DOCSLIB.ORG

Facing Basic Problems in the Discipline of Soil Classification: Conclusions Based on 35 Years Practice and Teaching

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Facing Basic Problems in the Discipline of Soil Classification: Conclusions Based on 35 Years Practice and Teaching EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 Facing basic problems in the discipline of soil classification: Conclusions based on 35 years practice and teaching LANGOHR Roger Ghent University, Soil Science, Krijgslaan 281/S8 B-9000-Ghent, Belgium Email: [email protected] Abstract Thirty-five years teaching soil classification to MSc fellows, mainly from developing countries, allows one to detect where the main problems are when young soil scientists are trying to use the standard handbooks for soil classification. Although the quality of these documents has increased in the last 25 years, still much can be improved. Mainly the index, the glossary and the redaction of the diagnostic requirements for horizons, materials, properties and taxa can still be markedly improved. Comprehensive studies by MSc and PhD research in soil classification allow one to conclude that the soil databases are mostly very poor. Missing and unreliable field and laboratory data for classifying soils are detected in nearly all the pedon databases. A method is proposed to lessen this major problem. This procedure will also permit improved recording of soil data in the future. It is also observed that soil scientists, in general, proceed too fast when they check the soil data for classification purposes. Keywords: soil classification, soil database, education Introduction Since 1971 the author has been a staff member of the International Training Centre for Post-graduate Soil Scientists at the Ghent University (ITC-Ghent). The late Prof. Rene Tavernier, head of the Belgian Soil Survey, launched this centre in 1963 to provide MSc level basic teaching in soil science and training in the various aspects of soil survey to scientists from developing countries. UNESCO supported the initiative. Up to now about 900 fellows, from 90 countries participated in this programme, most of them from developing countries. Through the years, the MSc programme changed because of new demands in applied soil science. Also the title was changed in 1997 to Master of Science in Physical Land Resources. The weight of the lectures and training in soil classification decreased with this evolution but remained in the programme. Today, soil classification is still part of the basic introductory courses in soil science, but the special training course in this subject became optional The author completed the ITC-Ghent programme in 1965. Dr. Guy D. Smith, leader of the project to develop a new soil classification for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) lectured to the class on the «7th Approximation» (Soil Survey Staff 1960). Since the beginning of the fifties Tavernier also organised several meetings in Ghent where heads of the soil surveys from many European countries, including those from behind the Iron Curtain, could discuss the progress of many soil classifications systems that where built in this “golden age of the soil survey”. One of these meetings, in 1952, can be called the “time zero of modern soil classification” (Eswaran, 1999). In the years 1970 through 1981 the author had many informal discussions on soil classification with G. Smith who lived then most of the time in Ghent. Conclusions based on 35 years practice and teaching. Langohr 15 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 In 1971 the author became a permanent staff member of the ITC-Ghent and was responsible, in the beginning for the training, and later also for the basic teaching in soil classification. In these years the ITC- Ghent programme focussed on both the FAO and the USDA soil taxonomies. This document provides an overview of the problems met by MSc students and PhD fellows, mainly from developing countries, when learning and training in these two taxonomies. It also reflects the difficulties the author met when applying these documents in his research and soil survey activities. In order to facilitate the further reading the following abbreviations will be used. • 7th Approximation: Soil Survey Staff 1960. • US ST 1975 and US ST 1999: first and second edition of the comprehensive handbook about the USDA Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1975 and 1999). • US ST 1998: the eighth edition of the “Keys to Soil Taxonomy” (Soil Survey Staff 1998). • FAO 1974: Legend of the FAO-UNESCO Soil Map of the World (FAO-UNESCO 1974). • FAO 1990: the Revised legend, Reprinted (FAO 1990a). • WRB 1998: the most recent edition of the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (ISSS/ISRIC/FAO 1998). • FAO, ST, WRB: the respective classification systems without precision of the edition. For the soil classification systems discussed in this paper, we consider the terms classification and taxonomy as synonyms. Also the FAO system is a taxonomy. It is not because it was built up as a tool for mapping soils that it would not be a taxonomic system but only a soil map legend (FAO 1990a, page 8). If this approach would be accepted, most classification systems, including US ST, would not be classification systems, or taxonomies. What and how to teach Teaching soil classification, just as any other classification system, can be a relatively easy task. After an introductory chapter where the basic terminology of the discipline is explained, the whole classification system can be discussed in length and width. Eventually some exercises can complete the programme. This approach is considered boring by most students and favours large memory capacities rather than comprehension of how to deal correctly with the subject. At ITC-Ghent the teaching programme was oriented toward preparing students to classify soils correctly rather than memorising numerous diagnostic requirements and taxa. An MSc degree is a high level of university teaching. It is the responsibility of the teaching staff to prepare professionals who, after the programme, can perform the job alone. Preference was given to: • teaching the rationale behind the systems, • warning of problems in the discipline as related to: o reputation, o quality of handbooks, o quality of database, o complexity of terminology, o complexity of keys for determination, • training on how to face these problems in order to classify soils correctly. Guy D. Smith mentioned in his Interviews (Smith 1986) that it was decided not to explain in the US ST handbook the reasons behind the decisions on the diagnostic criteria and definitions. The rationale was that readers would pay too much attention to these reasons, rather than on the definitions themselves. However, when we have to teach such a complex matter, the information provided to the students about the rationale is very important to help them link the rather abstract terminology and the diagnostic criteria to the problems met in the various applied aspects of soil science. From this point of view the publication of the Guy Smith Interviews (Smith 1986), eleven years after the first edition of US ST, was very helpful. Facing the status horribilis of soil classification as a discipline Overall, soil classification has a poor reputation. Severe criticism on the discipline is not uncommon. Comments such as “too many classification systems”, “changing too frequently”, “too many characteristics”, “data too difficult to obtain”, “too complex”, “too difficult terminology”, “specialists 16 Conclusions based on 35 years practice and teaching. Langohr EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 disagree on the exact names of the soils”, “useless” are frequently heard. Pronounced by outsiders, these could be understandable. Unfortunately such sentences are also heard from soil science colleagues. In the presence of scientists from other disciplines, students, or layman, this has a damaging impact on the status of soil science in general. This bad reputation is at least partly responsible for soil classification being absent from many teaching programmes in soil science. Many younger soil scientists do not receive any training in classifying soils and thus, they do not even comprehend a classification system. A large part of this criticism about soil classification is not valid. The existence of many classification systems, based on soil characteristics that are frequently updated, should be considered as “normal”. The main arguments are the following. • Soils have a very high number of morphological, chemical, physical, mineralogical characteristics. • The applications of soil science are numerous and deal with topics such as fertility for crop production, irrigation/drainage, rangeland management, forest productivity, waste deposits, pollution risks, toxicity remediation, sport fields, palaeo-environment reconstruction, nature reserve management, road and house construction, and urban planning. Each of these disciplines constructs a different hierarchy of importance among the numerous soil characteristics. • In zoology and botany, in natural conditions, sexuality largely rules the combinations that are possible. This allows considering all races of dogs and all races of cats as two distinct species. Also in mineralogy and petrography numerous combinations of elements are impossible because of the crystal structures or the exclusivity among chemical components. In soils, on the contrary, it is difficult to formulate strict rules about the exclusivity among the numerous characteristics. This is because soils are capable of retaining characteristics that are related to past environmental conditions. It is, for example, possible to observe: o soils with a Bt horizon also containing secondary carbonates; o soils mainly composed of kaolinite
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Puerto Rico Oxisols-Highly Weathered,Red Soils of the Tropics
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPML;4 FOR AID USE ONLY WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20523 BiBL;OGRAPHIC INPUT SHEET 16IIA.-C~ i A. PRIMARY l.SUBJECT Agriculture AF22-0000-G339 CLASSI- FCASI- SECONDARY FICATON IS. Soil chemistry and physics--Puerto Rico 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Oxisols-highly weathered,red soils of the tropics 3. AUTHOR(S) Beinroth,F.H. 4. DOCUMENT DATE S.NUMBER OF PAGES 8. ARC NUMBER 1973I 5p. ARC 7. REFERENCE ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Puerto Rico 8. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (Sponcoring Organization, Publiahers, Availability) (InSoils of the southern States and Puerto Rico,ed.by S.W.Buol,p.87-91) 9. ABSTRACT 10. CONTROL NUMBER 11. PRICE OF DOCUMENT PN-RAB-104 12. DESCRIPTORS 13. PROJECT NUMBER Puerto Rico 14. CONTRACT NUMBER CSD-2857 211(d) 15. TYPE OF DOCUMENT AID 590.1 (4-74) Chapter 12 OXISOLS-IIGIILY WEATIIERED, RED SOILS OF TIlE TROPICS F. H. Beinroth Introduction and General Setting of a western spur of the Cordillera Central, there Although the term "laterite" readily springs to ranging in altitude from 200 to 500 m. (600 to mind when the tipic of red tropical soils is raised, 1,500 feet), and consisting of ultrabasic plutonic it is but one of many names that have been pro- rocks (serpentinite) of Early Cretaceous age. For posed to characterize these soils. Latosols, Ferra- the most part this area is strongly dissected and lities, and Terra Roxa are some other of these only in a few places have older erosion surfaces vaguely defined and often synonymously used been preserved. As it is on those remnants where terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fractal Mind of Pedologists (Soil Taxonomists and Soil Surveyors)
    Ecological Complexity 6 (2009) 286–293 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Complexity journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecocom The fractal mind of pedologists (soil taxonomists and soil surveyors) J.J. Iba´n˜ez a,d,*, R.W. Arnold b,1,2, R.J. Ahrens c a Centro de Investigaciones Sobre Desertificacio´n, CIDE (CSIC-UV, Valencia, Spain b USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA c National Soil Survey Center, USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE, USA d E.P.S. A´rea de Edafologı´ayQuı´mica Agrı´cola, Universidad de Burgos, Spain ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: There has been little work in science dealing with the organizational, political and scientific layering of Available online 24 June 2009 database structures as well as classifications and surveys of natural resources. There is disagreement among scientists whether taxonomies are invented (human-made constructs) or are discovered Keywords: (‘‘natural’’ structures) independent of the discipline involved. We believe it would be helpful to study the Soil survey practices nature of taxonomies from different points of view in order to examine questions such as; are there Soil taxonomies common features in all taxonomic systems?, are the systems neutral?, and how are classifications and Power laws data collection (surveys) linked? It is generally accepted that much institutional work on soil Fractals classification systems was nationally biased, especially in terms of practical land management. Mental constructs Information processing Recent studies show that the USDA soil taxonomy has the same mathematical structure as some biological ones that conform to physical laws that dictate and optimize information flow in user friendly retrieval systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations in Soil Taxonomy (Original Tr,.&Nscr|F't~Ons of Taped Conversations)
    CONVERSATIONS IN SOIL TAXONOMY (ORIGINAL TR,.&NSCR|F'T~ONS OF TAPED CONVERSATIONS) by Guy D Smith Compiled by an editorial committee a, 'I~,e Agronomy Departmen: of Cornell University for the So~i Management Support St.:vice USD/ - Sf~ Ithaca, New York .~996 7 ¸ ~" "-2 2. z- . = .C .%- Addendum to: THE GUY SM|TH INTERVIEWS: RATIONALE FOR CONCEPTS tr~ SOIL TAXONOMY by Guy O. Smith Edited by T.P,~. Forbes Reviewed by N. Ahmad J. Comerma H. Eswaran K. Flach T.R. Forbes B. Hajek W. Johnson J. McClelland F.T. MiJqer J. Nichols J. Rourl,:e R. Rust A. Van Wambeke J. W~y S'~d Management Support Services Soil Conservation Service LL $. Dep~,rtment of Agriculture New York State Co!le,ge of Agriculture and Life Sciences Corneil University Department of Agronomy 1986 SM:~S Technical Monograph No. i I .1 o - "f Ib!e of Contents Preface ii Interview by Mike L. Leanly 1 Interview by J. Witty & R. Guthrie 37 Interview at the Agronomy Department at Corneil University 48 Interview at the Agronomy bepartn'e.'.zt at University of Minneso,m 149 Interview by H. E.qwaran 312 Lecture Given at the University of the West Indies 322 Interview at the Agronomy Department at Texas A & M University 328 Interviews b3: Coplar~ar staff & J. Comerma, Venezuela 441 #rrr Preface Many papers have been published explaining the rationale for properties and class limits used in Soil T<:txonomy, a system of .soil classificalion for making and interpreting soil surveys (U.S. Department of Agrical~.ure, 1975) before and since its publication.
    [Show full text]
  • National Cooperative Soil Survey Newsletter
    ational February 2013 ooperative Issue 62 N oil C urvey SS Newsletter In This Issue— 2013 National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference 2013 National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference ....................................................1 he biennial National Cooperative Soil and Site Suitability for Viticulture in the TSoil Survey (NCSS) Conference United States .................................................2 will be held June 16 to 21, 2013, at New Edition of Field Book ....................................6 Annapolis, Maryland. The conference Pedoderm and Pattern Class Workshops at will be hosted by the University of the Jornada ....................................................7 Maryland at College Park and supported Korean Soil Scientists Visit the National Soil by the Natural Resources Conservation Survey Center ................................................7 Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Haiti Pilot Soil Survey Capacity Building Mid-Atlantic Association of Professional Initiative ..........................................................8 Soil Scientists, the Soil Science Society Map Unit Descriptions Available in Spanish of America, and the National Association on Web Soil Survey .....................................12 of Consulting Soil Scientists. NRCS Where the Sun Always Shines: Mojave personnel supporting the conference National Preserve ........................................13 include soil survey staff from Raleigh, Global Soil Week .................................................15 North Carolina; Morgantown,
    [Show full text]
  • Standardised Soil Profile Data to Support Global Mapping
    Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 299–320, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-299-2020 © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Standardised soil profile data to support global mapping and modelling (WoSIS snapshot 2019) Niels H. Batjes, Eloi Ribeiro, and Ad van Oostrum ISRIC – World Soil Information, Wageningen, 6708 PB, the Netherlands Correspondence: Niels H. Batjes ([email protected]) Received: 6 September 2019 – Discussion started: 16 September 2019 Revised: 17 December 2019 – Accepted: 9 January 2020 – Published: 10 February 2020 Abstract. The World Soil Information Service (WoSIS) provides quality-assessed and standardised soil profile data to support digital soil mapping and environmental applications at broadscale levels. Since the release of the first “WoSIS snapshot”, in July 2016, many new soil data were shared with us, registered in the ISRIC data repos- itory and subsequently standardised in accordance with the licences specified by the data providers. Soil profile data managed in WoSIS were contributed by a wide range of data providers; therefore, special attention was paid to measures for soil data quality and the standardisation of soil property definitions, soil property values (and units of measurement) and soil analytical method descriptions. We presently consider the following soil chemi- cal properties: organic carbon, total carbon, total carbonate equivalent, total nitrogen, phosphorus (extractable P, total P and P retention), soil pH, cation exchange capacity and electrical conductivity. We also consider the fol- lowing physical properties: soil texture (sand, silt, and clay), bulk density, coarse fragments and water retention. Both of these sets of properties are grouped according to analytical procedures that are operationally comparable.
    [Show full text]
  • 19Th World Congress of Soil Science Working Group 1.1 the WRB
    19th World Congress of Soil Science Working Group 1.1 The WRB evolution Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia 1 – 6 August 2010 Table of Contents Page Table of Contents ii 1 Diversity and classification problems of sandy soils in subboreal 1 zone (Central Europe, Poland) 2 Finding a way through the maze – WRB classification with 5 descriptive soil data 3 Guidelines for constructing small-scale map legends using the 9 World Reference Base for Soil Resources 4 On the origin of Planosols – the process of ferrolysis revisited 13 5 Orphans in soil classification: Musing on Palaeosols in the 17 World Reference Base system 6 Pedometrics application for correlation of Hungarian soil types 21 with WRB 7 The classification of Leptosols in the World Reference Base for 25 Soil Resources 8 The World Reference Base for Soils (WRB) and Soil 28 Taxonomy: an initial appraisal of their application to the soils of the Northern Rivers of New South Wales 9 A short guide to the soils of South Africa, their distribution and 32 correlation with World Reference Base soil groups ii Diversity and classification problems of sandy soils in subboreal zone (Central Europe, Poland) Michał Jankowski Faculty of Biology and Earth Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, Email [email protected] Abstract The aim of this study was to present some examples of sandy soils and to discuss their position in soil systematics. 8 profiles represent: 4 soils widely distributed in postglacial landscapes of Poland (Central Europe), typical for different geomorphological conditions and vegetation habitats (according to regional soil classification: Arenosol, Podzolic soil, Rusty soil and Mucky soil) and 4 soils having unusual features (Gleyic Podzol and Rusty soil developed in a CaCO 3-rich substratum and two profiles of red-colored Ochre soils).
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Classification Following the US Taxonomy: an Indian Commentary
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280114947 Soil Classification Following the US Taxonomy: An Indian Commentary ARTICLE · JULY 2015 DOI: 10.2136/sh14-08-0011 DOWNLOADS VIEWS 21 27 1 AUTHOR: Tapas Bhattacharyya International Crops Research Institute for Se… 110 PUBLICATIONS 848 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Tapas Bhattacharyya Retrieved on: 19 August 2015 provided by ICRISAT Open Access Repository View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk CORE brought to you by Published July 17, 2015 Review Soil Classification Following the US Taxonomy: An Indian Commentary T. Bhattacharyya,* P. Chandran, S.K. Ray, and D.K. Pal More than 50 yr ago US soil taxonomy was adopted in India. Since then many researchers have contributed their thoughts to enrich the soil taxonomy. The National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS & LUP) (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) as a premier soil survey institute has been consistently using benchmark soil series to understand the rationale of the soil taxonomy, keeping in view the soil genesis from different rock systems under various physiographic locations in tropical India. The present review is a humble effort to present this information. ne of the fundamental requirements of any natural science minerals, higher categories of soil classification were conceptu- Ois to classify the proposed bodies or the objects stud- alized (Duchaufour, 1968). The concept of genetic profiles was ied (Joel, 1926). Soils do not exist as discrete objects like plants used in early and current Russian soil classification schemes and animals but occur in nature as a complex and dynamic (Gerasimov, 1975; Gorajichkin et al., 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • A Homogenized Soil Data File for Global Environmental Research: a Subset of FAO, ISRIC and NRCS Profiles (Version 1.0)
    Working Paper and Preprint 95/10b A HOMOGENIZED SOIL DATA FILE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: A SUBSET OF FAO, ISRIC AND NRCS PROFILES (Version 1.0) N.H. Batjes (Editor) July 1995 INTERNATIONAL SOIL REFERENCE AND INFORMATION CENTRE ISRIC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, ISRIC, P.O. Box 353, 6700 AJ Wageningen, The Netherlands. Copyright © 1995, International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC) Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure that the data are accurate and reliable, ISRIC cannot assume liability for damages caused by in-accuracies in the data or as a result of the failure of the data to function on a particular system. ISRIC provides no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does an authorized distribution of the data set constitute such a warranty. ISRIC reserves the right to modify any information in this document and related data sets without notice. Correct citation: Batjes, N.H. (ed.), 1995. A homogenized soil data file for global environmental research: a subset of FAO, ISRIC and NRCS profiles (Version 1.0). Working Paper and Preprint 95/10b, International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen. Inquiries: Director, ISRIC P.O. Box 353 6700 AJ Wageningen The Netherlands Telefax : +31-317-471700 E-mail: [email protected] Working Paper and Preprint 95/10b A HOMOGENIZED SOIL DATA FILE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: A SUBSET OF FAO, ISRIC AND NRCS PROFILES (Version 1.0) Edited by N.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil CLASSIFICATION a Global Desk Reference
    soil CLASSIFICATION A global desk reference 1339_FM.fm Page 2 Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:37 AM soil CLASSIFICATION A global desk reference EDITED BY Hari eswaran THOMAS rice robert ahrens Bobby A. Stewart CRC PRESS Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C. 1339_FM.fm Page 4 Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:37 AM Cover art courtesy of USDA–Natural Resources Conservation Service Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Soil classiÞcation : a global desk reference / edited by Hari Eswaran … [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8493-1339-2 (alk. paper) 1. Soils—ClassiÞcation. I. Eswaran, Hari. S592.16 .S643 2002 631.4′4—dc21 2002035039 CIP This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microÞlming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of speciÞc clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $.50 per page photocopied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Soil Classification
    PRINCIPLES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION Compendium of lecture notes Balthazar M. MSANYA BSc(Agric)(Hons) MSc (Soil Sci) PhD(Pedology) Department of Soil Science Faculty of Agriculture Sokoine University of Agriculture Morogoro, Tanzania 2003 ________________________________________________________________________________ Correct citation: Msanya, B.M. (2003). Principles of Soil Classification. Compendium of Lecture Notes. Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 61 pp. PRINCIPLES OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION Prof. Balthazar M. MSANYA These lecture notes are meant for students majoring in agriculture, forestry and related fields. They have to be supplemented with extra reading to enable students and other readers understand the important concepts in soil classification so that they can classify soils correctly using both the USDA Soil Taxonomy and the FAO- UNESCO soil classification systems. Some coverage has been made on the newly established “World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources” Classification System. Some concepts on indigenous soil classification systems are also given, pointing out their salient features including strengths and weaknesses. IMPORTANT READING MATERIALS 1. Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole and R.J. McCracken, 1989. Soil genesis and classification, 3rd edition, Iowa State University Press, 462 pp. 2. Duchaufour, D., 1982. Pedology, pedogenesis and classification. Vol. 1 & 2, George Allen and Unwin. 3. Fanning, D.S. and M.C.B. Fanning, 1989. Soil morphology, genesis and classification. John Wiley & Sons. 4. FAO, 1990. Guidelines for soil description. 3rd edition (revised). Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service Land and Water Development Division, Rome. 5. FAO, 1998. World reference base for soil resources. World Soil Resources Reports No. 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Soil Description
    TECHNICAL GUIDE NO. 5 GUIDELINES FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION (MAY, 1989) Scanned from original by ISRIC - World Soil Information, as ICSU World Data Centre for Soils. The purpose is to make a safe depository for endangered documents and to make the accrued information available for consultation, following Fair Use Guidelines. Every effort is taken to respect Copyright of the materials within the archives where the Identification of the Copyright holder is clear and, where feasible, to contact the originators. For questions please contact [email protected] indicating the item reference number concerned. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE RURAL PHYSICAL PLANNING DIVISION SOIL SURVEY UNIT xmi PREFACE This technical guide presents a standardized format for the field description of soil profiles in Jamaica. For soil profiIe pit descriptions and regular auger observations new comprehensive forms have been designed. Accompanying these forms a set of guidelines is given in this bulletin. The testing of previous versions of these forms and guidelines in the field, discussions with RPPD/SSU staff members and comments on these drafts from N.H. Batjes, V.A. Campbell, L.L.T. Dawkins, P.A.M. van Gent, G.R. Hennemann, P. White and R.L Wilks assisted in the writing of the present version of these guidelines. This technical bulletin is issued by the Jamaica Soil Survey Project (JM/89/001), a bi-lateral undertaking of the Governments of Jamaica and The Netherlands. This report has been written by PH jDldeman, Associate Expert/Soil Survey Coördinator, Western Region, Montëgö Bay. 2 1. INTRODUCTION A accurate and complete soll prof 11e descrlptlon Is of great importance for soil survey, soll classlflcation, soll correlation and land evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services
    land Article Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services Elena A. Mikhailova 1,*, Hamdi A. Zurqani 1,2 , Christopher J. Post 1, Mark A. Schlautman 3 and Gregory C. Post 4 1 Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; [email protected] (H.A.Z.); [email protected] (C.J.P.) 2 Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya 3 Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA; [email protected] 4 Economics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Soil ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural) and ecosystem disservices (ED) are dependent on soil diversity/pedodiversity (variability of soils), which needs to be accounted for in the economic analysis and business decision-making. The con- cept of pedodiversity (biotic + abiotic) is highly complex and can be broadly interpreted because it is formed from the interaction of atmospheric diversity (abiotic + biotic), biodiversity (biotic), hydrodiversity (abiotic + biotic), and lithodiversity (abiotic) within ecosphere and anthroposphere. Pedodiversity is influenced by intrinsic (within the soil) and extrinsic (outside soil) factors, which are also relevant to ES/ED. Pedodiversity concepts and measures may need to be adapted to the ES frame- work and business applications. Currently, there are four main approaches to analyze pedodiversity: taxonomic (diversity of soil classes), genetic (diversity of genetic horizons), parametric (diversity of soil properties), and functional (soil behavior under different uses). The objective of this article is Citation: Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, to illustrate the application of pedodiversity concepts and measures to value ES/ED with exam- H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; ples based on the contiguous United States (U.S.), its administrative units, and the systems of soil Post, G.C.
    [Show full text]