Field-based soil-texture estimates could replace laboratory analysis

- First systematic assessment of the precision and accuracy of field based texture estimates
- The estimations show a relative deviation from the measurements of only 4 to 16%.
- Only a minor part of the uncertainty can be ascribed to the soil scientists in the field.
- For many purposes it is sufficient to estimate the soil texture manually “by feel”.

Texture is one of the most important and most frequently measured parameters in soil science. It is common knowledge among field experienced soil scientists that soil texture can be well estimated in the field manually with so called “texture-by-feel”. However, no systematic evaluation exists that assessed the precision and accuracy of field based texture estimates as compared to the common, but time consuming, standard laboratory methods. In the course of the German Agricultural Soil Inventory, the texture of 3896 soil samples from 728 soil pits was estimated manually in the field and measured in the laboratory using standard sedimentation techniques. The field based estimations of the sand, silt and clay content showed a relative deviation from the measurements of only 3.8, 11.5 and 15.5%, respectively. The absolute uncertainty of field texture was 23, 32 and 17 g kg− 1 for sand, silt and clay, respectively. A large fraction (57-72%) of deviations between field and laboratory derived texture estimates was due to the laboratory measurement uncertainty, and due to the fact that only texture classes were estimated in the field and not mass fractions. Our findings indicate that for most purposes it is sufficient to estimate the soil texture manually “by feel” instead of conducting expensive particle size analyses in the laboratory.