## 1 Introduction  
Soil is the basis of agriculture and its management has significant impacts on its biochemical, ecological, and physical functions [1]. To evaluate these impacts, the notion of soil quality was developed. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [2] suggested assessing soil quality as \"the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health,\" including human health. Even if that notion has been criticized, it puts forward the complexity and multi-functionality of soils [3]. Good soil quality is needed to keep agriculture sustainable and resilient over time. Thus, the choice of parameters to study and the methods used for soil quality assessment are important. This paper focuses specifically on the soil physical quality (SPQ), which is linked to chemical, biological, and ecological aspects. To evaluate SPQ, several physical indicators associated with soil water cycle functions--such as air capacity, plant-available water capacity, relative field capacity, soil microporosity, and saturated hydraulic conductivity--are well documented and frequently used in the literature [3; 4; 5]. These parameters can be derived from soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves, which accurately represent the characteristics of the soil under study. These curves can be generated using the BEST method. This method involves conducting a field infiltration test with a predetermined water volume and collecting soil samples to determine bulk density, initial water content, and particle size distribution in the laboratory [6]. However, the pore network characterization shows greater significance in the SPQ assessment than the study of parameters derived from disturbed aggregates [7]. The soil structure, and, in particular, the soil macroporosity, can be determined in different ways, most of which are time-consuming, partial, and destructive. Dyes and tracers are, for example, injected into soils before excavation, to visualize the preferential flow paths [8]. To improve the determination of the pore network, geophysical tools like Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) are valuable as they are faster, more precise, non-invasive, and sensitive to water [9]. GPR is a system composed of two antennas, one emitting and the other receiving pulses of electromagnetic waves. When the material or region reached by the wave in the soil has a change in its dielectric properties compared to the surrounding environment, a part of the wave is reflected and subsequently detected by the second antenna. A change in the received signal appears. As the water has a strong difference in dielectric properties compared with the (dry) soil, GPR has great potential for visualizing and monitoring water in the soil. Indeed, [10] observed drainage and storage dynamics with GPR, before and after rain events, while [11] used GPR to study hydrological dynamics at the hillslope scale. Time-lapse GPR surveys are also conducted to image subsurface responses to irrigation [12]. Recently, the integration of an infiltration experiment with a GPR survey was conducted to enhance the understanding of preferential flow in urban areas [13]. This former study focused on the GPR part but shows that GPR and infiltrometers are possibly coupled. Thus, both infiltrometers and GPR devices can be utilized to characterize intrinsic soil parameters and the pore network, facilitating the assessment of SPQ. However, this experiment does not allow for differentiating the flows from the matrix and the macroopres. To do so, different infiltrometer devices such as disc and ring infiltrometers can be used [14], the first allowing a tension experiment that only activates the matrix (smaller pores), and the second activating all the pores (macroopres included) with a pond experiment. With the first device, for example, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] determined the concentration of different sizes of pores at the soil surface.