment. We interpret
(spring) after the compaction event. this observation as indicating temporally ideal conditions in
1012 KELLER ET AL.

F I G U R E 6 Quantification of soil pore system using computed tomography imaging (pores >120 μm, based on voxel size of 60 μm). (a)
Illustrative examples of cross sections through soil cores, and (b) evolution of macropore characteristics (plotted as relative values,
noncompacted = 1.0) of the ley treatment at 0.1 m depth. Error bars in (b) represent SE (n = 3)

TA B L E 1 Earthworm biomass in kg ha−1

2015 2016
2013 2014 Control Compacted Control Compacted
Variable Precompaction Control Compacted Ley Bare soil Ley Bare soil Ley Bare soil Ley Bare soil
Ecological group
Epigeic 107 115 35 8 13 45 0 139 70 116 2
Endogeic 499 476 155 197 278 76 80 492 436 286 266
Anecic 1,581 1,484 605 394 599 217 32 1,205 820 936 828
Total biomass 2,187 2,075 794 600 890 338 112 1,836 1,326 1,337 1,096

Note. In 2014, earthworms were sampled shortly after the compaction event and therefore only distinguish control and compacted soil, as the duration of the ley vs. bare
soil treatments was too short to show any effect.

the bare soil (high soil moisture, e.g., Figure 8b; with suf- the ley, although not at a significant level (p > .05) (Table 1;
ficient C food resources in the soil from decomposed plant Supplemental Table S7).
material). In spring 2016, 2 yr after the compaction event, From the sampling of earthworm casts at the soil surface,
earthworm biomass in compacted plots were 73–83% but not we estimated an excretion rate at the soil surface of about
significantly lower (p > .05) than those in control plots, and 1.5 kg m2 yr−1 (of soil). Slightly higher egestion rates were
the total biomass in the bare soil treatments were lower than in estimated for bare soil than for the ley treatment.
KELLER ET AL. 1013

4 DISCUSSION increased unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (Richard et al.,

2001), and increased evaporative length (i.e., greater depth at
An important observation stemming from this study is that which evaporation occurs) in compacted soil (Or & Lehmann,
different soil physical properties follow different recovery 2019), and, for ley, a shallower root system in compacted
paths and rates (Figures 3 and 4; Supplemental Figures S2– soil due to increased penetration resistance (Supplemental
S4). In general, soil physical properties have not fully recov- Figure S5; Colombi et al., 2018).
ered to precompaction values within 2 yr after compaction
as seen in our measurements (Figures 3–6; Supplemental
Figures S2–S4) and supported from observations of ponding 4.1 Postcompaction recovery rates differ
water after large rainfall events (Figure 1d). Previous studies among soil properties
have reported that compaction could persist for decades (for
an overview, see Keller et al., 2017 and references therein). Soil properties that were most strongly affected by soil com-
Notably, our data demonstrate that natural recovery is slow paction displayed trends of recovery. The soil total porosity
also within the topsoil (0.1 m depth), whereas many previ- was reduced by about 15% due to compaction but did not
ous studies reporting persistency of compaction focused on change much during the first 2 yr after compaction, whereas
tilled soil (Arvidsson & Håkansson, 1996; Besson et al., 2013; air permeability, which reduced by almost two orders of mag-
Weisskopf et al., 2010) or on subsoil (Berisso et al., 2012; nitude, has shown signs of recovery 1 yr after compaction
Håkansson et al., 1988; Peng & Horn, 2008). (Figure 5). However, we note the bias in our ability to detect
We were unable to discern differences in recovery of soil recovery from compaction that is greater for a property that
physical properties between the ley and the bare soil treatment exhibited a larger change due to compaction than a property
after 2 yr, contrary to expectation that biological activity with that was not strongly affected by compaction. Nevertheless,
plants would promote soil functional recovery. Root decay in different recovery rates for different soil physical properties
the bare soil may have contributed to the formation of new are expected because of differences in sensitivity to small
pore spaces for transport of water and air. Part of this lack of changes in soil pore features.
difference is possibly also attributed to sufficient quantities Because different soil properties are governed by dis-
of residual soil organic C in the bare soil after compaction tinct soil pore characteristics (porosity, connectivity, criti-
that supported burrowing activity at levels not yet hindered cal pore diameter), recovery rates vary between soil proper-
by available soil organic C (energy source). Similar initial ties. This also implies that different recovery processes (root
increases in surface infiltration in the bare soil and ley treat- growth, earthworm bioturbation, shrink–swell and freeze–
ments (April–Novembers 2014; Figure 2) support this argu- thaw cycles) affect different soil properties in different ways
ment, although shrinkage cracks induced by surface drying and magnitudes. We found a relatively fast recovery of air
during summer may have also contributed to the increase in permeability within the first year after compaction, but lit-
surface infiltration. During winter, recovery was retarded in tle further change during the second year after compaction
the bare soil treatments (Figure 2), possibly by surface slaking (Figure 5). Air permeability and saturated hydraulic conduc-
and seal formation (Figure 1c), which was observed to occur tivity are governed by the largest continuous pores and critical
during periods of rapid snowmelt. Surface slaking in bare soil pore diameter (i.e., the bottleneck) (Berli et al., 2008; Koestel
may also result in downward transport of soil particles caus- et al., 2018). Therefore, destruction or distortion of large pores
ing pore clogging (Le Bissonnais, 2010; Yang et al., 2020); by compaction (Figure 6) dramatically reduces air permeabil-
indeed, data from our last sampling date 2 yr after compaction ity and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Conversely, a new
may indicate the onset of soil structure degradation in the bare macropore, created by an earthworm or a plant root, can con-
soil control plots (Figures 2–4). The different management siderably increase permeability. This is supported by strong
by compaction combinations resulted in certain differences in correlations between macropore characteristics and air per-
soil conditions, but the interactions are complex. Oxygen con- meability and saturated hydraulic conductivity, respectively
centrations in soil air were generally low in the ley indepen- (Supplemental Table S8). The temporal evolution of air per-
dent of compaction level and higher in the noncompacted bare meability (Figure 5) was closely linked to the evolution of
soil, which is likely due to higher biological activity in ley dur- macropore characteristics (Figure 6b). We hypothesize that
ing summer months (Figure 7a). The presence or absence of recovery rates of properties that are largely dependent on pore
vegetation had a stronger control on soil moisture than com- size (critical pore diameter) such as permeability show a step-
paction (Figure 7b). Water contents were generally lower in wise recovery, whereas properties that are less sensitive to
compacted soil, especially in ley (Figure 7b), which could be specific pore sizes (e.g., gas diffusivity) show more grad-
explained by reduced water infiltration capacity and saturated ual changes. This makes recovery rates of pore-size depen-
hydraulic conductivity (Figure 2; Supplemental Figure S4), dent properties difficult to predict because they involve a
1014 KELLER ET AL.

F I G U R E 7 Illustrative examples of compaction-induced deteriorated fluid transport properties on soil conditions: (a) O2 concentration at
0.4 m depth in the first year after compaction (error bars represent SE, n = 2 experimental blocks), and (b) soil water content at 0.1 m depth in the
third year after compaction (n = 2)

stochastic component: would, for example, an earthworm bur- decompaction (Table 2). We have to distinguish between soil
row through exactly this location in the soil or not? structure and function improvement (induced by a change
in pore size distribution and pore connectivity without a
change in total pore volume) and bulk soil decompaction (i.e.,
4.2 Recovery of total porosity requires net pore volume increase). Soil compaction is accompanied with
upward movement of soil particles and internal downward movement of soil particles, but recovery of macro-
bulk volume expansion porosity following compaction does not necessarily involve
upward movement of soil. In other words, compaction and
Several biotic and abiotic processes could improve soil struc- recovery of soil structure and function do not necessarily hap-
ture, thereby contributing to recover soil functions follow- pen along the same pathways, as also evidenced from our data
ing compaction, but not all of these processes promote soil (e.g., Figure 5).
KELLER ET AL. 1015

TA B L E 2 Biotic and abiotic processes of soil structure recovery following compaction

Excavation/soil
Recovery process expansion rate Persistence, legacy/remarks References
Biotic decompacting processes
Burrowing by anecic earthworms 10–50 Mg ha−1 yr−1 burrows can exist for years 1,2,3
Burrowing ants 1–5 Mg ha−1 yr−1 nests exist for years 3
Burrowing termites 1–5 Mg ha−1 yr−1 nests exist for years, termites restricted to tropical 3
regions
Burrowing invertebrates (e.g., <1 Mg ha−1 yr−1 limited knowledge on persistence 3
beetles)
Burrowing by ground-nesting wild 1–5 Mg ha−1 yr−1 limited knowledge on persistence of burrows 4,5
bees, wasps
Burrowing by mammals 1–5 Mg ha−1 yr−1†) burrows can exist for years, little considered in the 3
context of soil structure evolution, considered a pest
on arable fields
Soil uplifting by root heave a not enough knowledge
Biotic processes, no net volume
change
Bioturbation by endogeic – weeks to months (seasonal) 2
earthworms
Biopore formation by roots – root channels persist for years 6
Abiotic processes: potential net volume change but little quantitative information on expansion rates
Soil viscoelastic rebound b elastic rebound instantaneous, limited knowledge about 7
rebound after compaction at profile scale
Drying-induced shrinkage b seasonal: cracks close upon wetting, planes of 8
(shrink–swell cycles) weaknesses can remain, microstructural changes
needed to result in net volume change
b
Freezing (freeze–thaw cycles with can both increase or decrease porosity, impact on 9
ice lens formation) porosity depending on initial conditions and freezing
characteristics
Note. Only some processes involve upward movement of soil particles or soil expansion and therefore effectively decompact the soil, whereas others improve soil structure
and function through modification of soil pore size distribution without changing overall (total) porosity. Typical excavation (mounding) rates are given for decompacting
processes.
a Not enough knowledge, soil uplift rate as well as depth of influence are presumably small.
b
Not enough knowledge to give quantitative information on expansion rates.
References: 1) Edwards and Bohlen (1996); 2) Lee (1985); 3) Wilkinson et al. (2009); 4) Watanabe (1998); 5) Michener (2007); 6) Watt et al. (2006); 7) Or and Ghezzehei
(2002); 8) Dexter (1991); 9) Viklander (1998).

Soil volume expansion could occur due to wetting-induced Shrinkage and swelling may appear as similar processes but
swelling of active clay minerals (Arthur et al., 2013; Tessier, with opposite directions, suggesting no overall change in total
1990; Tuller & Or, 2003) during certain freeze–thaw pro- porosity upon repeated drying–wetting cycles (Diel et al.,
cesses with formation of ice lenses (Qi et al., 2006), or in 2019). However, changes in microstructure (i.e., particle rear-
the form of viscoelastic rebound after removing a load (Or & rangement) may occur during drying–shrinkage or wetting–
Ghezzehei, 2002), but we are not aware of quantitative infor- swelling (Tessier, 1990), which could result in an increase in
mation on expansion rates following compaction (Table 2). total porosity. Freeze–thaw cycles can increase or decrease
Shrinking and swelling can play an important role in improv- total porosity due to microstructural changes (Qi et al., 2006;
ing structure and function of soils containing expansive clay Viklander, 1998). However, freeze–thaw effects play a small
minerals. Drying-induced soil shrinkage forms desiccation role and only affected shallow soil depths at our experi-
cracks, which serve as pathways for water, air, and roots, and mental site due to the generally mild winters (Supplemental
increase the accessible surface area, thereby facilitating the Figure S1).
progression of recovery fronts as discussed below. Drying is Decompaction by removing of soil from a given volume
not only induced by climatic forces, plants play an important occurs by burrowing of fauna. Typical excavation rates are
role in drying soil (Figure 7b), especially at larger soil depths. indicated in Table 2. Whereas burrowing by earthworms (in
1016 KELLER ET AL.

F I G U R E 8 Conceptual figure of natural soil structure recovery after compaction. There are two recovery fronts, one progressing from the soil
surface downward, and one progressing from local pockets (such as biopores) to the bulk soil

temperate regions) and termites (in tropical areas) are well density due to compaction, recovery would take at least
recognized, less is known about impacts on soil structure evo- a decade for bulk porosity recovery to precompaction
lution and rates of soil excavation of ants, ground-nesting state.
flying insects, birds, or mammals, and their contribution to Growing plant roots often modify pore size distribution
soil structure evolution. Despite many beneficial contribu- by forming biopores without altering total porosity, because
tions to soil structure, not all earthworms decompact the bulk roots push soil radially within a fixed soil volume (Dexter,
soil (Table 2). Only those earthworms that ingest soil and lay 1987a). Consequently, plant root growth does not result in
cast at the soil surface are likely to contribute to soil decom- decompaction of bulk soil as indicated in Table 2. More-
paction at the soil profile scale. Earthworms that excrete casts over, evidence suggests that growing roots preferentially use
within the soil may change local bulk density but not overall existing macropores as far as possible resulting in a lim-
porosity at the profile scale. Considerable earthworm activ- ited number of new macropores, especially in compacted soil
ity is needed before changes in total porosity or bulk density (Colombi et al., 2017; Cresswell & Kirkegaard, 1995; Dex-
become detectable. The estimated excretion rate of 1.5 kg m2 ter, 1986; Or et al., 2021; Watt et al., 2006). Although we
yr−1 (corresponding to 15 Mg ha−1 yr−1 ) for the experiment have not attempted to separate pores created by roots or earth-
is well within estimates of egestion rates reported in the liter- worms in our analysis here, results show that macroporosity
ature (Table 2). Assuming a depth of bioturbation of 0.5 m increased after compaction (Figure 6), which improved fluid
(Jarvis et al., 2010) and taking an average bulk density of transport properties with nearly no changes in total porosity
1.5 Mg m−3 of the 0–0.5-m depth (Figure 3) suggests a (Figure 5). We note that the potential to modify soil struc-
decrease in bulk density of only about 0.005 Mg m−3 per ture differs between plant species (Bengough et al., 2011;
year (from 1.5 to 1.495 Mg m−3 ). This negligible decrease Helliwell et al., 2019; Muhandiram et al., 2020). A poten-
in bulk density is consistent with our observations that bulk tial mechanism involving root growth that would contribute
density did not recover in the first 2 yr following compaction to increasing total porosity is upward lifting of soil via root
(Figure 3). Even for an assumed excretion rate of 10 kg heave as exemplified with tree root growth (Philips & Mar-
m2 yr−1 , a maximum reported by Edwards and Bohlen ion, 2006), but it is unknown whether a similar process occurs
(1996) for temperate grassland, the associated decrease in in arable crops and ley with much finer roots (Table 2).
soil bulk density is only 0.02 Mg m−3 per year. Con- Presumably, the impact would be limited to a shallow soil
sidering the observed increase of 0.15–0.20 Mg in bulk layer.
KELLER ET AL. 1017

4.3 Structural recovery progresses from the recovery. In contrast, no recovery trend was measured for bulk
soil surface downwards and internally expands density and total porosity. This is because an increase in total
from pockets (hotspots) to bulk soil porosity requires upward transport of soil, whereas permeabil-
ity can be increased by creation of a new macropore that does
Based on observations of this study and considerations not require an increase in total porosity. Based on our obser-
discussed above, we deduce a conceptual framework for vations and considerations, we suggest that recovery proceeds
soil structure recovery after compaction. We propose that at two fronts, from the surface downward and from local pock-
recovery progresses along two recovery fronts (Figure 8): ets to the bulk soil. Top-down progression of the recovery
one that progresses from the soil surface downward, and front is explained by decreasing exposure to climatic forces
one that progresses from local pockets to bulk soil (i.e., into and decreasing biological activity with depth. Recovery pro-
compacted soil volumes). Progression from the soil surface ceeding from local pockets to the bulk soil implies that newly
downward is motivated by a decreasing exposure to climatic created pore volumes (biopores, desiccation cracks) may act
forces and decreasing biological activity with increasing as local hotspots of biological activity and facilitate further
distance from the soil surface, a conclusion supported by progression of earthworm burrowing, root proliferation, and
our findings that soil physical properties quickly recovered drying-induced shrinkage. Validation of this concept requires
at the soil surface (Figure 2) but not at greater depths (Fig- additional data of longer time series, as well as measurements
ures 4–6; Supplemental Figure S2–S4). Progression from in other soils and climates.
pockets to bulk soil implies that newly created pore volumes
(biopores, shrinkage cracks) act as hotspots for biological AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
activity (including soil aggregation and water uptake-induced Financial support from the Swiss National Science Foun-
shrinkage), providing access points for preferential expansion dation (SNSF) through the National Research Program
of pore spaces by roots and earthworms. The observed 68 “Soil Resources” is gratefully acknowledged (Project
increase in macroporosity and macropore connectivity after no. 406840-143061). SJS is supported by the Luxem-
compaction (Figure 6) indicate the development of such bourg National Research Fund (FNR) ATTRACT programme
pockets, and we hypothesize that these pockets facilitate (A16/SR/11254288). Dr. Peter Lehmann (ETH Zürich, Soil
the further propagation of recovery into still compacted soil and Terrestrial Environmental Physics) is thanked for per-
volumes. Additional data of longer time series at our site forming the randomization of sampling locations. Many
as well as other sites will be needed to obtain experimental present and former members of our research groups at Agro-
evidence of recovery progression from pockets to bulk soil. scope Zürich (Soil Quality and Soil Management) and ETH
The concept of facilitative fronts for soil structure recovery is Zürich (Soil and Terrestrial Environmental Physics, and Crop
supported by the role of strategic tillage for accelerating soil Science), and present and former members of Agroscope sup-
structure recovery under no-till as discussed by Conyers et al. port groups (Field Trial Support, Mechanical Workshop, and
(2019). Detailed discussion of such facilitative processes will Electronics Workshop) are thanked for their invaluable help
be explored in a future study. with soil sampling, design and installation of sensor probes,
field measurements, and farming operations.

5 CONCLUSIONS AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
Thomas Keller, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
Measurements at our field site show that soil physical prop- analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
erties have not recovered to precompaction levels within 2 yr Project administration, Writing-original draft, Writing-review
after a severe compaction, even in the topsoil. We found no and editing; Tino Colombi, Conceptualization, Formal anal-
difference between a treatment with (ley) and without vege- ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft,
tation (bare soil), presumably because the period of 2 yr after Writing-review and editing; Siul Ruiz, Formal analysis, Inves-
compaction in this study was too short to induce (and identify) tigation, Writing-review and editing; Stan Schymanski, Fund-
differences. We expect that continued monitoring can reveal ing acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-review
further distinctions between the management treatments and and editing; Peter Weisskopf, Funding acquisition, Inves-
allow us to better elucidate the relevant recovery rates and tigation, Methodology, Writing-review and editing; John
associated time scales for respective soil physical properties. Koestel, Formal analysis, Writing-review and editing; Mar-
Postcompaction recovery rates tended to decrease with depth, lies Sommer, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology;
are not constant over time, and differ between soil proper- Viktor Stadelmann, Investigation, Methodology; Dani Bre-
ties. Our data indicate that properties that were most severely itenstein, Investigation, Methodology; Norbert Kirchgess-
affected by compaction, such as air permeability and satu- ner, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-review and edit-
rated hydraulic conductivity, are the properties with trends of ing; Achim Walter, Funding acquisition, Writing-review and
1018 KELLER ET AL.

editing; Dani Or, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Berli, M., Kulli, B., Attinger, W., Keller, M., Leuenberger, J., Flühler, H.,
Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing- Springman, S. M., & Schulin, R. (2004). Compaction of agricultural
review and editing. and forest subsoils by tracked heavy construction machinery. Soil &
Tillage Research, 75, 37–52.
Blackwell, P. S., Ward, M. A., Lefevre, R. N., & Cowand, D. J.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (1985). Compaction of a swelling clay soil by agricultural traffic:
Authors declare no conflicts of interest. Effects upon conditions for growth of winter cereals and evidence
for some recovery of structure. Journal of Soil Science, 36, 633–650.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1985.tb00365.x
ORCID
Bouwman, L. A., & Arts, W. B. M. (2000). Effects of soil compaction on
Thomas Keller https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9383-3209 the relationships between nematodes, grass production and soil phys-
Tino Colombi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8493-4430 ical properties. Applied Soil Ecology, 14, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.
Siul Ruiz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6273-8516 1016/S0929-1393(00)00055-X
Stanislaus J. Schymanski https://orcid.org/0000-0002- Brus, D. J., & van den Akker, J. J. H. (2018). How serious a problem is
0950-2942 subsoil compaction in the Netherlands? A survey based on probability
Peter Weisskopf https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4952-174X sampling. SOIL, 4, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-37-2018
John Koestel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3230-5699 Buckingham, E. (1904). Contributions to our knowledge of the aeration
of soils. USDA Bureau of Soils Bulletin, 25, U.S. Government Printing
Norbert Kirchgessner https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-
Office.
6555 Colombi, T., Braun, S., Keller, T., & Walter, A. (2017). Artificial macro-
Achim Walter https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7753-9643 pores attract crop roots and enhance productivity on compacted soils.
Dani Or https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3236-2933 Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1283–1293. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.194
REFERENCES Colombi, T., Torres, L. C., Walter, A., & Keller, T. (2018). Feedbacks
Arthur, E., Moldrup, P., Schjønning, P., & de Jonge, L. W. (2013). Water between soil penetration resistance, root architecture and water uptake
retention, gas transport, and pore network complexity during short- limit water accessibility and crop growth– a vicious circle. Science
term regeneration of soil structure. Soil Science of America Journal, of the Total Environment, 626, 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
77, 1965–1976. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.07.0270 scitotenv.2018.01.129
Arthur, E., Schjønning, P., Moldrup, P., & de Jonge, L. W. (2012). Soil Conyers, M., van der Rijt, V., Oates, A., Poile, G., Kirkegaard, J., &
resistance and resilience to mechanical stresses for three differently Kirkby, C. (2019). The strategic use of minimum tillage within con-
managed sandy loam soils. Geoderma, 173–174, 50–60. https://doi. servation agriculture in southern New South Wales, Australia. Soil &
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.007 Tillage Research, 193, 17–26.
Arvidsson, J., & Håkansson, I. (1996). Do effects of soil compaction Cresswell, H. P., & Kirkegaard, J. A. (1995). Subsoil amelioration by
persist after ploughing? Results from 21 long-term field experiments plant-roots – the process and the evidence. Soil Research, 33, 221–
in Sweden. Soil & Tillage Research, 39, 175–197. 239. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9950221
Barzegar, A. R., Rengasamy, P., & Oades, J. M. (1995). Effect of de Mendiburu, F. (2017). Agricolae: Statistical procedures for agricul-
clay type and rate of wetting on the mellowing ratio of compacted tural research. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/agricolae/
soils. Geoderma, 68, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(95) DeArmond, D., Emmert, F., Lima, A. J. N., & Higuchi, N. (2019).
00022-G Impacts of soil compaction persist 30 years after logging opera-
Beck-Broichsitter, S., Gerke, H. H., Leue, M., von Jeetze, P., & Horn, R. tions in the Amazon Basin. Soil & Tillage Research, 189, 207–
(2020). Anisotropy of unsaturated soil hydraulic properties of eroded 216.
Luvisol after conversion to hayfield comparing alfalfa and grass plots. Dexter, A. R. (1986). Model experiments on the behaviour of roots at
Soil & Tillage Research, 198, 104553. the interface between a tilled seed-bed and a compacted sub-soil, III.
Bengough, A. G., McKenzie, B. M., Hallett, P. D., & Valentine, T. A. Entry of pea and wheat roots into cylindrical biopores. Plant and Soil,
(2011). Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A 95, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02378860
review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Dexter, A. R. (1987a). Compression of soil around roots. Plant and Soil,
Experimental Botany, 62, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq350 97, 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02383230
Besson, A., Séger, M., Giot, G., & Cousin, I. (2013). Identifying the Dexter, A. R. (1987b). Mechanics of root growth. Plant and Soil, 98,
characteristic scales of soil structural recovery after compaction from 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02378351
three in-field methods of monitoring. Geoderma, 204–205, 130–139. Dexter, A. R. (1991). Amelioration of soil by natural processes. Soil &
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.04.010 Tillage Research, 20, 87–100.
Berisso, F. E., Schjønning, P., Keller, T., Lamandé, M., Etana, A., de Diel, J., Vogel, H. J., & Schlüter, S. (2019). Impact of wetting and drying
Jonge, L. W., Iversen, B. V., Arvidsson, J., & Forkman, J. (2012). cycles on soil structure dynamics. Geoderma, 345, 63–71. https://doi.
Persistent effects of subsoil compaction on pore characteristics and org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.03.018
functions in a loamy soil. Soil & Tillage Research, 122, 42–51. Doube, M., Klosowski, M. M., Arganda-Carreras, I., Cordelieres, F. P.,
Berli, M., Carminati, A., Ghezzehei, T. A., & Or, D. (2008). Evolu- Dougherty, R. P., Jackson, J. S., Schmid, B., Hutchinson, J. R., & She-
tion of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of aggregated soils due felbine, S. J. (2010). BoneJ Free and extensible bone image analysis
to compressive forces. Water Resources Research, 44, W00C09. in ImageJ. Bone, 47, 1076–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2010.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006501 08.023
KELLER ET AL. 1019

Edwards, C. A., & Bohlen, P. (1996). Biology and ecology of earth- Kissling, M., Hegetschweiler, K. T., Rusterholz, H. - P., & Baur, B.
worms. Chapman & Hall. (2009). Short-term and long-term effects of human trampling on
Goutal, N., Boivin, P., & Ranger, J. (2012). Assessment of natural recov- above-ground vegetation, soil density, soil organic matter and soil
ery rate of soil specific volume following forest soil compaction. Soil microbial processes in suburban beech forests. Applied Soil Ecology,
Science Society of America Journal, 76, 1426–1435. https://doi.org/ 42, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.05.008
10.2136/sssaj2011.0402 Klute, A., & Dirksen, C. (1986). Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity:
Graves, A. R., Morris, J., Deeks, L. K., Rickson, R. J., Kibblewhite, M. Laboratory methods. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part
G., Harris, J. A., Farewell, T. S., & Truckle, I. (2015). The total costs 1, (pp. 687–732, 2nd ed.). SSSA Book Series 5, SSSA and ASA.
of soil degradation in England and Wales. Ecological Economics, 119, Koestel, J. (2018). SoilJ: An ImageJ plugin for the semiautomatic pro-
399–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.026 cessing of three-dimensional X-ray images of soils. Vadose Zone
Greenwood, K. L., & McKenzie, B. M. (2001). Grazing effects on soil Journal, 17. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2017.03.0062
physical properties and the consequences for pastures. Australian Koestel, J., Dathe, A., Skaggs, T. H., Klakegg, O., Ahmad, M. A., Babko,
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 41, 1231–1250. https://doi.org/ M., Giménez, D., Farkas, C., Nemes, A., & Jarvis, N. (2018). Estimat-
10.1071/EA00102 ing the permeability of naturally structured soil from percolation the-
Gregory, A. S., Watts, C. W., Griffiths, B. S., Hallett, P. D., Kuan, H. ory and pore space characteristics imaged by X-ray. Water Resources
L., & Whitmore, A. P. (2009). The effect of long-term soil manage- Research, 54, 9255–9263. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023609
ment on the physical and biological resilience of a range of arable and Koestel, J., & Schlüter, S. (2019). Quantification of the structure evo-
grassland soils in England. Geoderma, 153, 172–185. https://doi.org/ lution in a garden soil over the course of two years. Geoderma, 338,
10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.002 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.030
Gregory, A. S., Watts, C. W., Whalley, W. R., Kuan, H. L., Griffiths, Kramer, S., Weisskopf, P., & Oberholzer, H.-R. (2008). Status of earth-
B. S., Hallett, P. D., & Whitmore, A. P. (2007). Physical resilience worm populations after different compaction impacts and varying
of soil to field compaction and the interactions with plant growth and subsequent soil management practices (pp. 249–256). Proceedings of
microbial community structure. European Journal of Soil Science, 58, the 5th International Soil Conference, ISTRO Czech Branch.
1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00956.x Le Bissonnais, Y. (2010). Aggregate stability and assessment of soil
Helliwell, J. R., Sturrock, C. J., Miller, A. J., Whalley, W. R., & Mooney, crustability and erodibility: I. Theory and methodology. Euro-
S. J. (2019). The role of plant species and soil condition in the struc- pean Journal of Soil Science, 48, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
tural development of the rhizosphere. Plant Cell and Environment, 1365-2389.1997.tb00183.x
42, 1974–1986. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13529 Legland, D., Arganda-Carreras, I., & Andrey, P. (2016). MorphoLibJ:
Håkansson, I., Voorhees, W. B., & Riley, H. (1988). Vehicle and wheel Integrated library and plugins for mathematical morphology with
factors influencing soil compaction and crop response in different traf- ImageJ. Bioinformatics, 32, 3532–3534.
fic regimes. Soil & Tillage Research, 11, 239–282. Lee, K. E. (1985). Earthworms: Their ecology and relationships with
Horn, R., Domżżał, H., Słowińska-Jurkiewiecz, A., & van Owerkerk, C. soils and land use. Academic Press.
(1995). Soil compaction processes and their effects on the structure of Lipiec, J., & Hatano, R. (2003). Quantification of compaction effects on
arable soils and the environment. Soil & Tillage Research, 35, 23–36. soil physical properties and crop growth. Geoderma, 116, 107–136.
IUSS Working Group WRB. (2015). World reference base for soil https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00097-1
resources 2014: International soil classification system for naming Martínez, I., Chervet, A., Weisskopf, P., Sturny, W. G., Rek, J., & Keller,
soils and creating legends for soil maps (update 2015, World Soil T. (2016). Two decades of no-till in the Oberacker long-term field
Resources Reports No. 106). FAO. experiment: Part II. Soil porosity and gas transport parameters. Soil
Jarvis, N., Larsbo, M., & Koestel, J. (2017). Connectivity and percolation & Tillage Research, 163, 130–140.
of structural pore networks in a cultivated silt loam soil quantified by Michener, C. D. (2007). The bees of the world (2nd. ed.). Johns Hopkins.
X-ray tomography. Geoderma, 287, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Muhadiram, N. P. K., Humphreys, M. W., Fychan, R., Davies, J. W.,
geoderma.2016.06.026 Sanderson, R., & Marley, C. L. (2020). Do agricultural grasses bred
Jarvis, N. J., Taylor, A., Larsbo, M., Etana, A., & Rosén, K. (2010). Mod- for improved root systems provide resilience to machinery-derived
elling the effects of bioturbation on the re-distribution of 137 Cs in an soil compaction? Food and Energy Security, 9, e227.
undisturbed grassland soil. European Journal of Soil Science, 61, 24– Nawaz, M. F., Bourrie, G., & Trolard, F. (2013). Soil compaction impact
34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01209.x and modelling. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33,
Jones, S. B., Wraith, J. M., & Or, D. (2002). Time domain reflectometry 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0071-8
(TDR) measurement principles and applications. Hydrological Pro- Nordfjell, T., Öhman, E., Lindroos, O., & Ager, B. (2019). The tech-
cesses, 16, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.513 nical development of forwarders in Sweden between 1962 and 2012
Keller, T., Colombi, T., Ruiz, S., Manalili, M. P., Rek, J., Stadelmann, V., and of sales between 1975 and 2017. International Journal of For-
Wunderli, H., Breitenstein, D., Reiser, R., Oberholzer, H. - R., Schy- est Engineering, 30, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2019.
manski, S., Romero-Ruiz, A., Linde, N., Weisskopf, P., Walter, A., 1591074
& Or, D. (2017). Long-term soil structure observatory for monitor- Olesen, J. E., & Munkholm, L. J. (2007). Subsoil loosening in a crop
ing post-compaction evolution of soil structure. Vadose Zone Journal, rotation for organic farming eliminated plough pan with mixed effects
16(4). https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.11.0118 on crop yield. Soil & Tillage Research, 94, 376–385.
Keller, T., Sandin, M., Colombi, T., Horn, R., & Or, D. (2019). Historical Or, D., & Ghezzehei, T. A. (2002). Modeling post-tillage soil structural
increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress levels dynamics: A review. Soil & Tillage Research, 64, 41–59.
and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil & Tillage Research, 194, Or, D., & Lehmann, P. (2019). Surface evaporative capacitance: How
104293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104293 soil type and rainfall characteristics affect global-scale surface
1020 KELLER ET AL.

evaporation. Water Resources Research, 55. https://doi.org/10.1029/ Suter, D., Rosenberg, E., Frick, R., & Mosimann, E. (2008). Standard-
2018WR024050 mischungen für den Futterbau, Revision 2009–2012. Agrarforschung
Or, D., Keller, T., & Schlesinger, W. H. (2021). Natural and managed Schweiz, 15, 1–12.
soil structure: On the fragile scaffolding for soil functioning. Soil & Tessier, D. (1990). Behavior and microstructure of clay minerals. In M.
Tillage Research, 208, 104912. F. De Boodt, M. H. B. Hayes, & A. Herbillon (Eds.), Soil colloids and
Peng, X., & Horn, R. (2008). Time-dependent, anisotropic pore structure their associations in aggregates. Plenum Press.
and soil strength in a 10-year period after intensive tractor wheel- Tuller, M., & Or, D. (2003). Hydraulic functions for swelling soils: Pore
ing under conservation and conventional tillage. Journal of Plant scale considerations. Journal of Hydrology, 272, 50–71. https://doi.
Nutrition and Soil Science, 171, 936–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/ org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00254-8
jpln.200700084 Vennik, K., Kukk, P., Krebstein, K., Reintam, E., & Keller, T. (2019).
Perroux, K. M., & White, I. (1988). Designs for disc permeameters. Soil Measurements and simulations of rut depth due to single and multi-
Science Society of America Journal, 52, 1205–1215. https://doi.org/ ple passes of a military vehicle on different soil types. Soil & Tillage
10.2136/sssaj1988.03615995005200050001x Research, 186, 120–127.
Philips, J. D., & Marion, D. A. (2006). Biomechanical effects of trees Viklander, P. (1998). Permeability and volume changes in till due to
on soil and regolith: Beyond treethrow. Annals of the Association cyclic freeze/thaw. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, 471–477.
of American Geographers, 96, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-015
1467-8306.2006.00476.x Watanabe, H. (1998). Soil excavation by the deutzia andrenid bee
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team (Andrena prostimias) in a temple garden in Hyogo Prefecture,
(2021). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R pack- Japan. Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/
age version 3.1-152. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. S0929-1393(97)00054-1
Pulido-Moncada, M., Katuwal, S., Ren, L., Cornelis, W., & Munkholm, Watt, M., Kirkegaard, J. A., & Passioura, J. B. (2006). Rhizosphere
L. (2020). Impact of potential bio-subsoilers on pore network of a biology and crop productivity – a review. Australian Journal of Soil
severely compacted subsoil. Geoderma, 363, 114154. https://doi.org/ Research, 44, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR05142
10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114154 Weaver, T., & Dale, D. (1978). Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles
Qi, J., Vermeer, P. A., & Cheng, G. (2006). A review of the influ- and horses in meadows and forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 15,
ence of freeze-thaw cycles on soil geotechnical properties. Permafrost 451–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402604
and Periglacial Processes, 17, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Weisskopf, P., Reiser, R., Rek, J., & Oberholzer, H.-R. (2010). Effect
ppp.559 of different compaction impacts and varying subsequent management
Richard, G., Cousin, I., Sillon, J. F., Bruand, A., & Guérif, J. practices on soil structure, air regime and microbiological parameters.
(2001). Effect of compaction on the porosity of a silt soil: Influ- Soil & Tillage Research, 111, 65–74.
ence on unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. European Journal of Wilkinson, T., Richards, P. J., & Humphreys, G. S., (2009). Breaking
Soil Science, 52, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2001. ground: Pedological, geological, and ecological implications of soil
00357.x bioturbation. Earth-Science Reviews, 97, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.
Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., 1016/j.earscirev.2009.09.005
Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., Tin- Yang, M., Fu, Y., Li, G., Ren, Y., Li, Y., & Ma, G. (2020). Microchar-
evez, J.-Y., White, D. J., Hartenstein, V., Eliceiri, K., Tomancak, P., acteristics of soil pores after raindrop action. Soil Society of America
& Cardona, A. (2012). Fiji: An open-source platform for biological- Journal, 84, 1693–1704. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20113
image analysis. Nature Methods, 9, 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nmeth.2019
Schjønning, P., van den Akker, J. J. H., Keller, T., Greve, M. H.,
S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
Lamandé, M., Simojoki, A., Stettler, M., Arvidsson, J., & Breuning-
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Madsen, H. (2015). Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
analysis and risk assessment for soil compaction – a European per- Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
spective. Advances in Agronomy, 133, 183–237. https://doi.org/10.
1016/bs.agron.2015.06.001
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012). NIH Image
to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods, 9, 671–675. How to cite this article: Keller T, Colombi T, Ruiz
https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 S, et al. Soil structure recovery following compaction:
Sonderegger, T., Pfister, S., & Hellweg, S. (2020). Assessing impacts on Short-term evolution of soil physical properties in a
the natural resource soil in life cycle assessment: Methods for com- loamy soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2021;85:1002–1020.
paction and water erosion. Environmental Science & Technology, 54, https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20240
6496–6507.