Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. opooeasrtg o etn nomto needs information meeting for and strategy concept change a soil the propose present to to are objectives paper Na-The this the (NCSS). of and of Survey factors surveys Soil natural to Cooperative of added tional result be should a activities as human demand information change need, soils tacit this how meet the To about soil. and of resources use sustained nation’s for con- the the on soil of impacts simply, dition human evi- about or increasing awareness the soil, and by dence prompted of is nature concern This dynamic change. the about tion 7 .SgeR. aio,W 31 S O,si rai atr SS ntdSae oetService. Forest States United USFS, matter; organic soil SOM, USA 53711 WI Madison, Rd., Segoe S. 677 (2005). 69:738–747 © J. Am. Soc. doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0163 Sci. Soil in Published author *Corresponding Pedology. 2004. Lincoln, May USDA-NRCS, ([email protected]). 7 Hipple, Received K. 68508. 20250; NE USDA- DC M.J. Puckett, W. Washington, 88003; 20250; NM NRCS, DC Cruces, Washington, Las USDA-NRCS, USDA-NRCS, Mausbach, Brown, J.R. Cruces, 88003; 88003; Las NM Range, NM Experimental Cruces, Jornada Las USDA-ARS, 3JER, Herrick, J.E. 30003, Box USDA-NRCS, Tugel, A.J. (Indorante years 100 re- than more natural for and management source agricultural supported effectively have change. soil to related W other and disciplines. partners research Survey Soil col- acquisition Cooperative increased National data requires among of blueprint laboration costs the the of to Implementation needs delivery. user and meeting compar- of analyses on benefits to based the be interpretations ing should surveys functional soil soil– future and in included integrated attributes, be change an soil design properties, soil (vi) dynamic of Selection and system. information data ecosystem–management interpretation; for procedures and develop (v) collection change requirements; soil information prioritize and and select data (iv) relates function; that soil framework and organizing processes, data, an and develop research (iii) interdisciplinary article studies; conduct this (ii) long-term in needs; user described identify action (i) for are: blueprint the of indicators. elements warning Iterative early and resilience, inter- resistance, functional location. include and pretations pathways specific and a rates, properties), trends, at soil drivers, (dynamic scales reversibility, variables time state include various change tempo- of across is Attributes soil soil change Soil on in survey. soil variation change century ral soil 21st of of objective should less) primary effects or a decades, be the (centuries, scale and time causes human the change about over information function soil Providing of soils. attributes of and well nature not information dynamic limited is the only change include on surveys soils soil how existing and of synthesized knowledge and Current alternatives, predict compare decisions. function, to make soil on factors management of non-anthropogenic effects and the anthropogenic by caused olSineSceyo America of Society Science Soil htaeteneso olsre sr?Si surveys Soil users? survey soil of needs the are What change soil about information need policymakers and managers Land aaeetneso h 1tcnuyi informa- is century 21st the of needs management believe e olCag,Si uvy n aua eore eiinMaking: Decision Resources Natural and Survey, Soil Change, Soil .J ue, .E erc,J .Bon .J asah .Pcet n .Hipple K. and Puckett, W. Mausbach, J. M. Brown, R. J. Herrick, E. J. Tugel,* J. A. n ftems rtclntrlresource natural critical most the of one ABSTRACT Published onlineMay6,2005 lern o Action for Blueprint A 738 inatvte Tbe1). (Table remedia- and landactivities restoration tion and support soil (vi) prevent and degradation; (v) systems; sus- of production management tainable support (iv) condition; effects resource management on predict (iii) assessment criteria results; interpret monitoring quality (ii) and establish performance; (i) of measures to and needed are data Soil environment. change produc- the for and goals sustainability, economics, balance tion, that decisions make and tives a edtrie o ait ftm clsadis and management, scales and time use of human factors, variety natural a by for driven determined variation be temporal The may location. specific a at properties CS ainlCoeaieSi uvy O,si rai carbon; organic soil SOC, Survey; Soil Cooperative National NCSS, Abbreviations: account- 2002), and of Act Interior Appropriations of Agencies Department Related 1978, Water of and Rangeland Act Public Soil Improvement 1977, 1974, of Act of Conservation land Act Resources private and Planning public Resources both (i.e., on mandates monitoring legal and meet assessment to resource quantitative empha-on increasing sis The 2002). (Muhn, quality sustainability environmental reinter- and of 1969, required questions address has in to information pretation Act survey of Protection soil passage standard Environmental input- the Since National for design. data the system property production soil based provide define and inventory, rela- facilitate limitations, of to classification properties the been soil 2002), static has tively century Helms, 20th and the (Durana in focus planning use through land forestry, resources and husbandry, animal natural agronomy, of of invaluable disciplines the been development have guiding surveys these in While 1996). al., et ys(91 atra oe hc ttsta oli a is soil that states which model Jen- factorial from follows (1941) influence This ny’s human 2001). Markewitz, increasing and mod- have (Richter in that changing currently ecosystems are byern and affected use, are pedogenesis, land prop- of historical Soil result 1). a (Fig. as time time, emerge by erties through caused not changes is Soil change although impacts. combined their or alterna- compare to change soils how about formation and analyzing, gathering, to information. approach soil informa- new interpreting existing a of however, but reinterpretation will, tion, a food 1999) just global not al., and require et 2002) (Anecksamphant Crossley, security and produc- soil (Johnston to 1993), tivity threats of degradation land Act combating Results and Performance Government (e.g., in ability edfn olcag stmoa aito nsoil in variation temporal as change soil define We oa’ admngr n oiyaesrqiein- require policymakers and managers land Today’s H OLCAG CONCEPT CHANGE SOIL THE h diitaino ulcyfne programs funded publicly of administration the AI,Ntoa olSre nomto System; Information Survey Soil National NASIS,

Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. i.1 eaietm clso hne olcag,afnto fsi-omn atr,ocr vrtepdgnctm cl prosu oafew a to up (periods scale time pedogenic the over occurs factors, soil-forming of function a change, Soil change. of scales time Relative 1. Fig. Time scale”? temporal relevant the is “what is question predictability and frequency, intensity, scale, spatial its essen- include uses Probable o and Examples 2000), systems. managed al., in et 2001). operations Evans al., tial et 1996; (Hol- (Scheffer have Meffe, that processes management systems and renewal in and shift diversity state promoting detrimental a systems, trigger that function. soil to soil modify the can of drought capacity that the and and processes, time seasonal hurricanes or composition, the as in represent morphology, such to on events a events “disturbance” plow discreet stochastic term on a the sodic, relatively fire use of of We use scale. absence or time scale, scale, time time geologic centurial health climate animal a is and force on weed human the and to whether change grazing, risks 1983), suppression, assess al., fire et irrigation, (Smeck tilization, energy and (Robarge soils many 1992). for Johnson, use change in- of of type, Scale rate productivity the and soil altered tensity, long-term dramatically and in- has short- human support however, and increasing monitoring and fluence, The assessment topography, resource time. project, of works through results organisms, interpret public acting garden, material climate, of result watershed ranch, or farm field, regional, state, watershed, field, engineers, developers, Homeowners, local, state, (federal, managers Land development. policy and management land for information change producers soil Agricultural of uses probable and use, User of scale Users, 1. Table ra lnesct,cut upr eotmnto,rsoain n remediation and restoration, decontamination, support function soil county on city, change climate and management of effects predict global national, planners urban policymakers managers, program organizations), nongovernmental lio rmasaehg nsi rai atr(O)t tt o nSM n vnulyt neoe olpaeo h Alfisol. the of phase soil an eroded of an degradation to the eventually and drive SOM, can in factors low Human state less). a or to decades, (SOM) centuries, matter of organic (periods soil scale in time high human state the a from subset, Alfisol its and years) million natural of component integral an are disturbances Soil or force physical in variation from results Change UE TA. RMR BETVSO 1tCNUYSI SURVEY SOIL CENTURY 21st OF OBJECTIVES PRIMARY AL.: ET TUGEL natural f parent eiz 01.A nesadn ftmoa variability temporal of Mar- understanding and An on (Richter 2001). centurial effects kewitz, and decadal management are 2) studying (Fig. soil for important scales long-term from resulting change gradual experienced events the often are and control or predict to difficult are Epi- 1984). (Sousa, impact of severity disturbance, the determine of all type the to addition In establishment. nld ruh,fr,fod,wnsom,cliain fer- cultivation, windstorms, floods, fire, drought, actions include human and 1979) White, 1957; (Raup, phenomena vrtm rmso er,saos as n possibly and days, seasons, years, of frames time over naydsuso fcag vrtm,teimmediate the time, over change of discussion any In aaesomwater storm manage erosion control degradation land prevent and restoration for selection site and planning support security food for plan long-term and profit economic short-term for manage impacts environmental negative minimize remediation analysis) (cost–benefit sustainability 739 Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. i.2 etra rnsaddcdlsi hne nrsos oman- to response in changes soil decadal and trends Centurial 2. Fig. 740 otn rslnt eeal aegetrsailvr-fnto.Teutmt osqecso hnedepend change of consequences ultimate The function. vari- spatial greater have matter generally organic salinity and water or as content Dy- such variability. properties the spatial soil or to context, namic “differences” that terms refer For the ecotone. use not an line we of boundary do gradient soil the a we through across or paper, properties soil this in “changes” In time. aggre- through and salinity, pH, stability). density, gate bulk organic soil [SOC], (e.g., properties carbon within soil included dynamic are of these concept use; the land with proper- change as that properties ties use-dependent define Grossman (2001) scale. al. time et human prop- the soil over those change for that properties erties soil dynamic term the pose 1). (Fig. or decades and decades, centuries centuries, on emphasis (i.e., an scale with less) time human ad- should the products dress management survey sug- soil human we change-related that Consequently, of gest centuries. impacts and and decades (String- 2003) includes recovery al., of most frame et will time that ham the change both of to scale Par- relate time likely 1999; The 1999). Woolfenden, al., and et sons (Millar predict- for change necessary future it information although ing all soil provide in not changes does modern interpreting an- for of essen- tial is ranges variability non-anthropogenic historic and proper- Understanding thropogenic soil change. of that interpretation ties for appropriate context ensure and to sampling necessary also is however, hours, h eid15 o20 Hbad 95 erw rmArcher, from redrawn 1995; (Hibbard, 2000 for loam to TX, sandy Range, 1750 Experimental a period Copita of La the (SOC) cm), (0–20 carbon soil organic grassland soil Simulated agement. hsgasadcetn nee rae oeta ag fsi vari- soil of range encroach potential plants greater woody ability. even where an fully areas creating not in grassland SOC higher this is The are observations. variability cm) of of (0–20 frequency levels range the on historical depends The followed and (1850s) fire. depicted grazing of heavy of absence onset by the to response and grasses in perennial annuals short to grasses from His- perennial shifted mid-height value. community and plant include threshold tall- the possible as 1900 decreased a SOC and of and levels 1850 change torical of between rates changes and decadal pathways change the of Attributes in centuries. trend of reflected periods equilibrium over of 1990) levels al., two et illustrates (Arnold 2001) al., et Archer 1989; yai olpoete ayars pc swl as well as space across vary properties soil Dynamic pro- We eventually. change properties soil all Almost OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL uret o ln rwh(rhre l,2001). al., et (Archer growth plant for provide limits to nutrients 2) capacity (Fig. soil’s the shift changes vegetation and a mineralization to mat- response organic in soil (SOM) of ter soil depletion of the example, capacities For functional systems. and fluxes, deter- to dynamics, needed mine also hydro- are cycling the nutrient and flow, cycle, logic energy primary including of Studies processes landscapes. ecological and and soils morphology, of composition, distribution pro- formation, to 1992) the geomorphic Hammer, explain and and Daniels 1959; pedogenic (Simonson, cesses study generally 1996). MacLeod, and We (Brown studies pedolog- ecological of and integration ical the requires dynamic change soil and interpreta- for of tions development static the Thus, relatively 3). (Fig. properties and resilience and processes relationships on resistance depend between disturbance a The to soil 2002). specific a al., of et al., Pyke et (Scheffer 2001; an systems is agricultural and 1999) ecosystems unmana- ged al., and managed et 1997; for concept Seybold (Blum, ecological important 1998; (resilience) Wander, and functionally Herrick recover be- to soil and of dynamics the pro- to not havior. do related and information management past vide of only results however, Arents), the (e.g., reflect names taxon soil and tion) the in Changes 1994). texture al., soil et as (Wilding such mineralogy properties and stable more than ability soil Each resilience. and resistance, disturbances, Function, 3. Fig. etosadcasfcto.Pae(.. rso,deposi- erosion, (e.g., are con- Phase naming classification. impacts through and survey human ventions soil types from in Some addressed resulting currently 2002). patterns al., spatial et changes of (Bird of processes indicators ecological important the are in at and variability semiarid scale in- spatial unit of map increased in invasion in depletion result shrub grasslands, corresponding following spaces its tershrub and layer surface shrubs the as in under such SOC of properties, concentration soil increased the dynamic of distribution spatial h motneo olcag sta tafcssoil affects it that is change soil of importance The (resistance) disturbances resist to soil a of ability The (1999). from al. Redrawn et B not. Seybold Soil and does disturbance. (1998) C the Wander Soil after and capacity; C Herrick functional and its B Soils recovers for functional declines Soil disturbance. capacity the resists A recover Soil to disturbances. resilience the from and disturbances to resistance unique have can Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. al al ol AI 01–82‡– 30.16–38.28‡ 35.48 year 32.29 per 45.09 Change 28.49 – 36.16 1990 31.45 35.40 56.83 35.40 1931 Initiation – 1981 1931 – 1931 da 1990 represent not does and NASIS) System, Information Survey Soil (National database survey soil the in started values estimated Date from depth. calculated Amount 20-cm ‡ a to Moldboard-plowed † NASIS soil, Walla Walla no-till wheat, Annual wheat† Annual fallow† Wheat–summer pasture Grass and grassland (Rasmussen Virgin systems cropping various under soil Walla Walla system the Cropping of zone 20-cm to 0- the in change carbon organic Soil 3. Table change of quanti- rate and results interpreting for helpful is data study change of drivers – reversibility about time human – information on change include ecosystem change and of should soil trend surveys Soil survey. survey soil transition† to a suited within indictors attribute are warning change and early Soil 2001) Markewitz, and ter are strategies – sampling state† that Space-for-time a future. model within 1989). the attribute operational (Pickett, in change an Soil important develop may (ii) – – be that to functions and soil able protect precision be to strategies also sufficient management – will (i) makers environment. and decision resistance the where – resilience, soil and of conditions) resource understanding current improved soil Through the and different in practices but changes posi- choose tive soil promote that can programs same establish managers can policymakers – land detrimental interpretations. regarding change, as relationships viewed soil resilience be effect soil should and currently knowledge cause With but 1990). of future al., the et (Arnold in reversibility quantifiable its standard) be on or may (potential indicators variable warning state early and potential) resilience options? and Soil management † (actual future variable affect state changes soil will How it? take? improve it or will restore long to improved? occurs? How take or it it restored before will be degradation What it soil use? can detect sustained degraded, to or If used intended be the can for function? What be of it maintaining? level should or or What improving, soil degrading, the it of Is condition the is What change soil Inquiry corresponding the and capacity) (functional function of level or condition soil address that inquiries user survey Soil 2. Table fsi hnesol eapiayojcieof objective primary a be should change soil of hycnas eetmtdb h aeu usiuinmn ytmcag n n1990. in and change system ment the (having locations substitution comparing careful monitoring. the by by or It space-for-time estimated grassland. studies of be supported also historically long-term can area through study They is The Haploxeroll), time ton. Typic over mesic superactive, mixed, for silty, substituted making. enhancements is decision for The location behavior resource soil where maps. about sampling information on comparative additional comprise properties Simi- delineating soil 1998). about Albrecht, not dynamic are and sequestration suggest (Rasmussen we OR sur- C enhancements cultivation. soil until Pendleton, vey by The provided in disturbed available. be soil become should changes technologies a behavior quantitative of soil descriptions region, resilience in Qualitative and changes a 2). change, the (Table of in attri- change quantify stored soil and of data SOC butes property soil followed land dynamic be different collect should Bestelmeyer with protocols to 2002; associated Standard al., 2004). C 2003, et organic String- al., Herrick Soil 1989; et 2003; suggest compared. al., 2001, We al., et et scale. (Westoby ham models time transition human and the state interpreta- to dis- and and pertaining data, organize tions hypotheses, to change used soil be seminate rela- should process-based A framework factors. tional human and natural from ouetn n eciigtentr n effects and nature the describing and Documenting hne ndnmcsi rpriscnb esrdvroscopn ytm n13 Tbe3.Si organic Soil 3). (Table 1931 in systems cropping various measured be can properties soil dynamic in Changes lrct 1998). Albrecht, trend describe (1990) al. 2003) et al., Arnold et properties. (Stringham soil model use-dependent transition change. include and of and state pathways a properties and in soil reversibility, occurrences dynamic their change, are and of variables attributes State change listed. Soil are response. for necessary attribute H OLSRE FTEFUTURE THE OF SURVEY SOIL THE UE TA. RMR BETVSO 1tCNUYSI SURVEY SOIL CENTURY 21st OF OBJECTIVES PRIMARY AL.: ET TUGEL clsresulting scales olMan soil yn attributes. fying long-term availability, limited of Although operations. (Rich- studies chronosequence and available comparison to is similar change of effects with and inferred causes be hypothesizes can or known are conditions past the n h aaiyo olt ucinaedsrbdin described are function to soil a of capacity the and a eemndi h ero ntaino h manage- the of initiation of year the in determined was C to converted was and 1880 about beginning farmed was Washing- and Oregon of region Palouse the in extensive (coarse- soil Walla Walla area, study through the at staff soil The survey time. soil by obtained be could data in lar studies long-term from obtained were SOC for Data of rate practices, management in change a from total resulting estimate to used is systems management are and uses data study long-term and on data based survey soil amounts standard sequestration Carbon example. this sn ausfo h ainlSi uvyInforma- Survey Soil National the from values Using ahaso hne(feedbacks) change of pathways – gmn fet nadnmcsi rpry(SOC) property soil dynamic a on effects agement olognccarbon organic Soil Example gha Mg Ϫ 1 ϩ Ϫ Ϫ ϩ 0.093 0.011 0.115 0.162 741 ta. Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. rsln,gaspsue nulycliae,adno- and virgin for cultivated, states. SOC, annually till variable, pasture, state grass the grassland, and change survey of include example soil rate this the in Attributes in databases. and soils report benchmark map or individual components for unit presented be would interpretations rate. recovery potential the on quantita- based expressed tively be chronosequences, can resilience studies, models, the process long-term or reflect from that obtained recovery SOC of is rate If as esti- sequestration. to as such important time, processes properties over recovery from relative mated on based be classes but could time, this at uncertain are Appropriate criteria interpretive soils. these to moderate assigned or be high would (e.g., resilience) term relative A change. of rate of estimates soil with combined data Qualitative sample space-for-time from recover. developed be would also resilience for would interpretations survey pasture, returned thisif grass amount treatments, From other to state. lost the native that the the infer of we of response, 79% 45% level of a recovering much attaining 1990, regained and by pasture SOC grass to its culti- planted can Formerly land resilience. SOC soil’s vated of the interpret recovery to cultivated The used of be grassland. ratio virgin SOC to the systems to as respect expressed 1999). al., with is et Resistance cultivation, (Seybold estimated to be can soil sequestration, C Walla Walla the of soils. and similar soils about use inferences few its to a limited and only be 2001) should Markewitz, for and available (Richter is ecosystems Long- data 1987). process study al., or et term (Parton studies CENTURY as long-term such from models obtained add be information will such that would although 2) products, (Table survey soil change to of value attribute one (Ta- system is cropping SOC 3), no-till in ble a increase reach of initiation annual to 1981 the take the as after will such it Rate, long amount. how that know to need producers productivity. storage establish commodity C (ii) maintain increase and that and Tg, systems 13 cropping to for unde- 10 incentives the of than estimate rather Tg, NASIS and through 20 fined nearly scientists budgets potential, C by of use global used the improve be (i) can to Tg) varia- policymakers of 9.8–19.6 range (i.e., potential The bility respectively. Tg, pas- 9.8, grass 12.2 15.6, for is and wheat pool annual C and the fallow, wheat–summer erosion, ture, pos- soil reconcile from Tg not losses 19.6 C does C been which sible soil have data 1990 would historical Using soils 3). the Walla (Table Walla data, all grassland in stock virgin on systems. specific for Based made products be the could survey function) of to soil capacity (indicative predictions future (0–20 in- sequestration If soils property formation, soil Walla Tg. dynamic Walla 13.2 management-related the to include of 10.4 stor- ha is SOC 920 334 cm) total the of for estimate age the (NASIS), System tion 742 trbtso olcag n eitneadresilience and resistance and change soil of Attributes resilience and resistance the 3, Table in data the From restored, be could that C of amount the to addition In OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL hog h td fsi sapr fdnmc interre- dynamic, of part a as soil of study the through and Studies Research Long-Term Interdisciplinary Conduct 2: Element needs. their dif- identifying educating and for groups tools spe- useful ferent technical are Workshops users, scientists for paradigm. and 1995) new cialists, al., a the et is Pretty because 1984; data will (Kolb, value change users soil limited of of to use responses posed prompt questions appropriate likely both direct the Currently, and collected. that be open-ended so can identified information soil. and be in of data presented must nature example paper dynamic the this the as such and applications change inquiries Specific these soil to answers to The function. relate to the capac- soil the about the on of 2) management ity and (Table use questions of more impacts potential or one seeking generally to are Users answers 1). differ- (Table for needs of requirements types ent information soil and elements Needs User Identify 1: Element 4): blue- the (Fig. in print con- included is are be progress, also survey of can benchmarks soil which sidered elements, for Six process. change iterative soil an de- of and ad- needs, technologies Furthermore, user veloping change. understanding soil science, of the vancing science the in vances to responsibilities. according and collection mission existing data technologytheir or research, testing, through development, participate and orga- can member priorities nization each Additionally, identify process. to this facilitate necessary is structure organi- and disciplines zational expertise the research has NCSS other existing The and needed. partnership NCSS the scientists among collaboration of Increased number personnel. large technical will and a blueprint of this participation the of require Implementation century. into well 21st utility inte- the have an will that and system data, information scientifi- procedures, grated relevant, survey soil of credible development cally efficient the for tial TAEYFRMEIGTETWENTY- THE MEETING FOR STRATEGY hseeetavne h cec fsi change soil of science the advances element This data define to is element this of outcome desired The soil–ecosystem–management integrated an Design inter- 6. and collection data for procedures Develop 5. informa- and data change soil prioritize and Select 4. data, relates that framework organizing an Develop 3. long-term and research interdisciplinary Conduct needs. 2. user Identify 1. ad- requires survey soil in change soil Integrating essen- is blueprint, or approach, strategic a Following nomto system. information pretation. requirements. tion function. soil and processes, studies. IS ETR CHALLENGE CENTURY FIRST lern o Action for Blueprint Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. Hdne l,20;Ln 03.Taiinlpedology Traditional disci- 2003). with collaboratively Lin, conducted be 2002; should research al., et perspectives different (Hedin from but system same the which address of many sociology), plant agronomy, and ecology, terrestrial community sciences, range sciences, microbiol- forest ogy, ecology, soil biogeochemistry, geo- morphology, hydrology, sciences, soil pedology, (e.g., 2). disciplines (Fig. al. attributes et these Arnold of scale. time many human describe pre- the (1990) and on describe change to soil 2), dict (Table change soil of attributes called characteristics, important functionally quantify and impacts. management and function understand- soil an of increasing ing for mandates similar with and research, programs USGS and (USFS), Service States Forest United ARS, Stations, Experiment Agricultural 2003), the Council, Research Ecological Program (National National Network Research proposed Observatory the Ecological 2003), Term al., et Long (Hobbie benchmark the of in monitoring and soils research change soil their age encour- formally explain should to NCSS and The significance. effects, functional those differentiate to effects historical soil, management on about and disturbance questions natural answer current and Tinker, to 1990; needed (Magnuson, are studies 1994) Long-term 3, 5). (Elements and behavior 4, soil functional dynamic and for nat- protocols, interpretations of rela- sampling management of and frameworks, development ecology the tional disturbances. the support address to anthropogenic that needed plines and is soil Research natural centurial of effects and the predict decadal to and itera- relationships, understand an pattern–process level and is change to systems programs the survey essential soil at is agency research in Integrated information systems. change lated soil including for strategy The action. for blueprint multicomponent A 4. Fig. hseeeti eindt rdetegpbetween gap the bridge to designed is element This identify to strive should study of field a as change Soil process. tive UE TA. RMR BETVSO 1tCNUYSI SURVEY SOIL CENTURY 21st OF OBJECTIVES PRIMARY AL.: ET TUGEL omto si hneatiue)ta ilb docu- criteria The be property. will soil dynamic that each attributes) about in- mented of change be types to (soil the defining disturbances formation the involves and select second The to properties included. is landscape step first and The soil information 1). and Element data in value (identified high generating on focused and Data Change Soil Requirements Prioritize Information and Select 4: Element func- capacity. determine to tional 2001) al., et consid- (Grossman be together should ered soil a of properties static relatively should dynamic and the on frameworks Information evaluated. potential and identified Other be of 2). drivers (Table and resilience, change resistance, 2), variables, (Fig. state thresholds incorporate and systems; dynamic for open, framework primary relational on a based provide are processes; models ecological The change. of causes effects State the and 2). of models (Table conceptual Stringham (2003) are al. models in transition et and Bestelmeyer suggest structure and model (2003) We al. transition needed. et and is state information the change soil apply Function Soil and that Processes, Framework Data, Organizing Relates an Develop be 3: Element should scales multiple ar- 1997). at relevant (Bouma, in eas 1996) research basic al., reductionistic by et followed (Dent analy- Interdisciplinary sis resources. agricultural and ural hseeethlsesr htlmtdrsucsare resources limited that ensure helps element This and interpret, organize, to framework relational A 743 Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. ftecue fsi hneo h ua iesae Soil scale. time human the on change knowledge soil of with causes the combined of when relationships may Specific pattern–property– process pedometrics determining 2000). for of however, al., helpful, tools be et geostatistical (McBratney and soil statistical distribution of spatial the genesis of and studies to and applied primarily uncertainty is data incorporates field Pedometrics supplement to acquisition. soil tested dynamic be deriving should for data property 2002) al., et (McBratney needs. tems user of analysis an through determined be should their options from reporting Appropriate results measurements. calculate pedotransfer own to or users allow mathematical that provide functions to is possibility and use by human dressed of impacts from resulting behavior soil should property the including of ratio mea- Third, benefit–cost people. repeatedly conditions. different the to ment-impacted by precisely easy and models be accurately sure Sec- should predictive defined. properties simple clearly the be and ond, should interpretations reflect processes they function the functions and or properties the the First, between requirements. relationships three meet should 2002) and Herrick Tugel, 1997; (MacEwan, selection property soil for 744 soitdwt rprista r xrml motn rpyial rnpre olmtra Glrih 2003). amount (Galbraith, material small soil a transported physically when or high func- be different also of may number Ratios large tions. a to relevant important are extremely and/or are that properties generally with are associated ratios benefit–cost High high. relatively be blt,saildsrbto,adsi eair Another behavior. soil and distribution, vari- spatial temporal be ability, of could description textual information a through survey provided differ- soil in Alternatively, significance ences. statistical or variance, interval, ratios, confidence indices, maximum, mean,minimum, include median, may parameters Reportable analysis procedures. and collection data determine rooting, help will reported activity, biological defined. be of should zones standards Reliability (e.g., compaction). soil zones the important functionally in on based be sampling should Specific 1994). depths Martin, and be time, (Lepretre space, depth should in or heterogeneity stratification on-site the data for appropriate and strategies data accuracy. Sampling and provide precision for should requirements user meets designs that Sampling sam- based methods. statistically with pling addressed be to interac- needs soil–plant tions to disturbances vari- from temporal components resulting and spatial ability unit The map 1993). attributes al., soil et change (Foussereau for soil characterized Relevant be 2003). should al., (Bes- models et transition telmeyer and state to applied sampling procedures space-for-time suggest For we collection, procedures. data survey field soil new require will systems soil information. feedback the present Collection and Data Interpretation integrate for and Procedures Develop 5: Element interpretations. limited and knowledge. databases, of reports, an- scientific because as as or such surveys products well resources soil of as in operational needs included climate, all be and statistical not can animals, Clearly, of users attributes. plants, level change soils, soil tween specified for devel- oped be a also should at analyses Benefit–cost property significance. the in differ- measure- ence significant of functionally a number detect to the required completing ments in involved is time oes eornfrfntos n neec sys- inference and functions, pedotransfer Models, h omi hc nomto nsi hnei obe to is change soil on information which in form The of dynamics temporal the quantifying and Describing OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL fblt n ucinn feoytm Shfe ta. 2001), al., et (Scheffer ecosystems of functioning and bility of ta. 03.Budr raiain r hs htcon- that those (Cash are users organizations Park Boundary and 2003). Affairs, National al., Indian et Management, of Bureau Land NRCS, and Service, as of such Bureau organizations USFS, boundary attained research- NCSS be among the interactions likely ers, continual most and accep- will close its makers from and decision change by soil tance about information NCSS- new of an Rele- vant implementation. identification for collaborative the and to point goals common leads starting that a discussion facilitated provide that intention blueprint authors’ the the is however, not, It is plan. It implementation blueprint. an a of form the in suggestions ad- be not, should likely most and not, are management manage- evaluate users help to developed be should eas edakrltosisaeipratt h sta- the to important are relationships feedback Because Arents as such alteration soil extreme of case the in cept uueacs otedt hudb developed. be should data the to ensure access will that future systems storage dictate data interim also sys- design, will information tem Before 5) content. and and structure 4 database strategies (Elements collection Sampling data design. for database for important provide relationships can 3 organizing Element in The selected recovery. and framework or probability degradation the for estimate frame to time used of be rates can and that thresholds pathways, change on resilience, the resistance, information reach change, (iii) to of managed and be condition; can that desired change of level; user desired drivers may meet the data (ii) specify to that Required way values effective. reference best cost (i) most include: the the be be not or may needs or may each for use values) land (use-dependent to variables databases survey state soil include al- existing obvious expanding The of addressed. ternative are needs and research developed, applying primary are information for are change soil needs approaches acquiring or user practical before is understood, database It clearly a plants, management. design with with to interactions environment premature the its and and system animals, soil information or The integrate system, one. new should information a soil design existing necessary, if an modify to used Soil System Integrated Information an Design 6: Element to framework a provide models transition and survey State soil in included be should impacts, thropogenic be- feedbacks the about information pattern and process hspprpeet e ocpsfrsi uvyand survey soil for concepts new presents paper This and properties soil dynamic between Relationships nweg andfo lmns1t hudbe should 5 to 1 Elements from gained Knowledge olTaxonomy Soil Implementation Si uvySaf 99 ex- 1999) Staff, Survey (Soil Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. n eore.Teps ucs fteNS a eattrib- be can the NCSS to the of uted success past The resources. and change. soil to related products user- and friendly interpretations, pro- resources, researchers standardized storage of data assist tocols, development to the used in specialists be and could and that situations surveyors. resources field provide soil staff projects from researchers update input survey by with Soil performed specialists, be agency re- will and additional Tasks leverage likely funds. and search pedology of existing strengthenfield also from the open, will synthesis departure of The part and paradigms. survey a challenge soil are greatest will Soils the pedology resource. with soil be principles the ecological of Synthesizing blueprint. and inventory the agronomic in tasks the of most of pletion 2001). Cash, 1999; results (Guston, interpret makers and decision researchers for to needs research vey rttosi eesr omk ossetnational consistent a make inter- to and necessary mapping, is classification, for pretations soil needs in re- user concepts the use-neu- meet tral of and application to traditional scale The function making. time soil decision human on the effects over sulting change soil of needs. survey soil new correspond- revisions to make ing to continue should and technolo- and gies and knowledge new analysis routinely include to data curricula departments adjust Academic with with expertise. individuals revision ecological in need may increases survey skills slight soil specific of with proportions employees and relative collection data The change interpretation. standard soil for following be protocols by can survey soil skills and The training protocols. through success- survey developed to soil background new apply ecological sampling fully broader additional a need and will limited, skills surveyors is Soil exten-soils. funding other sive and soils Where benchmark on change. focus and should efforts soil maintenance for survey data collection soil include should on activities These focus activities. upgrading will future the stations. programs, experiment grant research state competitive and agency programs, survey existing soil be and within should research priorities accordingly and funding user adjusted defined, and clearly evolves are dialog needs As paper. this goals the of accomplish to strengthened be program survey ebr) h rae eerhcmuiy n h soil (NCSS the and stations community, experiment research broader state the soil members), the the between rather, link that but soil program, the recommend research address a not become to program do survey required authors skills The new change. in and technologies as personnel new apply train research to infrastructure soil and the in as well development, experience with technology the budgets inventory, of existing agencies by personnel Federal have supported organizations) goals. boundary the those (i.e., NCSS achieve to organiza- member individual tions by funds and staff of ments mlmnainsol ul neitn strengths existing on build should Implementation com- the for required is involvement Interdisciplinary olsressol nld nomto bu causes about information include should surveys Soil of program the and complete are surveys soil Many dniiaino omngasadcommit- and goals common of identification CONCLUSIONS UE TA. RMR BETVSO 1tCNUYSI SURVEY SOIL CENTURY 21st OF OBJECTIVES PRIMARY AL.: ET TUGEL potnt htwl eei eeain ocm.In- come. to generations benefit unique will and profound soil that a is about opportunity scale time information human soil the of in on addition change advances the new Making through scale. survey occur time need that human also the changes needs. on makers driven management naturally decision about resource other information meet and managers to Land enough soil less. not on or impacts is soil human decades, the change centuries, about information can of Providing periods practices over management disturbances, properties and natural use, that land shows scale. time soil evidence pedogenic in the Increasing change on soil based environ- currently of their are concepts survey in The time. change through soils of ment of integration how the effectiveness about on information the depends systems and these managing however, systems, dynamic lm ...19.Bsccnet:Dgaain eiine n reha- and resilience, Degradation, concepts: Basic 1997. W.E.H. Blum, Spatial 2002. Wright. S.F. and Wander, M.M. Herrick, J.E. S.B., Bird, K.M. and Trujillo, D.A. Brown, J.R. Herrick, J.E. B.T., Bestelmeyer, Cha- G. Alexander, R. Havstad, K.M. Brown, J.R. B.T., Bestelmeyer, soil Global 1990. (ed.) Targulian V.O. and Szabolcs, I. R.W., Arnold, grasslands: in Trees to 2001. Hibbard. converted K.A. and Boutton, been T.W. S., savannas Archer, Texas southern Have 1989. S. Archer, H. and Vearaslip, T. Charoenchamratcheep, C. C., Anecksamphant, comments. valuable their for reviewer rae viaiiyo olcag nomto ilex- will information change soil of availability creased anblt n h niomn,bt o n nthe sus- in of and issues now global both and environment, future. local the to and human critical tainability the is on behavior. scale change soil time soil comprise and of understanding systems that Increased about processes knowledge ecological scientists and soil the doing, skills so in develop but will task, the complete genera- to agriculture a tion take in may It information management. resource soil natural and of application the pand iiain .1–17. p. bilitation. semi-arid in carbon 116:445–455. soil Pollut. and Environ. stability rangeland. aggregate of heterogeneity Environ. management. 34(1):38–51. A ecosystem Manage. Southwest: to American approach transition the and in state management Land 2004. state-and- Havstad. of use 56(2):114–126. Manage. and Range J. Development rangelands. for 2003. models Herrick. transition J.E. and vez, role Laxen- Analysis, the System Appl. on Austria. for Inst. burg, force Int. change. task global in IIASA-ISSS-UNEP soil of an of CA. Report Diego, San change. Press, Academic system. climate the biogeochemical Global in (ed.) Schimel cycles D. and Prentice, I.C. Lloyd, 115– J. p. expansion. plant 137. woody of consequences Biogeochemical 134:545–561. Nat. Am. history? recent in woodlands available 27 Also fied Thailand. 1999. on (veri- Bangkok, Jan. Conf. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/landdeg/ld99.html at Development, 25–29 online Int. Land Thailand. Rep., Kaen, of Conf. Khon Dep. century. 2nd, 21st Degradation, the Land in International degradation 2nd Degradation. land the Land of on Recommendations Conference 1999. (ed.) Eswaran anonymous an and USDA-NRCS, Loomis, Lynn thank We In a.2005). Jan. ..Shle ..Hrio,M emn,EA Holland, E.A. Heimann, M. Harrison, S.P. Schulze, E.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In REFERENCES .Ll ..Bu,C aetn,adB.A. and Valentine, C. Blum, W.H. Lal, R. In etn h hlegsof challenges the Meeting 745 Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. erc,JE,adMM adr 98 eainhp ewe olRctr .. r,adD akwt.20.Udrtnigsi change: soil Understanding 2001. Markewitz. D. and Jr., D.D., Richter, soil between Relationships 1998. Wander. M.M. and J.E., Herrick, erc,JE,JR rw,AJ ue,PL hvr n ..Hvtd gmn fcro eusrto nsis R rs,Bc Ra- Boca Press, CRC soils. in sequestration carbon of agement property soil dynamic for Criteria 2002. Tugel. A.J. and J.E., Herrick, Havstad. K.M. and Shaver, P.L. Tugel, A.J. and Brown, J.R. Environ. J.E., for Herrick, Inst. Int. Linking guide. 2002. trainer’s A Torn. action: M. and learning and Schimel, J. Chadwick, O. L., Hedin, and politics US between boundary the Stabilizing 1999. D.H. Guston, 2001. Herrick. J.E. and Seybold, C.A. Harms, D.S. R.B., Grossman, abat,JM 03 CMNHCrua etrN.4[nie.gasad.Si c.Sc m .51:1173–1179. J. Am. Soc. Sci. Soil grasslands. [Online]. 4 No. Letter Circular ICOMANTH 2003. J.M. Galbraith, Accounting 1993. Brown. R.B. and Hornsby, A.G. X., Foussereau, en,H 91 atr fsi omto.Asse fqatttv os,WP 94 h oeo itrac nntrlcommunities. natural in transi- disturbance States, of 2001. Shaver. role P.L. The and Krueger, 1984. W.C. W.P. T.K., Stringham, Sousa, recovery quantitative ecosystem Forest of 2002. Jr. Crossley, system D.A. and A J.M., Johnston, formation. soil of Factors 1941. H. Jenny, and Thompson, B.W. Hammer, R.D. McLeese, R.L. S.J., Indorante, uaa .. n .Hls 02 olsre nepeain:Ps,215–231. Past, interpretations: survey Soil 2002. Helms. D. and P.J., Durana, vn,CV,DS ann,adJR hr.20.Hmnifune omna hlegs al cdm rs,Wsigo,DC. Washington, Press, Academy Natl. challenges. ronmental Human-influenced 2000. Short. J.R. and Fanning, D.S. C.V., Evans, oln,CS,adGK ef.19.Cmadadcnrladteadgntcmdln fsi ytm.p 51–81. p. systems. soil of modeling genetic and the and control and 413:591–596. Command (London) 1996. Nature T.R. Meffe. ecosystems. G.K. in and and shifts C.S., Gosz, Catastrophic Holling, J.R. Grimm, N.B. Carpenter, S.R. J.E., Hobbie, dy- nitrogen and carbon of patterns Landscape 1995. K.A. Hibbard, et .. ..MGeo,adG dadJns 96 h interac- The 1996. Edward-Jones. G. and John McGregor, M.J. geomorphology. J.B., Soil Dent, p. 1992. aspects. Hammer. Pedological R.D. indicators: quality and Soil R.B., 1997. Daniels, R.J. MacEwan, D.H. Eckley, N. Dickson, N.M. Alcock, data. F. and scales, Clark, practical disciplines, W.C. Bridging and quality. D.W., Hydropedology: soil useful 2003. Cash, of H.S. diffusing Lin, strategy in Sampling aid 1994. to Martin. order S. “In and 2001. A., Lepretre, D.W. Cash, natu- into ecology Integrating 1996. MacLeod. N.D. and J.R., Brown, perspective. European A quality: environmental Soil 1997. J. Bouma, 746 h motneo itiuin opsto n olbooia rdeUi.Pes Cambridge. Press, Univ. bridge biological soils: soil rangeland and and composition 405–425. p. cropped distribution, activity. in of quality importance soil The and carbon organic WI. Madison, SSSA, and CSSA, ASA, ROM]. aaim rmrneadeooy go.J 431.Ru,HM 97 eeainlajsmn oteisaiiyo the of instability the to adjustment Vegetational 1957. H.M. Raup, Rangeland 2002. Pellant. M. and Shaver, P. 209–219. Herrick, p. J.E. soils. D.A., Northwest survey. Pyke, Pacific soil semi-arid in for carbon selection organic 94:3–11. on J. management: Agron. and ecology. monitoring rangeland to from quality Paradigms soil 55:584–597. of Manage. Application 2002. Wash- AGU, 2005). DC. www.agu.org/sections/ ington, Jan. at 20 (verified Available biogeo/BioGeoFuture.html envi- [Online]. terrestrial science for Challenges ronmental York. geoscience: New and biology ecological 29(1):87–111. bound- Sci. a as Stud. Transfer Social Technology of organization. Office ary the of 56:63–68. role Conserv. The Water science: quality Soil soil J. States. for United data the in use-invariant evaluation and use-dependent Coupling 0Jn 05.Vrii ehUi. lcsug ogtr tde.p 110–135. p. studies. long-term ecosys- managing in concepts Analysis 1987. variability Ojima. historical D.S. and Blacksburg. of Cole, Univ., C.V. limitations Schimel, Tech D.S. Virginia W.J., Parton, 2005). (verified Jan. 20 http://clic.cses.vt.edu/icomanth/circlet4.pdf at Available 60:257–276. model Geoderma fate pesticide survey. a soil linking to when units map within variability WI. for Madison, ASA, 39. Monogr. Agron. environment. urban 3.I ocpsaditrcin.Esve cec ul,Amsterdam. Publ., Science Elsevier interactions. and Concepts I. Univ., State Oregon 1024. Rep. Special Stn. Exp. Agric. tions. of component essential an Agric. 155:187–203. USDA ed. as Manage. 2nd surveys. Ecol. ecology soil For. interpreting Soil and management. making US: ecosystem for tion southeast the York. in New Co., Book McGraw-Hill ed. 1st pedology. 51:21–28. century. 21st Conserv. the Water for Soil survey J. soil Positioning 1996. Alexander. D.L. 10:328– Biol. Conserv. 337. management. resource natural of pathology cec nitricpiayrsac.SS pc ul 5 S nitrrtn itrclvraiiy cl pl 9(4):1207–1216. Appl. Ecol. variability. historical interpreting in ASA 45. Publ. WI. Spec. Madison, SSSA SSSA, research. and interdisciplinary in science rsn,adloigt h uue .275–302. p. future. the to looking and present, fln,adPJ uaa(d)Poie ntehsoyo h ..CS,adSS,Mdsn WI. Madison, SSSA, and CSSA, 33–67. U.S. p. the soils. of IA. history Ames, Press, the State in Iowa Profiles survey. (ed.) soil Durana P.J. and Effland, is ea & nv,CleeSain udmna opnn fsi ult.Si c.164:224–234. Sci. Soil quality. soil of component fundamental 23:152–156. Proc. Am. Soc. Sci. program. 47:2–83. Research 53(1):21–32. Agron. Ecological Bioscience Long-Term Adv. US soils. The forested 2003. on Seastedt. tion Station. Ph.D. College models. Univ., and A&M Observations Texas savanna: diss. subtropical a in namics FL. Raton, Soil Boca in Advances Press, cycle. CRC carbon the Science. and processes Soil (ed.) Stewart 01 rmped From and Dunbar, M.S. Bishop, T.F.A. Odeh, I.O.A. A.B., McBratney, 97:293–327. Geoderma survey. soil Amsterdam. in Elsevier, health. ecosystem and production crop planning. use land rural in scientists 113–122. social p. and 40:495–501. soil Bioscience between present. tion York. New Sons, & Wiley for systems 100(14):8086– 8091. USA Knowledge Sci. Acad. 2003. Natl. Mitchell. Proc. development. R.B. sustainable and Jager, J. Guston, of 26(4):431–453. source Values the Human as Technol. organizations. boundary Sci. Experience and learning: extension Agricultural Experiential information”: 20:289–296. 1984. Manage. D. Environ. Kolb, policy. management resource ral 26:26–31. Qual. Ad- FL. Environ. Raton, J. degradation. Boca soil Press, CRC of Science. assessment Soil in for vances Methods (ed.) Stewart In ..WgntadJ om e. h oeo soil of role The (ed.) Bouma J. and Wagenet R.J. In ..Bone l e. aaigsisi an in soils Managing (ed.) al. et Brown R.B. In .Ll ..Kml,RF olt n B.A. and Follet, R.F. Kimble, J.M. Lal, R. In 02Ana etn btat [CD- abstracts meeting Annual 2002 In OLSI O.A.J,VL 9 A–UE2005 MAY–JUNE 69, VOL. J., AM. SOC. SCI. SOIL .Hls A.B.W. Helms, D. oag,WP,adDW ono.19.Teefcso cdcdeposi- acidic of effects The 1992. Johnson. D.W. and W.P., Robarge, amse,PE,adJL lrct 98 rpmngmn effects management Crop 1998. Albrecht. J.L. and P.E., Rasmussen, Participatory 1995. Thomson. J. and Scoones, I. Guijt, I. J., Pretty, ikt,STA 99 pc-o-iesbttto sa lentv to alternative an as substitution Space-for-time 1989. S.T.A. Pickett, olSre tf.19.Si aooy ai ytmo olclassifica- soil of system basic A taxonomy: Soil 1999. Staff. Survey Soil un .20.Si cec nteBra fLn aaeet p. Management. Land of Bureau the in science Soil 2002. J. Muhn, asn,DJ,TW wta,adNL hitne.19.Ue and Uses 1999. Christensen. N.L. and Swetman, T.W. D.J., Parsons, envi- nation’s the Addressing Neon: 2003. Council. Research National mc,NE,ECA ug,adEE aKnoh 93 Dynamics 1983. MacKintosh. E.E. and Runge, Soil E.C.A. genesis. N.E., soil Smeck, of theory generalized a A of resilience: Outline Soil 1959. 1999. Simonson. Brejda. J.J. and Herrick, J.E. 2001. C.A., Walker. Seybold, B. and Folke, C. Foley, J.A. Carpenter, S. M., Scheffer, ilr .. n ..Wofne.19.Terl fciaechange climate of role The 1999. Woolfenden. W.B. and C.I., Millar, 2002. Vervoort. R.W. and Cattle, S.R. Minasny, B. A.B., McBratney, invisible the and research ecological Long-term 1990. J.J. Magnuson, olssanblt vrmlena etre,addcds Cam- decades. and centuries, millennia, over sustainability Soil ICUN, Reserves. Nat. of Promotion the for London. Soc. Nature Conserv. ie .36–48. p. site. FL. ton, In Range J. assessment. qualitative for indicators and attributes health London. Develop., Springer-Verlag, alternatives. and Approaches ecology: in studies ffcoscnrligsi rai atrlvl nGetPlains Great in levels matter organic soil controlling factors of 9(4):1177–1178. Appl. Ecol. tems. ..Sek n ..Hl e. eoeei n oltaxonomy. soil and Pedogenesis (ed.) Hall G.F. and Smeck, N.E. in n hehls ute eieetfrrneadapplica- rangeland for refinement Further thresholds: and tions 15:353–391. Syst. Ecol. Rev. DC. Annu. Washington, Office, Print. Gov. U.S. 436. Handb. itehanvrayrtopcie SASe.Pb.3.ASA, 33. Publ. Spec. SSSA retrospective. anniversary fiftieth A ..Saa.20.A vriwo eoerctcnqe o use for techniques pedometric of overview An 2000. Shatar. T.M. 109:41–73. 143–166. 2:1–11. J. Zone Vadose 22(3):40–43. Magazine Analusis NJ. River, Saddle Upper Hall, Prentice development. and learning .Ll ..Kml,RF olt,adBA twr e. Man- (ed.) Stewart B.A. and Follett, R.F. Kimble, J.M. Lal, R. In In tase ucin osi neec ytm.Geoderma systems. inference soil to functions otransfer ..GeoihadMR atr(d)Si ult for quality Soil (ed.) Carter M.R. and Gregorich E.G. .Audo ta.(d)Fcoso olformation: soil of Factors (ed.) al. et Amundson R. In rc n aes t eh et n.Union Int. Meet. Tech. 6th Papers: and Proc. In ..Lkn e. Long-term (ed.) Likens G.E. In ..Wilding, L.P. Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. tiga,TK,WC ree,adPL hvr 03 tt-n-42:266–274. net- through change environmental Monitoring 1994. P.B. State-and- Tinker, 2003. Shaver. P.L. and Krueger, W.C. T.K., Stringham, ul,Wligod K SASe.Pb.3.AA SA n SA aio,WI. Madison, SSSA, and CSSA, ASA, 39. Publ. Spec. SSSA CABI sciences. ecological and UK. Wallingford, agricultural Publ., in experiments term aae 62:0–1.to.Bt e.45:229–299. Rev. Bot. tion. man- Opportunistic 1989. 407–421. Noy-Meir. p. Range I. works. and J. Walker, B. approach. M., process Westoby, ecological 56(2):106–113. Manage. An modeling: transition 2005). http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/ Mar. at 4 (verified online technical/publications/index.html available Also Corvallis. In ..LihadAE ontn(d)Ln-vraiiyo nepeiemdln.p 61–75. p. modeling. interpretive on variability Long- (ed.) Johnston A.E. and Leigh R.A. UE TA. RMR BETVSO 1tCNUYSI SURVEY SOIL CENTURY 21st OF OBJECTIVES PRIMARY AL.: ET TUGEL idn,LP,J om,adDW os 94 mato spatial of Impact 1994. Goss. D.W. and Bouma, J. L.P., vegeta- in Wilding, disturbance natural and process Pattern, 1979. P.S. White, ..Anl e. uniaiemdln fsi omn processes. forming soil of modeling Quantitative (ed.) Arnold R.W. gmn o aglnsnta qiiru.J ag Manage. Range J. equilibrium. at not rangelands for agement In ..Byn and Bryant R.B. 747