DE DE GRUYTER 88 OPEN CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI SOIL SCIENCE ANNUAL DOI: 10.1515/ssa-2016-0012 Vol. 67 No. 2/2016: 88–100
CEZARY KABA£A1*, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK2, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI2
1 Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Institute of Soil Science and Environmental Protection Grunwaldzka 53, 50-357 Wroc³aw, Poland 2 Nicolaus Copernicus University, Department of Soil Science and Landscape Management Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruñ, Poland
Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and international soil classification system World Reference Base for Soil Resources (2015)
Abstract: The recent editions of the Polish Soil Classification (PSC) have supplied the correlation table with the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), which is the international soil classification most commonly used by Polish pedologists. However, the latest WRB edition (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015) has introduced significant changes and many of the former correlations became outdated. The current paper presents the closest equivalents of the soil orders, types and subtypes of the recent edition of the PSC (2011) and WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015). The proposals can be used for general correlation of soil units on maps and in databases, and may support Polish soil scientists to establish the most appropriate equivalents for soils under study, as well as make PSC more available for an international society.
Keywords: Polish Soils Classification, WRB, equivalents, reference soil groups, soil types
INTRODUCTION quantitative concept. Presently, the Soil Taxonomy is used in over 40 countries (Krasilnikov 2002) as a Pedology appeared in the second half of the 19th primary system for naming the soils. However, the century as a branch of modern science. From the very modern “American” terminology and breaking the beginning it was very important to develop a system link between soil genesis and classification scheme of soil classification combining the scientific and was unacceptable for many other scientists across the application functions. Several concepts were proposed world, which led to the development of independent just in the 19th century, based mainly on the geological new system of international soil classification, initially or agronomical approaches. The first attempt to soil as a Legend to Soil Map of the World and then – the classification related to climate and vegetation zonality World Reference Base for Soil Resources, WRB was presented by Dokuchaev in 1879 (Strzemski (FAO-ISSS-ISRIC, 1998). Although the WRB was 1971) and then refined by himself (Dokuchaev 1886) originally designed as an umbrella encompassing all and his successors, mainly Sibircev and Glinka the world’s soils at rather higher classification level (Strzemski 1971). This so-called “genetic” approach and small cartographic scale (“reference base”), in to soil classification has spread in the world during several countries it has been adopted as a basic soil the first decades of the 20th century. classification and mapping system, e.g. in Mexico, The next milestone in the development of soil clas- Norway, Tanzania, and Vietnam (Krasilnikov et al. sification was a “quantitative” approach, initiated by 2009). Nevertheless, pedologists in many countries US Soil Survey Staff in early second half of 20th Century still develop the national schemes of soil classifications (Soil Survey Staff 1960, Brevik et al. 2016). Numerous and use the WRB mainly as a “lingua franca”, a tool studies on soil genesis and classification in the following for correlation of the national soil classification systems. decades led to an improvement of the quantitative Numerous studies have been published since the system as the Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2014) release of the 1st edition of WRB (IUSS Working and broad international acceptation for its rational Group WRB 1998) aiming on the correlation issues.
* Prof. dr hab. C. Kaba³a, e-mail: [email protected] http://ssa.ptg.sggw.pl/issues/2016/672 Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 89
An approximated correlation between the Czech, significant changes. Many of the existing correlation Romanian, Latvian, and Brazilian classifications and data require reinterpretation and updating. In fact, WRB were presented by Nemeèek et al. (2001), most of soil units cannot be simply correlated due to Munteanu and Florea (2002), Karklins (2002), and several reasons stated above. In case of PSC5 (2011) Palmieri et al. (2003), respectively. Correlation between the main reasons of uncertainty are: traditional the Polish soil classification, PSC (1989) and WRB (“genetic”) attempt to soil classification, the lack of was discussed in the book of Charzyñski (2006). dichotomic (decision-making) classification key, and Extended comparison of the WRB and a number of differences in diagnostic horizons/materials definitions. national soil classifications was given by Krasilni- The aim of this study is to indicate the closest kov (2002). A Handbook of Soil Terminology, Correlation correlations between the recent edition of the PSC and Classification by Krasilnikov et al. (2009) provided (2011) and WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015). a correlation with the second edition of WRB. New Given proposal may support Polish soil scientists to correlations with the third edition of WRB (IUSS establish the most appropriate equivalents for soils Working Group WRB 2006) was performed e.g. for under study, as well as make PSC more clear and available Romanian (Secu et al. 2008) and Croatian systems for an international society. The proposal is based on (Husnjak et al. 2010). Defective correlation may a comparison of the definitions of diagnostics and result from various reasons. Soil taxa may have broader properties required for soil units distinguished in both or narrower definitions in national classification than classification systems (Orders, Types and Subtypes WRB groups and some taxa only partially coincide in a case of PSC5 and Reference Soil Groups and (Zádorová and Peníñek 2011). The correlativity of qualifiers in the case of WRB). particular soil unit depends on the level of conformity of the threshold values in its diagnostic criteria. Such THE ADAPTATION OF WRB limits can vary remarkably in different reference units BY POLISH SOIL SCIENTISTS (Shi et al. 2010). Another difficulty in correlation procedures is associated with the different analytical The WRB is widely used by Polish authors that protocols used for delimitation of diagnostic horizons was confirmed by conducted queries. More than 100 and features (Reintam and Köster 2006). Some confusion articles released in years 2011–2015, containing infor- in the correlation may be born from perfunctory mation about the systematic placement of soils, were consideration of units named similarly or identical, analyzed in the review (Fig. 1). Four scientific jour- or from the qualitative approach to recognition of nals were taken into consideration: Soil Science An- diagnostic horizons and features. In the latter case, nual (SSA), Polish Journal of Soil Science (PJSS), the “expert knowledge” prevails, and the correlations Geoderma, and Catena. The first two are the most are indicated without consideration of the differences relevant Polish journals dealing with issues of soil and similarities between the diagnostics criteria. science. In the next two international journals the Sometimes, even the authors themselves admit that papers written by Polish authors appear more frequent their correlation is approximate only (Husnjak et al. recently. 2010). As a result, such correlations provide only the basic In all four journals, soils were classified according interrelationships and are subject to a number of to WRB in most of the papers. In the Polish journals inaccuracies (Charzyñski 2006). (i.e. SSA and PJSS), WRB is commonly used simul- An increasing demand for harmonized digital soil taneously with PSC (e.g. Dêbska et al. 2012, Gajew- information can be observed nowadays. The correlation ski et al. 2015, Glina et al. 2014, Mendyk et al. 2015, of national systems with WRB has got a new priority, Musztyfaga and Kaba³a 2015, Œwitoniak 2015, Za- as it is necessary for the development of European górski et al. 2015). WRB is the only used soil clas- and global databases, giving the opportunity to enrich sification system in most articles published in Geoderma them with more new data. Interesting approach to it, and Catena (e.g. Waroszewski et al. 2013, Szymañski based on calculations of the taxonomic distances et al. 2014, Uzarowicz and Skiba 2011), whereas PSC between the selected types of Hungarian soils and was rarely used as the only classification (without related WRB RSGs was presented by Láng et al. at least comparison with international systems). Such (2013). papers were published mainly in the Polish journals The recent 5th edition of Polish Soil Classification, as reviews or discussions on PSC (e.g. Kaba³a 2014, PSC5 (2011) contains a table of correlation with WRB Marcinek et al. 2014), and only in one paper of Catena and the Soil Taxonomy. The third edition of WRB (Zg³obicki et al. 2015). In the latter case, names of was released in 2014, with upgrades in 2015 (IUSS soils have the wording similar to the WRB. Among Working Group WRB 2015) with a number of another systems, only the Soil Taxonomy and only in 90 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI
FIGURE 1. The use of classification systems in the papers focusing on Polish soils (based on papers published in years 2011–2015)
two papers was applied. In one case along with PSC be classified as Leptosols (Table). First type comprises (Józefaciuk and Czachor 2014), and in the second case soils with often discontinuous thin organic layer – along with WRB (Pawlik et al. 2013). resting directly on the hard or cracked rock, which A great importance of WRB was also reflected in can be emphasized by the Nudilithic qualifier (Kaba- pedological monographs recently published in Poland. ³a et al. 2013). For subtype of raw rocky rendzinas Although related to soils of Poland, they are often (rêdziny inicjalne skaliste), formed by weathering of published in English (Charzyñski et al. (Eds.) 2013, carbonate rocks, Calcaric is another vital qualifier. Œwitoniak and Charzyñski (Eds.) 2014) or bilingually The second type, debris soils (gleby inicjalne rumo- (Kaba³a (Ed.) 2015) with the soil names defined szowe), may be apparently deep, but are extremely according to WRB. skeletal, thus Nudilithic qualifier have been replaced with Hyperskeletic one. Raw regosols (gleby inicjalne PROPOSED CORRELATIONS erozyjne) were formed by strong erosion and truncation OF PARTICULAR SOIL UNITS of the original soils and the lack of soil horizons (Protic qualifier). Their current properties are strictly related Resent edition of WRB (IUSS Working Group to the features (e.g. texture, reaction) of unconsoli- WRB 2015) has introduced a number of significant dated parent materials. The forth type, raw accumu- changes in relation to the previous versions. The lation soils (gleby inicjalne akumulacyjne) are formed proposed correlation table (Table) includes many novel mainly from recent eolian (Protic Arenosols) (Jan- suggestions for soil classification compared with the kowski et al. 2014) or fluvial (Gleyic Fluvisols) deposits. previous proposals (PSC 2011). The English equivalents However, initially developed alluvial soils with strong for the Polish names of orders, types and subtypes gleyic properties starting near the mineral surface are given after the recent proposal of Œwitoniak et al. should be classified as Fluvic Gleysols. That RSG (2016). was purposely placed in the classification key before Fluvisols to emphasize greater ecological and pedo- Order 1: Raw mineral soils logical role of reducing conditions than geomorpho- (gleby inicjalne) logical processes.
The raw soils order brings together soils at the Order 2: Weakly developed soils early (initial) stage of development. WRB has allocated (gleby s³abo ukszta³towane) such soils among different RSGs characterized by little or no profile differentiation or with severe limitations The soils of this order are at still the early stage of to root growth. Raw rocky (gleby inicjalne skaliste) development, but are better developed (and thicker) and raw debris soils (gleby inicjalne rumoszowe) can than the raw soils. The occurrence of A or O horizon Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 91 which thickness often exceeds 10 cm is the most Order 4: Rusty soils characteristic feature of these soils. According to (gleby rdzawoziemne) PSC5, these A horizons are ochric epipedons, which cannot fulfill the criteria of other epipedons (e.g. The profile of rusty soils has the sandy texture mollic or umbric). Ochric horizon is no longer a throughout, thus all these soils belong to Arenosols diagnostic horizon in WRB, so the presence of weakly according to WRB (IUSS Working Group 2015). developed A horizons can be indicated by Ochric Endopedons sideric and rubic defined in PSC5 are qualifier only. Two first soil types of this order not recognized in WRB as diagnostic horizons. Their (Table) are derived from hard rock, i.e. rankers presence is expressed by the use of Brunic or Rubic/ (rankery) – from siliceous rocks (e.g. granite), and Chromic qualifiers, respectively. The only exceptions proper rendzinas (rêdziny w³aœciwe) – from carbonate from the above mentioned classification are some rocks (e.g. limestone or dolomite). Continuous rock ochrous soils (gleby ochrowe) with loamy rubic appears at the depth of tens of centimeters, but not horizons. The loamy texture shifts this soil variant to deeper than 50 cm, thus the soil may belong to Leptosols Chromic/Rubic Cambisols. or other RSGs. Commonly present thick organic (litter) horizon (thickness >10 cm) may be expressed by Folic Order 4: Clay-illuvial soils qualifier. Third soil type, pararendzinas (pararêdziny), (gleby p³owoziemne) have unconsolidated parent materials rich in secondary carbonates. According WRB they can be put into Clay-illuvial soils, often called soils lessives, most Calcisols; however, their origin in Poland is mainly often have been correlated with Luvisols by Polish connected with erosion and truncation of the former authors (e.g. Makuch 2012, Piotrowska and D³ugosz soil surface. Other units (Arenosols, Fluvisols, and 2012, Kwiatkowska-Malina and Maciejewska 2013, Regosols) are analogues with earlier discussed raw Paluszek 2013) or, after the second edition of WRB, soils. with Albeluvisols (Glina et al. 2013, Szymañski et al. 2014). However, the third edition of WRB has Order 3: Brown earths re-evaluated the importance of albeluvic tonguing, (gleby brunatnoziemne) which has spread the clay-illuvial soils to many different RSGs. The most important consequence for Soils of this order have cambic horizon distinguished classification and cartography of soils with argic using similar criteria in WRB and SGP5, with no other horizon in Poland is that the soil types of PSC5 cannot significant diagnostic horizons (only vertic and folic be simply correlated with RSGs of WRB. are allowed). Therefore, brown soils can be correlated Currently, only the non-gleyed proper clay-illuvial with Cambisols in general. The only important difference soils (gleby p³owe typowe) can be simply correlated is the texture requirement for cambic in PSC5, which with Luvisols (Table). Both the proper clay-illuvial allows loamy sand class and finer, while WRB requires soils (gleby p³owe typowe) and glossic clay-illuvial sandy loam and finer only. Thus, the brown soils with soils (gleby p³owe zaciekowe) with an abrupt textural sandy loam texture in Bw horizon have to be shifted difference and periodic water stagnation over/in to Brunic Arenosols (IUSS Working Group WRB argic horizon are now correlated with Planosols (Ka- 2015). ba³a (Ed.) 2015, Musztyfaga and Kaba³a 2015). The order brown earths (gleby brunatnoziemne) Furthermore, both the proper and glossic clay-illuvial comprises soils developed from various parent materials: soils with strong stagnic properties in the upper section alluvial deposits, glacial tills, or strongly weathered of soil profile, but without abrupt textural difference calcareous/siliceous bedrocks, which are classified may presently be correlated with Stagnosols (Kaba³a in four separate soil types by PSC5 (Table). According and Musztyfaga 2015). Only very few glossic clay- to WRB they belong to one RSG, and the distinction illuvial soils belongs to Retisols (Œwitoniak et al. is made by the following qualifiers: Dystric, Eutric, 2014). This RSG has replaced former Albeluvisols, Fluvic, Dolomitic/Calcaric, respectively (Table). but strong stagnic properties and abrupt textural Some differences in assigning of Dystric or Eutric difference are in these soils excluded that makes this status have to be indicated: (i) the base saturation RSG rather a marginal one. Finally, some clay-illuvial threshold is 60% in PSC while 50% in WRB, and (ii) soils characterized by very low base saturation have the control section in PSC is a depth 25–75 cm below to be described as Alisols (Œwitoniak 2008, Kaba³a soil surface, while in WRB, the rules of Dytric/ and Musztyfaga 2015). Separate type of wet clay- Eutric naming are more flexible when using the illuvial soils (gleby p³owe podmok³e) are characterized prefixes (e.g. Amphidystric, Anoeutric etc.) by strong reductic conditions and gleyic properties 92 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI starting near the surface, thus are a close counterpart for chernic horizon (IUSS Working Group 2015), must of Luvic Gleysols. be shifted to the Kastanozems (Fig. 2), even though it is not in line with original zonal concept of Kastanozems. Order 6: Podzol soils Black earths (czarne ziemie) are soils with mollic (gleby bielicoziemne) horizons and gleyic properties (£abaz and Kaba³a 2014). Some of them have calcic horizons just below All soils with spodic horizons, developed in course the mollic, thus can be described as Gleyic Chernozems. of podzolization, have been grouped in one order, closely Pedons without secondary carbonates, usually meet related to Podzols of WRB (Table). Podzolic soils the requirements for Gleyic Phaeozems, whereas the (gleby bielicowe) have humic horizon, while Podzols soils strongly moist and gleyed at a very shallow depth (bielice) are lacking A horizon (PSC 2011), which may be correlated with Mollic Gleysols. based on WRB may be distinguished by adding the All next three types of soils with mollic horizons Ochric qualifier to the first group. correspond to Phaeozems (Table). Depending on the origin and character of parent material these soil types Order 7: Black soils are diversified at the second classification level. (gleby czarnoziemne) Chernozemic rendzinas (rêdziny czarnoziemne) developed from carbonate rocks correlate well with Black soils are one of the most diverse and hete- Rendzic Phaeozems; humic alluvial soils (mady rogeneous orders in the PSC5. próchniczne) most often correlate with Fluvic The definition of chernozems (czarnoziemy) in Phaeozems, and humic colluvial soils (gleby delu- PSC5 is broader than its counterpart used in WRB as wialne czarnoziemne) derived from slope deposits it partly includes the so-called “degraded chernozems”. may be classified as Phaeozems with Colluvic So, the soils which do not meet restrict criteria of supplementary qualifier (and various main qualifiers, organic matter content, colour, and structure as defined e.g. Haplic, Luvic, Stagnic, Gleyic etc.). Cumulative
FIGURE 2. Correlation between the type Czarnoziemy in PSC5 and related RSGs in WRB: 1 – chernic horizon, 2 – mollic horizon, 3 – calcic horizon or protocalcic properties Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 93 subtypes with humic horizon thicker than 60 cm allows presence in vertisols (soils with mollic/umbric horizon to use the qualifier Pachic. may be classified in the black soils order only). Postmurshic soils (gleby murszaste) have a dark, thick, acid, and sand-textured humus horizons charac- Order 10: Organic soils terized by lacking or weak organo-mineral complexes. (gleby organiczne) These horizons have special definitions in PSC5, in relation to Polish tradition that distinguish several Although the definition of organic soils in PSC5 steps of peat material degradation and transformation and Histosols in WRB differ, these units are quite of organic soil into mineral one after drainage and well correlated. Fibric, hemic and sapric peat soils under intense land use (£abaz and Kaba³a 2016). (gleby torfowe fibrowe, hemowe i saprowe) are related WRB does not specify separate diagnostic horizons to Fibric, Hemic, and Sapric Histosol, respectively. of this type, but the above mentioned layers fulfill Limnic soils (where organic material was deposited criteria of umbric horizon. The common feature of as subaquatic sediment, e.g. gyttjas) correspond to postmurshic soils is high ground-water level. Therefore, Histosols with supplementary qualifier Limnic. Folic they correlate with two RSG depending on the intensity Histosols (gleby organiczne œció³kowe, folisole) are of gleyic properties in the upper part of soil profile – organic soils with thick folic horizon containing Umbric Gleysols or Gleyic Umbrisols. The soils are well-aerated litter directly on continuous rock (gleby or were intensively cultivated, thus the umbric horizons organiczne œció³kowe p³ytkie, Folic Rockic Histosols) exhibit also features of anthric properties which or in the fissures between stones/boulders (gleby entitles to use Anthroumbric qualifier. A proposal of organiczne œció³kowe typowe, Folic Mawic Histosols). new specific qualifier for post-murshic horizons was also submitted to WRB (£abaz and Kaba³a 2016). Order 11: Anthropogenic soils (gleby antropogeniczne) Order 8: Gleysols (gleby glejoziemne) The soils of this order were strongly transformed or created in course of intentional human activity. Two Soils saturated with groundwater for periods long different groups of soils are assembled in this order, enough to develop reduction conditions and gleyic the soils which origins are related to agricultural properties at shallow depth represent Gleysols. activity, and soils which formation/transformation is However, the definition of gleysols in PSC5 is narrower related to construction and industrial/mining activities. than in WRB and does not include soils with diagnostic The first group, called culturozems in PSC5 (gleby horizons such as mollic, umbric, argic, and spodic. kulturoziemne) (Table), may be correlated with However, histic horizon is allowed, giving the base Anthrosols in WRB, as both they are distinguished for separation of two subtypes (Table). based on similar criteria for diagnostic horizons such as hortic and plaggic. However, there are only some Order 9: Vertisols differences, as in the subtype rigosols (rigosole), that (vertisole) may not meet criteria of Anthrosols and, depending on the particular soil properties and morphology, may Soils developed from clayey materials, which have be scattered between many RSGs (Phaeozems, ability to seasonal shrinking and swelling, are described Arenosols, Regosols etc.). Much more problematic as Vertisols in both classification systems. WRB does is the correlation of urbanozems and industrizems, not provide (in the list dedicated to this RSG) suitable which definition in PSC5 bases mainly on their loca- qualifiers for first type in this order – acid vertisols lization and the fact of transformation in general, (vertisole dystroficzne), but allows addition of whereas the required content of artefacts is not clearly Epidystric as supplementary qualifier, if applicable defined. However, it is believed, based on the existing (Table). Second type, proper vertisols (vertisole reports (Charzyñski et al. 2013 (Eds.)), that most of eutroficzne), has carbonates starting ≤100 cm from urbanozems and industrizems may be classified as the soil surface. Depending on the amount of secondary Urbic or Spolic Technosols, respectively. carbonates, the qualifiers Calcic or Protocalcic can Salt-affected soils have presently a marginal position be used. The most distinctive feature of last type – in PSC5 within the order of anthropogenic soils and humic vertisols (vertisole próchniczne), is dark and require further improvement, as the salinization thick A horizon. In WRB it has to be emphasized by features occur in many “natural” soil taxa as a secondary Pellic, which is intended for Vertisols only. It must characteristic (Hulisz 2016, Hulisz et al. 2010). be stated, that PSC5 does not allow mollic horizon According to WRB, these soils can be classified in 94 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI different RSG’s, mainly Gleysols and Technosols, Hulisz P., 2016. Coastal marsh soils in Poland: characteristics using the Alkalic, Salic, and Sodic qualifiers. and problems of classification. Soil Science Annual 67(1): 37–44. Hulisz P., Charzyñski P., Giani L., 2010. Application of the WRB FINAL REMARKS classification to salt-affected soils in Poland and Germany. Polish Journal of Soil Science 43(1): 81–92. This paper shows merely the most representative Husnjak S., Rubiniæ V., Vrbek B., Špoljar A., 2010. Vañnost, counterparts of soil units in PSC5 and WRB. Conse- naèela i pravila svjetske referentne osnovice za tlo (WRB) quently, the listed above correlations should be used s primjerima korištenja u Hrvatskoj (The World Reference for general description of soil cover only, whereas Base for Soil Resources (WRB) with the examples of its use individual pedons may represent another Reference in Croatia). Agronomski glasnik 63(5–6): 347–365. Soil Group of WRB that was documented by many IUSS Working Group WRB, 1998. World Reference Base for authors (e.g. Charzyñski 2006, Mendyk et al. 2015). Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Reports 84, FAO, Rome: 186 pp. In the detailed studies based on individual soil IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006. World Reference Base for description and analytical data all profiles should be Soil Resources 2006. World Soil Resources Report 103, FAO, conventionally classified using the key to the Reference Rome: 186 pp. Soil Groups (IUSS Working Group 2015). IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015. World Reference Base for soil resources 2014. International soil classification system ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. Update 2015. World Soil Resources Report 106. FAO, Rome: 188 pp. Dr hab. Piotr Hulisz is kindly acknowledged for Jankowski M., Rutkowska P., Bednarek R., 2014. Chronosequence of soils on inland dunes in Poland. [In:] M. Œwitoniak, P. suggestions on correlation of salt-affected soils. Charzyñski (Eds.) Soil Sequences Atlas. Wydawnictwo Publication of the paper was financed by the National naukowe UMK: 109–123. Science Centre of Poland (research grant 2014/15/B/ Józefaciuk G., Czachor H., 2014. Impact of organic matter, iron ST10/04606). oxides, alumina, silica and drying on mechanical and water stability of artificial soil aggregates. Assessment of new method REFERENCES to study water stability. Geoderma 221/222: 1–10. Kaba³a C., 2014. Systematyka gleb Polski – stan aktualny i dal- szy rozwój. (Classification of Polish Soils – current state and Brevik E.C., Calzolari C., Miller B.A., Pereira P., Kaba³a C., further development). Soil Science Annual 65(2): 91–98. Baumgarten A., Jordán A., 2016. Soil mapping, classification, Kaba³a C., 2015. (Ed.) Soils of Lower Silesia origins, diversity, and pedologic modeling: History and future directions. Geoderma and protection. Polish Society of Soil Science, Polish Society 264: 256–274. of Humic Substances, Wroc³aw, Poland: 253 pp. Charzyñski P., 2006. Testing WRB on Polish Soils. Association Kaba³a C., Bogacz A., £abaz B., Szopka K., Waroszewski J., of Polish Adult Educators, Toruñ: 1–110. 2013. Ró¿norodnoœæ, dynamika i zagro¿enia gleb (Diversity, Charzyñski P., Hulisz P., Bednarek R., 2013. (Eds.) Technogenic dynamics and threats for soils). [In:] Knapik R., Raj A. (Eds.) Soils of Poland. Polish Society of Soil Science, Toruñ: 357 pp. Przyroda Karkonoskiego Parku Narodowego. Karkonoski Dêbska B., Banach-Szott M., Rosa E., Paku³a J., 2012. The effect Park Narodowy, Jelenia Góra: 91–126 (in Polish). of soil pollution by selected PAHs on the fractional composition Kaba³a C., Musztyfaga E., 2015. Gleby p³owe w systematyce gleb of organic matter. Roczniki Gleboznawcze – Soil Science Polski i w klasyfikacjach miêdzynarodowych (Clay-illuvial Annual 63(1): 13–17 (in Polish with English abstract). soils in the Polish and international soil classifications). Soil Dokuchaev V.V., 1886. Glavnye momenty w istori otcenok zemel Science Annual 66(4): 204–213. evropeyskoi Rossii s klassifikatiej russkich pochw. Otchyot Karklins A., 2002. A comparative study of the Latvian soil Classi- Nizegorodskomu Gubernskomu zemstwu. Materialy k otcenke fication with WRB. [In:] E. Micheli, F. O. Nachtergaele, R.J.A. zemel Niznegorodskoy Guberni. Yestestvennoistoricheskaya Jones, L. Montanarella (Eds.), Soil Classification 2001. chast. Wypusk I. Gl. V: 210–342; Yestestwenno-istoricheskaya European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 7, EUR 20398 klassifikatciya russkih pochw. Gl. VI: 342–391. Sankt Peter- EN: 199–204. burg (in Russian). Krasilnikov P.V., 2002. Soil terminology and correlation. FAO-ISSS-ISRIC, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. Karelian Research Centre RAS, Petrozavodsk: 225 pp. World Soil Resources Report 84. FAO, Rome: 155 pp. Krasilnikov P., Ibáñez Martí J-J., Arnold R. W., Shoba S., 2009. Gajewski P., Kaczmarek Z., Owczarzak W., Mocek A., Glina B., Handbook of soil terminology, correlation and classification. 2015. Selected physical and water properties of soils located Earthscan, London-Sterling, VA: 325 pp. in the vicinity of proposed opencast lignite mine “Drzewce” Kwiatkowska-Malina J., Maciejewska A., 2013. Uptake of heavy (middle Poland). Soil Science Annual 66(2): 75–81. metals by darnel multifloral (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) at Glina B., Jezierski P., Kaba³a C., 2013. Physical and water diverse soil reaction and organic matter content. Soil Science properties of Albeluvisols in the Silesian Lowland (SW Annual 64(1): 19–23. Poland). Soil Science Annual 64(4): 123–129. Láng V., Fuchs M., Waltner I., Michéli E., 2013. Soil taxonomic Glina B., Waroszewski J., Kaba³a C., 2014. Water retention of distance, a tool for correlation: As exemplified by the Hungarian the loess-derived Luvisols with lamellic illuvial horizon in Brown Forest Soils and related WRB Reference Soil Groups. the Trzebnica Hills (SW Poland). Soil Science Annual 65(1): Geoderma 192(2013): 269–276. 18–24. Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 95
£abaz B., Kaba³a C., 2014. Geneza, w³aœciwoœci i klasyfikacja Shi X.Z., Yu D.S., Xu S.X., Warner E.D., Wang H.J., Sun W.X., czarnych ziem w Polsce (Origin, properties, and classification Zhao Y.C., Gong Z.T., 2010. Cross-reference for relating of black earths in Poland). Soil Science Annual 65(2): 80–90. Genetic Soil Classification of China with WRB at different £abaz B., Kaba³a C., 2016. Human-induced development of scales. Geoderma 155: 344–350. mollic and umbric horizons in drained and farmed swampy Soil Survey Staff, 1960. Soil Classification. A Comprehensive alluvial soils. Catena 139: 117–126. System. 7-th Approximation. U.S. Dept. of Agr. Soil Conservation Makuch I., 2012. Forms of lead in profiles of differently use soil. Service. Washington D.C. Roczniki Gleboznawcze – Soil Science Annual 63(4): 41–45 Soil Survey Staff, 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. USDA- (in Polish with English abstract). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Marcinek J., Komisarek J., Mocek A., Bednarek R., Skiba S., Strzemski M., 1971. Myœli przewodnie systematyki gleb. IUNG, 2014. Sprostowania nieœcis³oœci jakie znalaz³y siê w artykule Pu³awy. Stanis³awa Bro¿ka pt. „Czy Systematyka gleb Polski, wyda- Szewczyk A., Kaniuczak J., Hajduk E., Knap R., 2015. Physical nie 5. dotyczy wszystkich gleb naszego kraju” opublikowa- and chemical properties of selected soils from the surroundings nym w Rocznikach Gleboznawczych z. 63(3): 49–56. Soil of the Magura National Park (southern Poland). Soil Science Science Annual 65(1): 39–44. Annual 66(1): 36–44. Mendyk £., Œwitoniak M., Bednarek R., Falkowski A., 2015. Szymañski W., Skiba M., Nikorych V.A., Kuligiewicz A., 2014. Genesis and classification of the soils developed from the Nature and formation of interlayer fillings in clay minerals in sediments of the former Oleszek mill pond basin (the Che³- Albeluvisols from the Carpathian Foothills, Poland. Geoderma miñskie Lakeland, N Poland). Soil Science Annual 66(1): 29–35. 235/236: 396–409. Munteanu I., Florea N., 2002. Present-day status of Soil Classifi- Œwitoniak M., 2008. Classification of young glacial soils with cation in Romania. [In:] Micheli E., Nachtergaele F.O., Jones vertical texture-contrast using WRB system. Agrochimija R.J.A., Montanarella L. (Eds.), Soil Classification 2001, EC, i Gruntoznawstwo 69: 96–101. JRC, European Soil Bureau, Research Report 7, EUR 20398 Œwitoniak M., 2015. Issues relating to classification of colluvial EN: 55–62. soils in young morainic areas (Che³mno and Brodnica Lake Musztyfaga E., Kaba³a C., 2015. Lithological discontinuity in District, northern Poland). Soil Science Annual 66(2): 57–66. Glossic Planosols (Albeluvisols) of Lower Silesia (SW Œwitoniak M., Charzyñski P., 2014. (Eds.) Soil sequences atlas. Poland). Soil Science Annual 66(4): 180–190. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, Toruñ: 212 pp. Nemeèek J., Mackù J., Vokoun J., Vavøièek D., Novák P., 2001. Œwitoniak M., Charzyñski P., Mendyk £., 2014. Forested areas Taxonomický Klasifikaèní Systém Pùd Èeské Republiky. ÈZU within hummocky moraine plateaus of Poland (Brodnica Lake Praha – VÚMOP Praha, Praha (in Czech with English summary). District). [In:] Soil sequences atlas. (Eds.) M. Œwitoniak, P. Palmieri F., Santos H., Gomes I., Lumbreras J., Aglio M., 2003. Charzyñski, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, Toruñ: 61–76. The Brazilian Soil Classification System. [In:] H. Eswaran, Œwitoniak M., Kaba³a C., Charzyñski P., 2016. Proposal of T. Rice, R. Ahrens, B.A. Stewart (Eds.) Soil Classification. recommended English equivalents for the soil taxa names of A Global Desk Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton London soil units in the Polish Soils Classification. Soil Science New York Washington D.C.: 127–146. Annual (submitted). Paluszek J., 2013. Assessment of soil structure of Luvisols Uzarowicz £., Skiba S., 2011. Technogenic soils developed on developed from loess classified in various complexes of agricultural mine spoils containing iron sulphides: Mineral transformations suitability. Soil Science Annual 64(2): 41–48. as an indicator of pedogenesis. Geoderma 163(1–2): 95–108. Pawlik £., Migoñ P., Owczarek P., Kacprzak A., 2013. Surface Waroszewski J., Kalinski K., Ma³kiewicz M., Mazurek R., processes and interactions with forest vegetation on a steep Koz³owski G., Kaba³a C., 2013. Pleistocene-Holocene cover-beds mudstone slope, Sto³owe Mountains, SW Poland, Catena 109: on granite regolith as parent material for Podzols – An example 203–216. from the Sudeten Mountains. Catena 104: 161–173. Piotrowska A., D³ugosz J., 2012. Spatio-temporal variability of Zadorova T., Peniñek V., 2011. Problems in correlation of Czech microbial biomass content and activities related to some National soil classification and World Reference Base 2006. physicochemical properties of Luvisols. Geoderma 173/174: Geoderma 167/168: 54–60. 199–208. Zagórski Z., Kisiel M., Kuœmierz A., 2015. Selected properties Polish Soil Classification, 1989. Roczniki Gleboznawcze – Soil and systematic position of soils developed from red sandstones Science Annual 40(3/4): 150 pp. and clays of the lower Triassic Buntsandstein in the NW part Polish Soil Classification, 2011. Roczniki Gleboznawcze – Soil of the Holy Cross Mountains (Poland). Soil Science Science Annual 62(3): 193 pp. Annual 66(3): 139–153. Reintam E., Köster T., 2006. The role of chemical indicators to Zg³obicki W., Baran-Zg³obicka B., Gawrysiak L., Telecka M., correlate some Estonian soils with WRB and Soil Taxonomy 2015. The impact of permanent gullies on present-day land criteria. Geoderma 136: 199–209. use and agriculture in loess areas (E. Poland). Catena 126: Secu C.V., Patriche C., Vasiliniuc I., 2008. Aspects regarding the 28–36. correlation of the Romanian Soil Taxonomy System (2003) with WRB (2006), Soil Science 9(3–4): 56–62. Received: April 28, 2016 Accepted: July 12, 2016 96 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI
TABLE. Correlation of soil units between Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015)
redrO epyT epytbuS 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW ybelG ,slosotpeL enlajciniybelG cihtiL etsilaksenlajciniybelG slosotpeLcihtiL/cihtiliduN enlajcini ,slosogeR etsilaks slosotpeL )elosotil(ewonalgêwzeb ,slosonerA enlajciniynizdêR cihtiL/cihtiliduNciraclaC slosivulF etsilaks slosotpeL enlajciniybelG citeleksrepyH enlajciniybelG slosotpeLciteleksrepyH ewozsomur slosotpeL ewozsomur )elosoger( ewonalgêwzeb ewozsomurynizdêR citeleksrepyHcitimoloD/ciraclaC slosotpeL enlajciniybelG slosogeRcitorP – slosogeRcitorPcirtuE/cirtsyD enjyzore enlajciniybelG ;slosonerAcitorP – ;slosonerAcitorPcirtsyD enjycalumuka slosivulFciyelG ,cinerA(slosivulFciyelGcitorP ;)citorP( ;)citorP slosyelGcivulF ,cinerA(slosyelGcivulFcitorP )citorP( )citorP ybelG ,slosotpeL yreknaR slosotpeL ewopyt slosotpeLcitelekScirtuE/cirtsyD oba³s ,slosogeR )cirhcO( -ot³atzsku ,slosonerA ewoniwtub )cirhcO(slosotpeLciloFcirtsyD enaw ,slosivulF ,slosogeR ainawocileibimahcecz slosotpeLcirtsyD slosiclaC )cidopsotorP/ciblA( aineintanurbimahcecz )cirhcO(slosotpeLcibmaC ewicœa³wynizdêR slosotpeLciraclaC ewopyt slosotpeLcitimoloD/ciraclaC )cirhcO( ewoniwtub ciloFcitimoloD/ciraclaC )cirhcO(slosotpeL ynizdêraraP ciraclaC,slosiclaC ewopyt ;)cirhcO(slosiclaCcilpaH slosogeR slosogeRciraclaC aineintanurbimahcecz ;)cirhcO(slosiclaCcilpaH slosogeRciraclaC elosonerA slosonerA – slosonerAciloF/ciblA/cirtsyD )cirhcO( ewicœa³wydaM slosivulF – slosivulFciyelG/cirtuE/cirtsyD )cirhcO( oba³sybelG slosogeR – slosogeRcitelekS/cirtuE/cirtsyD enawot³atzsku )cirhcO( enjyzore ybelG slosibmaC entanurbybelG slosibmaCcirtuE ewopyt slosibmaCciraclacodnE -ontanurb enzcifortue enzcinhcórp )cimuH(slosibmaCciraclacodnE enmeiz enawogu³yw slosibmaCcirtuE ewojelg-owodapo slosibmaCcingatScirtuE ewojelg-owotnurg slosibmaCciyelGcirtuE citrevimahcecz slosibmaCcitreVcirtuE entanurbybelG slosibmaCcirtsyD ewopyt slosibmaCcirtsyD enzcifortsyd enzcinhcórp )cimuH(slosibmaCcirtsyD ainawocileibimahcecz )cidopsotorP(slosibmaCcirtsyD ewojelg-owodapo slosibmaCcingatScirtsyD ewojelg-owotnurg slosibmaCciyelGcirtsyD citrevimahcecz slosibmaCcitreVcirtsyD entanurbydaM slosibmaCcivulF ewopyt slosibmaCcivulF enojelgo slosibmaCciyelGcivulF entanurbynizdêR ciraclaC/citimoloD ewopyt slosibmaCciraclaC/citimoloD slosibmaC enmeizonowrezc cimorhCciraclaC/citimoloD slosibmaC Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 97
Table continued
redrO epyT epytbuS 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW ybelG slosonerA ewazdrybelG slosonerAcinurB ewopyt slosonerAcinurBcirtsyD -owazdr ainawocileibimahcecz slosonerAcinurBciblA enmeiz ewojelg-owotnurg slosonerAciyelGcinurB eworhcoybelG cimorhC/cibuR ewopyt slosonerAcimorhC/cibuR slosonerA ybelG ,slosivuL ewo³pybelG ,slosivuL:yltsoM ewopyt ;slosivuLciblA/cilpaH -owo³p ,slosonalP slosonalP slosilAciblA enmeiz ,slositeR )sepytbus:ees( enozczsaips ,cineraipE(slosivuLcitpurbA ,slosongatS i–)cimaolodnE cingatsonsierehtf slosilA )modles(serutaef slosonalPcivuL; –)cimaolodnE,cineraipE( htiw )yllausu(serutaefcingats enojelgoenozczsaips slosonalPciyelGcivuL )cimaolodnE,cineraipE( ewojelg-owodapo ;slosivuLcingatS slosongatScivuL ewojelg-owotnurg slosivuLciyelG cirgamemoizopz )cisneD(slosivuLciblA enzcinhcórp )cimuH,cirA(slosivuLciblA etsyzczsaip )cinerA(slosivuLcillemaL aineintanurbimahcecz )cibmacoeN(slosivuLciblA ainawocileibimahcecz )cidopsotorP(slosilAciblA cissolgimahcecz slositeRcigarF/ciblA citrevimahcecz )ciyalcodnE(slosivuLcitreV ewo³pybelG ,slositeR:yltsoM ewopyt slositeRcissolG/ciblA ewokeicaz slosonalP enozczsaips ,citpurbA(slositeRciblA )sepytbus:ees( onfi–)cimaolodnE,cineraipE ;)modles(serutaefcingatS slosonalPcissolGcivuL htiw–)cimaolodnE,cineraipE( )yllausu(serutaefcingats ewojelg-owodapo foesacni–slositeRcingatS ;seitreporpcingatskaew –slosongatScissolGcivuL esacni seitreporpcingatsgnortsfo ewojelg-owotnurg slositeRciyelG cirgamemoizopz )cisneD(slositeRciblA enzcinhcórp )cimuH,cirA(slositeRciblA aineintanurbimahcecz )cibmacoeN(slositeRciblA ainawocileibimahcecz )cidopsotorP(slosilAcissolGciblA citrevimahcecz )ciyelgodnE(slositeRcitreV ewo³pybelG )civuL(slosyelG ewopyt )civuL(slosyelGcirtuE/cirtsyD e³komdop enzcinhcórp slosyelGcirtuE/cirtsyD )civuL,cimuH( ybelG slozdoP ewocileibybelG slozdoP ewopyt )cirhcO(slozdoPcitnE/ciblA -ocileib ewonytzsro )cirhcO(slozdoPcinietstrO enmeiz ewopytewocileibojelg )cirhcO(slozdoPciblAciyelG ewocileibojelg slozdoPcinietstrOciyelG ewonytzsro )cirhcO( ewocileibojelg )cimuH(slozdoPciyelG etsazsrum etsaifrotewocileibojelg )cimuH(slozdoPciyelG 98 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI
Table continued
redrO epyT epytbuS 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW ybelG slozdoP ecileiB slozdoP ewopyt slozdoP)ciloF(ciblA -ocileib ewonytzsro slozdoPcinietstrOciblA enmeiz ecileibongats slozdoPciblA)citsiH/ciloF(cingatS ewopytecileibojelg slozdoPciblA)citsiH/ciloF(ciyelG ewonytzsroecileibojelg slozdoPciblAcinietstrOciyelG ybelG ,smezonrehC ymeizonrazC ,smezonrehC ewopyt ;smezonrehCciclaC/cilpaH -onrazc ,smezoeahP smezonatsaK ;smezonatsaKciclaC/cilpaH enmeiz ,smezonatsaK )ciclacyhtaB(smezoeahPcilpaH slosirbmU enjycalumuk )cihcaP(smezonrehCciclaC/cilpaH slosyelG cibmacmemoizopz ;)cibmaC(smezonrehCciclaC/cilpaH )ciclacyhtaB(smezoeahPcibmaC cigramemoizopz smezonrehCcivuL ewojelg-owodapo )cingatS(smezonrehCciclaC/cilpaH eimeizenrazC ,smezoeahPciyelG ewopyt ;smezoeahPcingatS/ciyelG smezonrehCciyelG smezonrehCcingatS/ciyelG enjycalumuk smezoeahPcingatS/ciyelG cingatS/ciyelG;)cihcaP( )cihcaP(smezonrehC cibmacmemoizopz smezoeahPciyelGcibmaC cigramemoizopz smezoeahPcingatS/ciyelGcivuL ciclacmemoizopz smezonrehCciclaCcingatS/ciyelG enawogu³yw ;smezoeahPcingatS/ciyelG slosirbmUcingatS/ciyelG ewojelg slosyelGcilloM)ciclaC( etsazsrum ,cinerA(slosirbmUciyelG smezoeahPciyelG;)cimuhrepyH )cimuhrepyH( ynizdêR smezoeahPcizdneR ewopyt smezoeahPcizdneR enmeizonrazc aineintanurbimahcecz smezoeahPcizdneRcibmaC ewojelg-owodapo smezoeahPcizdneRcingatS enmeizonrazcydaM smezoeahPcivulF ewopyt smezoeahPciyelGcivulF aineintanurbimahcecz smezoeahPcivulFcibmaC enlaiwuledybelG smezoeahP ewopyt )civulloC(smezoeahPcilpaH enmeizonrazc )civulloC( enjycalumuk )cihcaP,civulloC(smezoeahPcilpaH etsazsrumybelG ;slosyelGcirbmU ewopyt slosyelGcirbmu)orhtnA( slosirbmUciyelG :deniardylevisnetni;)cinerA( )cinerA(slosirbmUciyelG etsazsrum-otsizale¿ ,cinerA(slosyelGcirbmu)orhtnA( :deniardylevisnetni;)cirreF )cirreF,cinerA(slosirbmUciyelG etawozsrum slosyelGcirbmu)orhtnA( )cimuhrepyH/cimuH( ybelG slosyelG ewojelgybelG slosyelG ewopyt slosyelGcirtuE/cirtsyD enmeizojelg ewojelg-otsaifrot )cimuH(slosyelGcirtuE/cirtsyD ewojelg-owofrot slosyelGcitsiH ewojelg-owo³um slosyelGcitsiHcivulF ewojelg-owozsrum )cihsruM(slosyelGcitsiH Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and WRB (2015) 99
Table continued
redrO epyT epytbuS 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW elositreV slositreV elositreV slositreVcilpaH –– enzcifortsyd )cirtsydipE( enzcifortueelositreV slositreVcilpaH – – )ciclacotorP( slositreVciclaC elositreV slositreVcilleP –– enzcinhcórp )cingatS( ybelG slosotsiH ewofrotybelG slosotsiHcirbiF ewopyt slosotsiHcirbiF enzcinagro eworbif eworbif-owomeh slosotsiHcimehodnEcirbifipE eworbif-owonmil )cinmilodnE(slosotsiHcirbiF ewofrotybelG slosotsiHcimeH ewopyt slosotsiHcimeH ewomeh ewomeh-oworpas slosotsiHcirpasodnEcimehipE ewomeh-oworbif slosotsiHcirbifodnEcimehipE ewomeh-owonmil )cinmilodnE(slosotsiHcimeH enolumazewomeh )cilareniM(slosotsiHcimeH eikty³pewomeh slosotsiHcimeH )cinmiL/cilareniM( ewofrotybelG slosotsiHcirpaS ewopyt slosotsiHcirpaS eworpas eworpas-oworbif slosotsiHcirbifodnEcirpasipE eworpas-owomeh slosotsiHcimehodnEcirpasipE eworpas-owonmil )cinmilodnE(slosotsiHcirpaS enolumazeworpas )cilareniM(slosotsiHcirpaS eikty³peworpas slosotsiHcirpaS )cinmiL/cilareniM( enzcinagroybelG slosotsiHciloF ewopyt slosotsiHciloFciwaM ewok³óicœ hca³aksaneikty³p slosotsiHciloFcikcoR hcytil enzcinagroybelG )cinmiL(slosotsiH ewopyt )cinmiL(slosotsiHciniarD ewonmil ewonmil-owomeh )cinmiL(slosotsiHcimeH ewonmil-owonalgêw ,ciraclaC(slosotsiHciniarD )cinmiL enzcinagroybelG slosotsiHcihsruM ewozsrum-oworbif slosotsiHcirbifodnEcihsruM ewozsrum ewozsrum-owomeh slosotsiHcimehodnEcihsruM ewozsrum-oworpas slosotsiHcirpasodnEcihsruM ewozsrum-owonmil )cinmiL(slosotsiHcihsruM ybelG ,slosorhtnA ybelG slosorhtnA ciggalpmemoizopz slosorhtnAciggalP -oportna slosonhceT enmeizorutluk citrohmemoizopz slosorhtnAcitroH enzcineg )elositroh( cirhtnamemoizopz cilpaH;slosorhtnAcitroH ;)cirhtnA(smezoeahP )cirhtnA(slosirbmUcilloM/cilpaH )elosogir(ewokwóluger reyalhguolphtiwstinuliosynam .g.e,mc05>ssenkciht civulF ciyelG,)cihcaP(smezoeahP cilpaH;)cihcaP(slosirbmU )ciraonA(slosivuL 100 CEZARY KABA£A, MARCIN ŒWITONIAK, PRZEMYS£AW CHARZYÑSKI
Table continued
redrO epyT epytbuS 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW 1102CSP 5102BRW ybelG ,slosortnA ybelG ,slosonhceT enlajcini citacoleR,slosonhceTcilopS -oportna slosonhceT enmeizoirtsudni slosogeR slosogeR enzcineg enzcinhcórp )cirhcO/cimuH(slosonhceTcilopS enoc³atzskezrp .ge(stinuliossuoirav ,slosonhceT einzcimehc )slosivuL,slosogeR htiw cixoT reifilauq enmeizibruybelG slosonhceTcibrU enlajcini citacoleR,slosonhceTcibrU slosogeR enzcinhcórp )cirhcO/cimuH(slosonhceTcibrU enoc³atzskezrp .g.e(stinuliossuoirav ,slosonhceT einzcimehc )slosivuL,slosogeR htiw cixoT reifilauq bulenoinlezczsu slosonhceTcinarkE )elosonarke(etyrkyzrp eno³sybelG ,slosyelG – .g.e(stinuliossuoirav ,slosyelG enolosazi slosonhceT slosonhceT htiw) cilaS,cilaklA ro cidoS sreifilauq
Korelacja miêdzy Systematyk¹ gleb Polski (2011) a Œwiatow¹ Baz¹ Referencyjn¹ Zasobów Glebowych WRB (2015)
Streszczenie: Ostatnie wydanie Systematyki gleb Polski zawiera tabelê korelacyjn¹ z World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), która jest najczêœciej wykorzystywan¹ klasyfikacj¹ miêdzynarodow¹ przez polskich gleboznawców. Jednak¿e, najnowsze wydanie WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015) wprowadzi³o wiele istotnych zmian, co spowodowa³o zdezaktualizowanie siê wielu wczeœniejszych korelacji. Niniejsza publikacja prezentuje najbli¿sze odpowiedniki rzêdów, typów i podtypów gleb wyró¿nio- nych w pi¹tym wydaniu Systematyki gleb Polski oraz grup referencyjnych WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015). Przedstawione propozycje mog¹ znaleŸæ zastosowanie w ogólnej korelacji jednostek glebowych na mapach i w bazach danych, a tak¿e mog¹ byæ wykorzystywane przez polskich gleboznawców przy ustalaniu indywidualnych odpowiedników dla badanych gleb. Ponadto, zapro- ponowana tabela korelacyjna u³atwi odbiór Systematyki gleb Polski w miêdzynarodowym œrodowisku gleboznawczym.
S³owa kluczowe: Systematyka gleb Polski, WRB, odpowiedniki, referencyjne grupy gleb, typy gleb