The Soils of Brant County
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Soils of Brant County Volume 1 Ministry of Agriculture ' Agriculture and Food Canada Research Direction Ontario Branch de la recherche THE SOILS OF BRANT COUNTY Volume 1 REPORT NO. 55 OF THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGY by C.J. Acton Land Resource Research Centre Research Branch Agriculture Canada Guelph, Ontario 1989 Land Resource Research Centre Contribution No. 89-18 . TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 5 Heidelberg Soils (HIG) . 33 Kelvin Soils (KVN) . 33 INTRODUCTION . 6 Lincoln Soils (LIC) . 34 GENERALDESCRIPTION OFTHEAREA . 7 Maryhill Soils (MYL) . 34 Location and Extent . 7 Muriel Soils (MUI) . .34 Early History . 7 Oakland Soils (OKL) . .35 Present Agriculture . 7 Plainfield Soils (PFD) . .35 Geology and Physiography . 8 Scotland Soils (STD) . .35 Bedrock Geology . 8 Seneca Soils (SNA) . 36 Surficial Geology . 9 Smithville Soils (SHV) . 36 Physiography and Sediments and their Stayner Soils (STN) . 36 Relationship to Soils in the County . 12 Styx Soils (SYX) . 37 Relief and Drainage . 16 Teeswater Soils (TEW) . 37 Climate . .17 Toledo Soils (TLD) . 37 Tuscola Soils (TUC) . 38 HOW THE SOILS WEREMAPPED AND Vanessa Soils (VSS) . 38 CLASSIFIED . .19 Walsingham Soils (WAM) . 38 Soil Mapping . .19 Waterin Soils (WRN) . 38 Survey Intensity and Map Reliability . 19 Waterloo Soils (WTO) . 39 Soil Classification . 19 Wauseon Soils (WUS) . 39 Soil Orders . .20 Wilsonville Soils (WIL) . 39 Soil Great Groups and Subgroups . .22 Woolwich Soils (WOW) . .40 Soil Families . .22 Soil Series . .22 MISCELLANEOUS LAND UNITS . .40 Soil Phases . .23 Alluvium (ALU) . 40 Miscellaneous Land Units . .23 Escarpment (ESC) . .40 Soil MapUnits . .23 Marsh (MAR) . 40 Urban Land (ULD) . .40 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THESOILS . .24 Soil Key . .24 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE . .44 Soil Descriptions . .26 A. Agricultural Capability Classification for Alluvial Soils (ALU) . .26 Common Field Crops . .44 Ayr Soils (AYR) . .26 Assumptions . .44 Berrien Soils (BRR) . .26 Capability Classification for Mineral Soils . .44 Beverly Soils (BVY) . .27 Soil Capability Classes . .44 Bookton Soils (BOO) . .27 Soil Capability Subclasses . .45 Brady Soils (BAY) . .27 Capability Classification for Organic Soils . .45 BrantSoils (BRT) . .28 Organic Soil Capability Classes . .45 Brantford Soils (BFO) . .28 Procedure for Using Tables for Soil Capability Burford Soils (BUF) . .29 Classes with Brant County Soil Maps . .47 Caledon Soils (CAD) . .29 B. Agricultural Suitability Ratings for Special Crops . .47 Camilla Soils (CML) . .29 Soil Suitability Classes . .47 Colwood Soils (CWO) . .30 Assumptions . .47 Conestogo Soils (CTG) . .30 How to Determine Special Crop Suitability Dumfries Soils (DUF) . .30 Ratings . .48 Fox Soils (FOX) . .31 C. Soil Erosion Interpretations . .53 Gilford Soils (GFD) . 31 Soil Interpretations for Water Erosion . 53 Gobles Soils (GOB) . 31 Rainfall Erosivity (R) . .53 Granby Soils (GNY) . .32 Soil Map Unit Erosion Potential . .54 Guelph Soils (GUP) . .32 Site-specific Assessment of Soil Erosion Haldimand Soils (HIM) . .32 Potential . .54 Harrisburg Soils (HBG) . .33 REFERENCES . .61 LIST OF TABLES 1. Farmland use in Brant County . 9 8. Agricultural capability classification for common field crops for soils of Brant County . .46 2. Area and value of main crops grown in Brant County . 9 9. Organization ofspecial crops into crop groups and 3. Pleistocene stratigraphy and associated soils of Brant crop subgroups for the Brant County region . .47 County . .11 10. Agricultural suitability ratings for special crops in 4. Properties ofprincipal tills occurring 'in BrantCounty . .48 BrantCounty . .13 11. K-values, erodibility classes and erosion potential for 5. Climatic data for Brantford and neighbouring Brant County soils . 55 locations . .18 12. Guidelines for establishing soil erodibility classes . 59 6. Soil families of Brant County . .21 13. Guidelines for assessing soil erosion potential classes . .59 7. Mean horizon values of Brant Countysoils . .41 14. LS-values for different combinations of slope length and slopegradient . .59 LIST OF FIGURES 1. General location of Brant and surrounding counties . 7 8. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil parent materials associated with the Grand River 2. Urbancentres, roads and railway networks and and the Paris moraine near Paris . 15 townships in BrantCounty . 8 9. Schematic landscape cross-section showing the 3. Paleozoic geology of Brant County . 10 relationship of surficial sands to underlying deposits 4. Surficial geology of Brant County . 12 onthe sand plain near Cathcart . 15 5. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil 10. Main streams and tributaries in Brant County . 16 parent materials associated with the Tillsonburg 11. Climatic regions in Brant County . 17 moraine near Harley . 13 12. Diagrammatic soil profile of a well-drained Brunisolic 6. Schematic landscape cross-section showing soil GrayBrown Luvisol . .20 parent materials associated with the Galt moraine near Scotland . .14 13. Diagrammatic soil profile of a poorly drained Orthic Humic Gleysol . .20 7. Schematic landscape cross-section between Paris and Ohsweken showing soil parent materials associated 14. Prediction ofcropland erosion potential and some with the Galt moraine and adjacent glaciofluvial control alternatives . 60 and glaciolacustrine sediments . 14 15. Index of soil maps for Brant County . 62 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The soil survey, data collection, analysis and preparation Valuable input was provided by S. Rowe and J. Bodner, ofthe soil maps and report for Brant County involved the con- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Horticultural Crop tributions of many individuals. Those making a major contri Specialists for Brant County in interpreting the soils for spe- bution to field mapping were S. Humphrey, D. Cressman, cialty cropuses. B. Maclean, W. Hodgins, B. Cameron, G. Roberts and S. Kendall aided by many other student assistants. Field sam- Colleagues atthe Agriculture Canada, Guelph Soil Survey pling and laboratory analyses were carried by R. Unit were very helpful in various aspects of the report prepara- out Viitala, tion. B. Hohner and C. Miller ofAgriculture Canada. Dr. O.L. White E.W. Presant assisted in a substantial way with the soil of the Ontario Geological Survey, Ontario Ministry of Natural interpretations section and in report editing. The section on Resources, assisted with soil sampling for engineering proper-.