Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Search for a New Paradigm in Pedology: a Driving Force for New Approaches to Soil Classification

The Search for a New Paradigm in Pedology: a Driving Force for New Approaches to Soil Classification

EUROPEAN BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

The search for a new Paradigm in : a driving force for new approaches to

IBÁÑEZ Juan José1 and BOIXADERA Jaume2

1 Centro Ciencias Medioambientales CSIC 28006 Madrid, Spain 2Generalitat de Cataluña, 25006 Lleida, Spain

Abstract Soil is a complex open system, a natural body in which , , and come together. Pedology is the subdiscipline of that integrates and quantifies the distribution, morphology, genesis, and classification of as natural landscape bodies. Several papers have been published over the last few years that recognise the crisis pedology has been suffering since the 1970s. and soil classifications are the branch that has come under most criticism. It is also assumed that the traditional marriage between agriculture and pedology, so called agronomic paradigm, very fruitful in the past, no longer proves so at the present time. Paradoxically society currently demands greater, more diversified pedological information. Thus, we need a change in the epistemology paradigm of pedology since pedology seems to be unable to offer the new, products that society and other scientific disciplines are demanding. Thus, what can be done in order to solve this current problem? In our opinion: (i) We must improve the concept of soil; (ii) We must get better scientific and practical soil classification; and (iii) We must obtain more precise soil survey information.

In this paper, our intention is to explain how some characteristics of soil classification adjust to the new demands for practically relevant information. Until the present, pedology has not had any change of paradigm since the fundamental contribution of Dokuchaiev; the same is not true for many other aspects of and biological sciences. Since Dokuchaiev, soil has been recognised as a natural body. However, because soil is also a continuum, many soil scientists as as researchers from other disciplines, think that soil taxonomy has divided the soil continuum into artificial classes. It should not be assumed that any given classification must be superior to another, because each may be equally adequate for representing complementary aspects of the "patterned continuum" of nature. For these reasons, neither nor pedologists obtain a satisfactory definition of living matter and soil or other living matter.

All classification systems in nature break the continuum into a number of classes and the problems of classifying any is conceptually more or less the same. Because the soil is a continuum, several pedometricians consider that current soil classification schemes are subjective and therefore not very useful. Are they right? We show that their arguments are totally arbitrary and unjustified. In fact, after comparing the USDA Soil Taxonomy with biological taxonomies, we can see that both have the same mathematical structure according to MaxEnt Principle. Most if not all classifications in pedology, as well as in other disciplines, are hierarchical, probably because hierarchical structures optimise the flow of information.

What is the object that pedologists must be classify? Surprisingly, insufficient attention paid in the last years to consider which should be the object of soil classification. In our opinion, we must classify soil bodies, not soil profiles. The soil body, as a three-dimensional body of the , may vary in size by some orders of magnitude. Therefore, the scale of the description of a profile or pedon (window(s) in the pedosphere, but nothing more) does not necessarily correspond to the soil body. Furthermore, in some instances, a soil body needs to include two or more different pedotaxa.

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 93 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

One of the main differences between the taxonomies of and soil science arises not from the differential characteristics of their respective fields of study, but from their differing histories, their way of coming to consensus on terminology, and the way their activities are carried out. In principle, there is no insurmountable scientific impediment that prevents soil scientists adopting an institutionalized practice similar to that followed by biologists. Man has been altering the soil since prehistoric times Thus, current soilscapes are very different from totally natural ones. This process has been called “metapedogenesis” and it affects soil classification. For example, the role of anthropogenic soils has been growing in the recent years. In our opinion a true change of paradigm in pedology could be based in the following items : (i) The whole surface including or hydric soils and “” (soils?) of the photic areas of lakes and coastal zones; (ii) Deep continuum: The Whole Soil-; (iii) Surface continuum: Spatial units; not profiles; (iv) Functional units: Not slides (profiles); (v) Whole of man-made soils not only

Keywords: pedology, soil concept, continuum, soil classification, paradigm

The crisis of pedology Soil is a complex open system, a natural body in which biosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere come together. The understanding of the pedological processes involved, as well as their synergies, is essential to understand numerous biogeospherical processes, many of which are very common. We are still far from adequately comprehending the soil system behaviour (Ibáñez, et al. 1994a, 1995a, 1998; Catizzone 1998).

Pedology is the subdiscipline of soil science that integrates and quantifies the distribution, morphology, genesis, and classification of soils as natural landscape bodies. It is the “glue” that holds soil science together and is the hard core of soil science that does not fit with the theoretical framework of any other science discipline (Simonson 1991). Several papers and notes have been published over the last few years which recognise the crisis pedology has been suffering since the 1970s on an international level (Dudal 1987; Nachtergaele 1990; Jacob & Nordt 1991; Arnold 1992; Hudson 1992; Miller 1992, 1993; Sposito & Reginato 1992; Warkentin 1992; Zinck 1993; Notohadiprawiro 1993; Gardner 1991, 1993; Greenwood 1993; Hillel 1993; Ibáñez 1998; Ibáñez et al. 1993, 1997, 1998; Bouma 1994; British Soc. Soil Sci. 1994; Bullock 1994; Bridges & Catizzone 1996; Yaalon 1995, 1996, 1997a; Basher 1997). Most of these authors basically agree regarding to the drop in credibility of the discipline and of those practising it in the scientific community, as well as among those responsible for national and international scientific policies. An alarm has been lit calling for the need “to move to immediate action” (Gardner 1993; Miller, 1993; Ibáñez et al. 1997).

It is also assumed that the traditional marriage between agriculture and pedology, so called agronomic paradigm, very fruitful, scientifically, technically and institutionally in the past, no longer proves so at the present time (Yaalon, 1996, Ibáñez et al. 1993, 2000). Linking pedology with agriculture has led to the isolation of it from other disciplines, and these may provide the basis for emerging application in soil science (Nielson 1987). The idea is not so much to renege on the past or abandon its agronomic applications, but to widen horizons.

Soil survey and soil classifications are the branch that has come under most criticism (Basher 1997). Some soil scientists think that current classification schemes and soil survey procedures are obsolete. Paradoxically society currently demands greater, more diversified pedological information (Hartge 1986; Zinck, 1990; Ibáñez et al., 1993). Public opinion in industrialised countries are more concerned with environmental problems than with an increase in agricultural production (Yaalon, 1997a; Rey et al. 1998). In this context, soil degradation problems (e.g. contamination and ) are a priority. It is therefore difficult, in this context, to understand the reticence of governments and national and international institutions to promote pedological research and the inventory of soil resources. What are the underlying reasons? Zinck (1990), Basher (1997), Ibáñez et al. (1994a, 1997) and Catizzone (1998), among others, share the opinion that conjunctural issues, external to soil science and the soil survey, and structural issues, inherent to the discipline, have simultaneously combined. It is the latter which are calling for a change in the epistemology paradigm of pedology since pedology seems to be unable to offer the new, high quality products which society and other branches of scientific knowledge are demanding and even less so at an affordable cost in an appropriate time framework (Dudal 1987; Zinck 1993).

94 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

The search for a new identity for pedology is where strategies proposed by specialists for changing the paradigm diverge. Basically there are three clearly differentiated philosophies. The first one emphasises the need to transform a markedly applied discipline into another of a basic nature, within the context; supporters of this attitude propose basic research with a view to renewing the theoretical corpus of pedology and strengthen the quantification and modelling of soil processes, in consonance with current trends in other branches of knowledge (Wild 1989; Sposito & Reginato 1992; Gardner 1991; Miller 1993; Ibáñez et al. 1994a, 2000; Yaalon 1996). The second line of thought defends maintaining the traditional applied nature of pedological research; supporters of this attitude see its future lying in the shelter of the “environmental crisis”, whether on non agronomic problems such as erosion, desertification, acid or change, or related thereto, as is the case of sustainable agriculture (e.g., Hillel, 1987; White 1993; Bouma, 1994; Bullock, 1994; Singer & Warkentin, 1994; Bridges & Catizzone, 1996). Finally the third way focus its attention on new agronomic techniques as precision farming (e.g. Peck 1990; Carr et al., 1991, and many pedometricians).

If soil is truly a natural body, a real entity with its own laws of organisation, progress must be made in seeking global knowledge thereof from a holistic viewpoint (Catizzone 1998). This latter strategy will enable new solutions to be found for old problems, to find new application domains and legitimate both the discipline and those who practice it (Gardner 1991, 1993; Miller 1993; Yaalon 1993; Ibañez et al. 1997).

We shall not endeavour to here delve into the circumstances, which have led to this situation. Thus, what we can do in order to solve the current situation? In our opinion: • We must develop better and useful scientific and practical sound soil classifications • We must make better, more useful and precise soil surveys • We need a change of paradigm

Therefore, in this paper, our intention is both to contribute scientific arguments, and to explain how to adapt soil classifications and soil surveys to the changing perceptions society has of the environment and to its demands for information. In addition we would like to contribute to the debate on the definition of a new paradigm in pedology, able to enlarge its field of action.

Some preliminary basic questions

What is pedology? To say, for example, that pedology is the science that studies the structure, dynamics and evolution of soils, seems vacuous because of its triviality. Therefore, the question is brought back to the concept of soil. The majority of the definitions, if not all, that one might find in textbooks are descriptive and hardly contain any information at all.

When the practitioners of a given scientific discipline perceive that this come to a state of crisis, usually many of them ask themselves for the meaning and relevance of its matter of study: What is pedology?, what is a soil? are common questions. However usually is very difficult, if not impossible, to get good answers for this type of question. Furthermore, in general, this line of reasoning is not useful in order to go out from the crisis. Please let us explain this type of sociologic attitude with the next analogies between biology and pedology: What is the biology? Biology is the science, which study the living matter. But what is the living matter? There is not any satisfactory definition of living matter; there is not any type of consensus or agreement between the ; the same is true in pedology. In similar fashion: what is the basic unity of the biological classifications? This is the species. But, what is a species? There is not any satisfactory definition of biological species; there is not consensus between the biologist. The same is true with the pedotaxa o .

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 95 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

Is pedology a basic or an applied science? For many pedologists, pedology is an applied science (e.g. Zinck, 1990). Historically, the soil survey has been problem solving oriented. For this reasons the above mentioned debates about the future of the pedology avoid the conceptual problems and focus its attention on the current demands of soil information in other branches of knowledge: environment, , precision agriculture, and so on.

Then, is pedology an applied science? The philosophy of the science states that: It is impossible to think of an applied science of a natural resource without there being a pure science that feeds it. This makes no sense from any point of view to the former discussion; for example it is not possible to progress in the search of biological indicators of for soil monitoring if we do not advance, previously in the knowledge of and soil . We need, now more than ever, to deepen our knowledge of soils, i.e., we need to make more effort in pure research before we can answer any new questions (Ibáñez et al. 2000). Under these circumstances many lines of applied research, based in the present background of the nature and dynamics of the soil system will fail, as for instance the restoration projects or soil monitoring. In our opinion, this is one of the arguments we should use to convince decision makers to invest in more pure research on the soil system. The development of a modern, quantitative and holistic pedological theory, with the capacity to predict soil behaviour, would as well legitimize our discipline as a pure science in the field of the Earth Sciences. What is a soil and what is the pedosphere? According to the Soil Survey Staff (1993) a soil is a “natural”, three-dimensional body with “definable boundaries” that commonly, but not always, consists of horizons made up of and organic materials, contain living matter, and can support . Once again, this definition is descriptive and trivial, with the exception of the term “natural”. In our opinion, the idea of “natural”, explicit in the definition of the Soil Survey Staff must be to tacitly interpret as "the idea of natural body". Thus, the soil could be defined like a resource of nature, which, spontaneously auto-organizes in such a way that its totality acquires emerging properties that are non-reducible in a reductionist analysis of its components. If so, there should be a science, which deals with such emergences. That is the role of pedology. Why have soil scientists bothered themselves so little about this?

We can see, any concept is an abstraction, a “compression” of reality, and as such there is an associated great loss of information. The problem is even more difficult for the complex objects, as it is the case of the soil, which is a pluristructural and polyfunctional entity of the nature. Therefore, if the outside world is indefinite as a whole, and our capacity to conceptualise is intrinsically limited, the soil never will be defined with precision and rigour (e.g., in the same way as living matter or the species concept). However, as scientists, we should never lose sight of the ultimate and primordial aim of advancing the overall knowledge of the soil system, and try to improve our definitions, always in a provisional sense.

The properties of the pedosphere arise out of its structure: light, porous, permeable to fluids, and forming the habitat of the terrestrial and aquatic biocenoses (Targulian et al. 1990a, b). From the perspective of non- linear dynamic systems and chaos sciences, the soil can be considered a porous, heterogeneous medium with its own laws of auto-organization (Ibáñez and García-Álvarez 1991; Ibáñez et al. 1990b, 1995a, 1995b; Phillips 1993, 1999). Soils are dissipative structures on the border of chaos. As a consequence, disciplines such as non-equilibrium thermodynamics or synergetics can study them (Ibáñez and García- Álvarez 1991).

The same is true with the term pedosphere. Both, soils and pedosphere, are auto-organised systems with sufficient structural, dynamic and developmental peculiarities to be considered individualised subsystem within the biogeosheric system. However, it also behaves as a frontier ‘sphere’ or interaction between different primary spheres - atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere etc. - (Targulian et al. 1990a, b, Ibáñez and García Álvarez 1991; 1994a). The pedosphere is therefore a geoderma or epidermis of the landforms with certain analogies to biomembranes (Rozanov 1990 in Arnold et al. 1990).

96 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

What is a paradigm? The world is not structured in a single way; rather we give structure to it when we project our concepts upon it (for example: Mosterín 1984). Current trends in philosophy of the science state that the progress of science consists of changes in the conceptual systems, such as its amplification, its extension or its substitution for another (e.g. Popper, 1962; Kuhn 1970; Lakatos 1974, 1981, among others). Thomas Kuhn (1970) proposed the concept of paradigm in its current philosophical meaning; according to the Kuhnian model of scientific revolution of the “Normal science” it is synonymous of the disciplinary matrix of a given a community in a given moment. A change of paradigm is a big change in the cosmovision of a given discipline, and it is mainly conceptual, non-technological in principle. A change of parading involves the called incommensurability of many concepts and theoretical constructs between the old and the new parading. Thus, for example, if a new paradigm or scientific revolution arrives to the pedology, probably the meaning of soils will not be the same, and as a corollary neither the procedures for its classification. Until the moment the pedology has not had any change of paradigm since the foundational contributions of Dokuchaiev; the same is not true for many other earth and biological sciences.

However, Yaalon (1997b) considers soil science have experienced three paradigm shifts in the past: (i)The one formulated by Liebig for agricultural ; (ii) The one of the Dokuchaev, alongside with Hildarg and Jenny; and (iii) The one beginning of the quantification in pedology, between 1960 and 1970.

In the Kuhnian sense of the term, the first “paradigm” proposed by Yaalon does not affect soil science, because it come before that the recognition that the soils is a “natural body.” The third one can not be considered a paradigm from any point of view; it did not suppose a rupture with the disciplinary matrix of the past, something indispensable for a paradigm shift in the philosophical sense of the term (Kuhn 1970). The inclusion of new instrumental or mathematical tools does not constitute a paradigm shift either.

It is worrying that since 1883, when Dokuchaev put forward that the soil is a natural body, there has hardly been any enrichment to its definition, only to its form. This is probably one of the reasons for the stagnation of our discipline – the basic text manuals written decades ago are still up to date in many aspects, something very different to that, which can be seen, in allied disciplines. For example, texts have "mutated radically" since the acceptance of Plate Tectonic Theory by the scientific community, a true change of paradigm. The work edited by Rhoads and Thorn (1996): "The Scientific Nature of " (see also Von Engelhardt and Zimmermaann 1988; Richards 1990; Scheidegger 1991) should be an example to the international community of soil scientists. We know of no other examples of such importance and of such depth within our discipline. After an initial euphoria, even geomorphologists, who thought they had made this jump by breaking with the Davisian tradition, began to question whether that step; the change of focus of attention from the historical perspective to a process oriented one, represented a paradigm shift (Rhoads and Thorn 1996). Geomorphologists, whose object of study is very similar to our own, are advancing in the epistemological foundations of their subject. They are seriously questioning current trends and are looking at their future carefully. Are we unable to perform a similar autocratically analysis? In fact, at the very least this should be material to reflect upon.

Philosophy of the concept of taxa Since Dokuchaiev soil is recognised as a natural body. However, because the soil is also a continuum (e.g. Dmitriew. 1983), many of us, and also researches of other disciplines, think pedotaxa or soil types are artificial entities. Thus, soil taxonomists broken the soil continuum artificially in classes. That is true?: Not. Really the old dilemma: Naturalia/Artifitialia is a matter of philosophical (ontological) debates and do not concern to the science. In philosophy we can discern two opposite traditions or schools into a continuum of perceptions: nominalists versus realists: Thus, for Sattler (1986) species, by the former, are considered just as names devoid of a representation of reality (artificial kinds), whereas the latter’s maintain that species are real (natural kinds). For recently this antagonistic schools begin to be replaced for more soft or fussy attitudes. For instance, Sattler (1986) among others claim that, species lack essences because they are seen as peaks in a continuum”. Therefore, neither realism nor nominalism is tenable in the extreme forms as described above. Since concepts are abstractions from reality, they are not totally fictitious; they do represent at least certain features of reality (Mosterín 1984; Sattler 1986).

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 97 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

In a similar fashion, according to Slatter (1986), biotaxonomists also make a distinction between natural and artificial classes. Quite often it is implied that artificial classes are concepts devoid of any real basis, whereas natural classes are looked upon real. Neither is the case; even the most artificial classes that are based on only one feature... presents an of nature. The most natural classes are still an abstraction and in this sense they are not "real".

Biologists also use different kinds of species concept and a debate is still going on about which is the best one. Although it is possible that some of these may be less adequate than others, they can also be considered complementary to each other (Sattler 1986)."It need not be assumed that one of them must be superior as far as adequacy is concerned; they may in fact be equally adequate representing complementary aspects of the "patterned continuum" of nature. Much evidence exists for this view. Thus, the epistemological pluralism defended by Slatter against the old radical philosophical schools means "that a variety of species concepts are necessary to capture the complexity and variation patterns in nature (Mishler and Donoghue 1982)". The main difference in order to classify pedotaxa and biotaxa is not the essence of the living matter it is the “apparent” enclosure of “some” biological individuals. In this sense is so easy classify species as mineral grains in a given soil.

In any case, the same debate exists in pedology since time ago on the dilemma of the essence (artificial vs. natural) of soil bodies (e.g. see the collection of "Benchmark papers" edited in 1982 by Finkl Jnr., 1982). For these reasons in a recent monograph of the ESB (Finke 1999) we claim: "It has been debated (Cline 1977) whether the universe of soils comprehends discrete physical bodies, large enough to enable classification into a taxonomic system or whether it should be considered as a continuum (Marbut 1935)”. For these reasons we agree with Sattler in biology, and Fridland in pedology (1976) that soils are "a discrete-continuous entity”. Furthermore Ibañez et al. (1998b) appeal to the Bohr’s Principle of Wave particle complementarity (Bohr 1958, 1963). According with the later “the soil mantle can be viewed as a continuum field (the pedosphere) that comprises numerous agregattes of artificial or natural soil bodies” (Ibáñez and García-Álvarez 1991; Ibáñez et al. 1998). If a soil body is a natural or an artificial body is not a scientific problem, it is an ontological question.

Therefore we are sure that the above desiderata can be signed for many pedologists, but probably many of them could have doubts of the existence of this type of debates in biology. Furthermore the idea of the patterned continuum is also implicit in the mind of some of the more recalcitrant critics of the current soil classifications schemes based in hard classes’ partitions (e.g. McBratney and De Gruijter. 1992 Fig 1.). The nature of the continuum is a very complex matter; we try only to provide food for thought. In fact the Figure 1c defended by McBratney and De Gruijter respect to the nature of soil taxa is conform with the idea of the patterned continuum which defend some biologists. Therefore, their critics are unjustified.

Summarising, the terms "natural" and "real" have been excluded from the philosophy of contemporary science for decades. It is normally understood that a classification is more natural than another if the concepts that make up the former are more scientifically fertile in the sense that they can be used to formulate more general and/or more precise and/or more predictive laws. (Mosterín, 1984). In addition, the soil has a polystructural and polyfunctional nature, and thus, requires a healthy epistemological pluralism. In other words, different approaches from different perspectives are needed (the dialectic aspects of science). This would give rise to different definitions.

Neither logical requirements nor those discussed earlier prevent the participation of a "natural" or "artificial" resource that varies in continuum, from implying losses in its essence of naturalness. Confused and confusing, is it not? There is no unequivocal answer to the naturalia/artificialia dilemma. The dilemma of the continuum and the critics of pedometricians Several pedometricians consider that the current soil classification schemes are subjective and not very useful. Are they right? We do not think so. But what are their criticisms and suggestions? In 2 we shows several frequent critics of pedometrisians in papers, books, etc. In Table 2 we try to deal with their comments.

As we can see, many of their arguments are totally arbitrary and unjustified. We are absolutely sure that if they read about the philosophy of classification systems and the debates these have given rise to in many disciplines, at least in biology and ecology (e.g. Sattler 1986; Minelli 1993; McIntosh 1985), their

98 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 comments would be, at least, less forceful. In any case, developments in pedometrics cannot replace the lack of theoretical studies that will help to bring pedology out of its conceptual stagnation.

Figure 1 Notional distribution of soil individuals in character space: a) cluster-within-cluster or hierarchical distribution; b) clusters with directed lines; c) Weakly clustered distribution; and d) equal density distribution. Group boundaries are shown as solid lines (after McBratney and De Gruijter 1992).

Table 1 Critics of Pedometricians’ Critiques of Current Soil Classification Schemes 1. Due to the inherent large variability in soil properties, the separation of soils into mutually exclusive classes is to some extent artificial and so are the conclusions based on an analysis of such classifications. The soil is often a continuum with no distinct boundaries between individuals. The problem is that there are no soil individuals.

2. Are hierarchical classifications as applicable in soil systems as in biological systems? I doubt it.

3. This could be extended to multiattribute space, as such is used in numerical taxonomy. There is only a continuously changing mantle. In addition, we could use the fuzzy sets approach (Bezdek 1974), which takes into account the multivariate nature of the soil and its continuousness in space and time (see De Gruijter 1997; De Gruijter and McBratney 1988; Powel et al. 1992).

4. Summarising, pedometricians are of the opinion that the major problems of the current soil classifications schemesare due to: (i): the dilemma of the continuum (fuzzy against hard classes) and (ii) the “subjectivity” of the criteria underlying these classifications (numerical against consensus between specialists).

The coexistence of pluralism of perspectives is far more healthy for a science than the existing dogmatic attitudes. We could refute a lot of the criteria of pedometricians’ have used to attack what they call the “subjectivity of universal soil classifications”. They do not realize that their opinions are also subjective and dogmatic too. We cannot deny subjectivity because it cannot be avoided in disciplines such as ours. We would challenge any pedometricians to open a debate on the nature of soil and the criteria for the improvement of its classification.

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 99 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

If we could achieve a change of paradigm, we need a new concept of soil and to develop tools for its classification. Mathematical proposals by themselves are not enough. In other words, whether pedometricians can contribute to a real change in paradigm, in the sense that T. Kuhn gives to this concept, in pedology it is highly questionable because nothing has been said about new concepts in pedology (e.g. soil and soilscape concepts).

Table 2 Possible Replies to Pedometricians 1. Their arguments are unjustified. Furthermore, this debate could create controversies that go back as far as the Hellenic naturalists or even before that. In fact, this dilemma, with regards to biological classifications is as old as the modern taxonomies (the controversy between Buffon and Linnaeus in the 18th century). The terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ are ambiguous and not too useful for the progress of these disciplines. Are all the other non-pedometricians soil taxonomists and soil surveyors wrong? Because pedometricians work with “ad hoc” classifications, their results are obtained according to geostatistical tools and numerical classifications criteria that suffer from the same problems that they criticise. In some aspects both are subjective as in any given classification of natural resources. “Ad hoc” classifications, contrary to the current universal schemes, irrespective of their quality and do not enable us to make an inter-comparison of results nor to use prior information. Only it is no possible the comparison of resources using one and the same language: universal classifications (Ibáñez and De Alba 1999; Ibáñez et al. 1998b).

2. Pedometricians think numerical classifications would give rise to more precise and “objective” products. These arguments are similar to those proffered by the defenders of numerical taxonomies in biology several decades ago. However, the champions of the numerical biological taxonomies hardly convinced anyone. Both in biology and pedology, the choice of parameters to be used is necessarily “subjective” (purpose oriented). The same can be said with regards to the cluster algorithms selected for dendrogram constructions. Consequently, these arguments are also subjective. In Epistemological terms, universal classifications with their faults and subjectivities are indispensable. It is not I who says this. It is an irrefutable issue in modern literature in the philosophy of science (e.g. Mosterín 1984).

3. Developments in pedometrics have been based mainly on certain mathematical tools (, fuzzy sets, etc.) but have avoided other tools (sciences of complexity, fractals, etc.) and have ignored the standpoints, which have been developed or applied in the spheres of earth sciences successfully.

4. The continuum dilemma is acknowledged in the field of the biological taxonomy of numerous taxa, , at least as fuzzy in classification as in its cartographic representation and other biological entities. Although it has generated controversies, it has not generated winners or losers. Various schools with very different points of view coexist mainly in mapping activities (e.g. hard and fuzzy partitions) (epistemological pluralism). Furthermore, ecosystems and biocenoses are as much or more fuzzy entities than soils so their classification is always arbitrary and subjective (McIntosh 1985; Peters, 1991). However, no ecologist doubts the interest or need to classify them as well as to study on an level.

5. There are also rival schools in the taxonomy of live organisms (these include the defenders of numerical taxonomies). However, no matter how much effort has been made up to date, the “objective” delimitation of species is impossible in certain taxa (e.g. in the genus “Quercus” –oaks-, to mention once again a familiar conspicuous taxa (Van Valen 1976)).

6. Against the opinion of some pedometricians, without the formation of the state of the art in biological taxonomies and biodiversity, we could consider soil types or pedotaxa in similar fashion to biotaxa (including ecosystems and habitats). There are no epistemologic arguments against this perspective.

Philosophy of the concept of classification schemes Recently Odeh (1998) claimed: “There is no unique soil individual or pedotaxa as used by Ibañez et al ----- ”. This may be answered using the words of Slatter (1986) on the nature of biological classifications: “We know that sameness in the sense of identity does not exists...... there is not identity in the world … what is considered to be the same is never exactly the same. Hence, the very basis of the classificatory process that

100 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 assumes sameness of characters is already an oversimplification. It is only through abstraction that sameness emerges. Hence, even the best system of classification reflects not only the order of nature but also the methodology of classifying. It is naive to believe that there is one methodology that is in total harmony with nature. A system of classification may be considered as a theory that is testable by the predictions that can be deduced from it."

Soil classification schemes reflect the genetic theories embraced by their architects (Simonson 1985). Furthermore, as theories, are themselves dependent of other theories including the theoretical assumptions of methodology by means of which they are constructed (e.g. Hull 1974).

Pedologists must not confound the consensus on the International Nomenclature Codes in Biology with consensus on the taxonomy criteria (the last ones not exist). In fact the logic and mathematical structures of all scientific classifications are the same (linguistics, biological, pedological, etc.) (Mosterín 1984) In fact, after to compare the USDA Soil Taxonomy (SSS 1998) with biological taxonomies, some of us (Ibañez et al. 1999) shows as both have the same mathematical structure; they fits also to lognormal and/or power law distributions. The same is true respect to the entropic analyses (Shannon. and Weaver 1948; Brooks and Wiley 1986). This fact also is common in the literature of fractals (Korwin 1992). Both seem filling fractal trees (Burlando 1990; Green 1991; Minelli et al. 1991; Minelli 1993; Ibáñez et al. 1999). Are they natural or artificial? Once again this is an ontological problem.

For many situations in the nature, fractal trees are the best way to maximise the economy of the flow (importation and exportation) of matter, energy (and information if have sense out the human minds) according to MaxEnt Principle (Jaynes 1957). In order to maximise the economy of the flow of information, the human mind seems adopts the same Principle. In structural terms, USDA soil taxonomy is a similar information system than biological taxonomies, with independence of whether they are natural or artificial. The human mind appears to emulate nature when it has the same purpose (Ibáñez et al. 1999).

The most (if not all) classifications in pedology and another disciplines are hierarchical ones. The hierarchical structures optimise the flow of information. As far as we know the reasons are not the tradition or the fashion, if not cognitive ones. However we think that a certain hierarchical approach is irreplaceable.

All natural resources need systems of classification that break the continue or complex phenomena into a few alternatives (Peters 1991). And it should be evident that the problems for classifying any natural resources are conceptually more or less similar. The question is not to know whether the soil continuum can or cannot be classified, but to know how it should be made and the purpose (Ibáñez et al. 1998b). The continuum is not conceptually incompatible with the representation of soil bodies (or other entities) as discrete units (e.g. Hole and Campbell 1985; Ibáñez et al. 1994a; 1998b; Finke et al. 1999). In any case, can the science of the pedology (also is true for the whole of the natural resources) progress in the absence of soil classification systems? A basic principle of the philosophy of the science tells us that this is impossible (the classifications are essential to transfer information to all levels (Ibáñez et al. 1998b). In fact the classification is one of the first steps in the construction of any science (Mosterín 1984). Therefore, in our opinion the search of a comprehensive system of soil classification suitable to solve all current demands of soil information is a fantasy. Consequences of the social practice of soil taxonomy research Simpson (1961) defined taxonomy, or the combination of these two undertakings, as the theory and practice of placing limits on organisms and classifying them. One of the main differences between the taxonomies of biology and soil science arises not from the differential characteristics of their respective fields of study, but from their differing histories, their way of coming to consensus on terminology, and the way their activities are carried out. For example, their use of the term “universal” is not the same.

The production of biological taxonomies can be divided into two very different kinds of activity, each requiring different knowledge, and usually different specialists (Mayr 1995). The first consists of discrimination between the species of particular taxa, ("microtaxonomy”), and the second deals with the aggregation of species taxa into higher categories ("macrotaxonomy”). Microtaxonomists perform a “universal” activity in the sense that they are “specialists” in the study of certain organisms, independent of their geographical distribution. However, they are not “universalists” in the sense that their knowledge and studies do not include all –or even many –biotaxa.

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 101 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

On the other hand, a soil taxonomist must know and use all available classification knowledge. Therefore, there is no distinction between micro- and macro-soil taxonomists in pedology: it is not possible owing to how this activity has become institutionalised in soil science.

(Bio)microtaxonomist can make researches with respect to the taxa in which they specialises, and publish them in exprofeso international journals. Different taxonomic groups are classified using different criteria. Subgroups of biotaxonomists occupy themselves accordingly and publish their results in journals specialised in the biotaxa in question (e.g., The Journal of Nematology). This is one of the reasons why continuing debate on classification criteria and the species concept is possible in biology. In contrast, universal soil taxonomies have been developed, following intense work of consensus by some reputed pedologists. A posteriori, the only thing than soil taxonomists can do is to apply a particular classification and denounce its inconsistencies. It is practically impossible, for them, in general, to take on more ambitious, theoretical activities and publish these in International Journals.

For these reasons, nobody questions that biotaxonomists perform a scientific task; but this is not the case with respect to “soil taxonomists”. In the philosophy of science, it is assumed that an expert dedicated to the recognition of established soil taxa is a technician. They are only considered to be a scientist when capable of discovering new taxa, or of making proposals respect to classification systems (Mosterín, 1984). Therefore, our way of reaching “universal” soil classification systems by a reduced number of specialists, plus the impossibility of others making a posteriori contributions, has produced its perverse result for the pedologists. In principle, there is no insurmountable scientific impediment that prevents soil scientists adopting an institutionalised practice similar to that followed by biologists. The object we classify Surprisingly, insufficient attention paid in the least years to consider which should be the object of soil classifications. Regrettably, while in the first epoch of the pedology that problem was a matter of important debates (see several benchmark papers compiled by Finkl (1982)), currently we classify profiles or pedons acritically. In our opinion this is a major problem that pedologists should analyse with the attention and autocriticism that the subject demands. A soil profile is a two-dimensional slide of the pedosphere. However the soil are three-dimensional entities, with independence of its fussiness. In the first aproximations of the USDA-Soil Taxonomy the pedologists did try solve this problems by means of the polypedon’ concept. According to the Soil Survey staff (1993):

“The pedon is considered too small to exhibit more extensive features, such as slope and surface stoniness. The polypedon is presented in Soil Taxonomy as a unit of classification, a soil body, homogenous at the series level, a big enough to exhibit all the soil characteristics considered in the description and classification of soils (fig. 2-1). In practice, the concept of polypedon has been largely ignored and many soil scientists consider a pedon or some undefined body of more or less similar soils represented by a pedon large enough to classify. Polypedons seldom, if ever, serve as the real thing we want to classify because of the extreme difficulty of finding the boundary of a polypedon on the and because of the self-contradictory and circular nature of the concept. Soil scientists have classified pedons, regardless of their limited size, by deliberately or unconsciously transferring to the pedon any required extensive properties from the surrounding area of soil”……” however, the term “polypedon” will be used in this manual”…..” Polypedons link the “real bodies” of soils in nature to the mental concepts of taxonomic classes”.

This paragraph contrast with some opinions expressed several decades ago (see again the benchmark papers compiled by Finkl (1982)). We have the feeling that the pedologists have follow the next opinion of Knox (1965) in his paper “Soil Individual and Soil Classification”: “Future developments may lead to a soil classification system based on some kind of soil landscape units, but at present the difficulties seem overwhelming”. However, 36 years later, are really these difficulties insuperable? We do not think so, at least to medium term.

It is worth noting that in the USDA Soil Survey Manual (SSD, 1993) drops the concept of polypedon as a unit of classification without explanation. It is questionable now what is the unit of classification; should be obviously the pedon or in short the profile. Other classification schemes pay even less attention to that point emphasising we are speaking of individuals. The bridge with real bodies and landscape are made through the conceptual artefact of soil mapping units (SSD, 1993) which are very much agricultural biased.

102 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

As we can see in a previous paragraph, the ecologists have in many aspects the same problems: what is a ecosystem?; what is a biocenoses?; how can they monitor the biodiversity loss?. Please, look at the Figure 2 and think about it: (i) how is possible for a soil ecologist to known the weight and size of the Armillaria? (a soil micro-organism is one of the most larger organism!); how is possible for a biodiversity expert know that 47.000 aspen stems are in fact a single individual?. In fact it is not possible without the use of very sophisticated techniques, novel instrumentation and big financial support. Current biodiversity inventories have not the possibility to enumerate and weight the whole of the individuals of a given ecosystem; are these problems more difficult to solve that the dimensions of a soil body? Not.

Figure 2. Difficulties in estimating the number and sizes of biological organisms (after Eldredge 1998). Notice the impossibility to know the exact weight and size of Armillaria of the number of individuals of the Aspen without a rigurous study of the soil system

A soil body, as a three-dimensional body of the pedosphere, may vary in size by some orders of magnitude. Thus, it does not necessarily need, concrete dimensions for its classification and/or conceptualisation. Therefore, the scale of the description of a profile or pedon (window(s) in the pedosphere, but nothing more) does not necessarily correspond to the soil body (the three-dimensional entity to be inventoried and mapped). In a similar fashion that a biological species it is not possible to known all it’s within variability a priori.

Like biological organisms, and most likely other natural resources, a soil body may cover a surface of only a few, or hundreds of meters. Thus, for instance, Phillips (1999) shows numerous examples of very small soil bodies, such as nanopodsols, inversion of the through the falling of trees”. In addition, a soil body could be considered as a functional soil unit instead of/ or in the same way to a morphological unit. If it is so sometimes a soil body needs to include two or more different types of pedotaxa; Laya et al. (1985) shows as a combination of two soils types according to FAO system (1988), can be patches splashing, the minor one, a matrix of a single soil body.

In the European Soil Bureau “Soil Database for Europe. Manual of Procedures Version 1.1 (Finke et al., 1999), the authors return to use the concept of soil body and shows a methodology to classify it. As far as I know is the only one initiative with this characteristics.

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 103 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

The need for a change in the focus of soil classification We have outlined some basic aspects of the crisis pedology is suffering and how this affects soil classification, also we have show some characteristics soil classification must have. But soil classification, as a tool to organize in a comprehensive manner the current knowledge in pedology presents many drawbacks; feed-back exists between pedology and soil classification and now it is impairing a shift of paradigm in pedology allowing it to encompass fields and tackle with problems society is demanding.

The perception models of the soil along the time have been changing according to the developments in pedology and the changing demands of the society (Simonson 1985; Dumansky 1993). The next synthesis, based in the papers of Dumansky (1993), Ibáñez et al. (1994a; 1995a, 2000) and Phillips (1999), presents in historical order such perception:

• Geological entities • Medium for plant growth • Natural Bodies • Structural material • -Transmitting mantle • Ecosystem or ecosystem component • Holistic entities or geoderma (continuum soil-regolith-landforms) • Self-organised earth surface systems (geoderma + hydrologic Systems + biological systems)

It is remarkable that the first four models have been the most used in soil survey. However, the last four are beginning to receive more attention from environmental perspective. Notice also the similarities between the five first models and the named “”. In fact the latter concept is incorrect from the point of view of the philosophy of the science; this is a teleological term. Soils by itself have not any function or purpose; it is the human mind, which try to find a way of getting a sense in the context of nature to it. For this reason, as in the ecological literature respect to the concept of ecosystems we would prefer to change this fashion term by another one as soil or pedosphere “services”. It is interesting to note that, there is a trend to change our perception of the soil system from a sectorial and reductionist point of view to another one more compressive and holistic. However soil classifications and current soil survey schemes have not taken in count this fact. Some situations to be included in soil classification Wetland soils This is a problem which has traditionally been avoided, although for instance Kubiena (1953), in his proposal of soil classification “The soils of Europe” introduce aquatic soils such as “Dy” or ”Gyttja” together with the terrestrial soil, in soil classifications and soil surveys schemes, and which has not received the required attention in current soil classification schemes either, involves those "soils", into or bordering , which are submerged under water during all or a large part of the annual cycle. Wetlands currently occupy 3 to 6% of the earth’s surface and their cannot be deemed trivial from any standpoint (Reddy et al. 1996). Even though some of the so-called hydric or amphibious soils may be included in soil classification schemes, the criteria used would not seem to be the most suitable from an environmental perspective (Reddy et al., 1996).

Currently, wetlands management has become one of the environmental topics of greatest interest in developed countries. However, soil taxonomists and soil surveyors, as a consequence of the agronomic paradigm would seem to exclude themselves from their classification and mapping.

A possible question in this context would be: (i) why should we not also study interstitial interfaces as pedosphere? and (ii) why should we not also study the photic zone of the coastal lands? (Ibáñez et al. 2000) We must keep in mind that currently only liminologists study them from a different perspective than that of pedologists. Currently, society is very interested in this topic and demands a lot of information on these natural bodies. As far as we know, only two pedologists have begun to study the soils of the photic zone (an Argentinean in the Patagonian shoreline, and a Spaniard in the coastal area of Galicia (Spain).

104 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

The soil-regolith classification Currently as Creemens et al. (1994) said: “The regolith materials are normally considered by soil scientists to be the rocks and underlying the solum (the object of interest) and largely ignored it”.

However few pedologist have doubts that the properties of below soil as defined by Soil Survey Manual (SSD, 1993) and above hard are important to many land use activities and specially for environmental and hydrological studies, being the study and classification of the landform-soil-regolith continuum of paramount importance. In any case this topic is not new in the literature. Thus, in instance, Ramaan (1928), Glinka (1931) and Cline (1961), many decades ago, were the first reputed pedologists who proposed the study and classification of the soil-regolith system. Many years later there is also irrefutable evidence that the biological activity cross the “current” soils boundaries and affect strongly to the regolith, with repercussion on its biogeochemical processes, horizonation (e.g. pallid horizon, mottle horizon, etc.). (Sánchez, 1994; Richter and Markewitz 1996). Although practitioners from several disciplines study and utilise this material in their work, no quantitative system, based on measurable properties of the materials, is available for its classification (Buol 1994). We may subdivide the Geoderma (Ibáñez et al. 1994a, 1995a, 2000; the whole of the soil-regolith continuum, in “epi-geoderma” (soil) and “hypo-geoderma” (regolith); thus, according to the purposes of the survey we can classify and mapping only the soils (e.g. for traditional agronomic studies) or the soil-regolith continuum (e.g. for contamination or hydrological studies).

Buol (1994) presents a four category hierarchical system for classifying such materials. In this proposal, concepts of the materials formation are used to guide the structure of the system, but measurable properties are used to define each taxon. Connotative names utilizing a procedure like that of Soil Taxonomy also are proposed for each taxon. This perspective permits to maintain current soil classification schemes for soils and is added to the classification of the regolith in a joint or a complementary fashion. The effect of humankind on soils Man has been altering world soilscapes since archaeological times. Parallel to cultural progress, the intensity of his impact has been growing, possibly in an exponential fashion. In any event, current soilscapes are different to pristine soilscapes. This process has been called “metapedogenesis” (Yaalon and Yaron 1966).

Certain prehistoric practices already included homogenization of the solum, totally altering the natural soil horizonation process (haploidization) (Blume 1998) and, as a corollary, affect also its taxonomic classification.

Pedologists are currently very concerned about the anthropogenic soils and its classification. Many taxonomists have turn its to attention also to the classification of urban soils. Thus, in both international and national classification schemes the role of anthropogenic soils has been growing in the last years. However, at the date the number and nature of the proposals presented on this item are numerous and very disparate in its perspectives. (Dudal et al. (in preparation) tries to rationalize the current situation). Obviously a detailed analysis of anrthopogenic soils is beyond of the focus of this paper. We also try show that a process which new data shows that must be considered in current classification schemes: the non-genetic arrangements of soil horizons by human actions on the pedosphere.

Traditionally, the pedosphere's reply to negative impacts has been distinct in different environments. Thus, in instance, under humid-temperate soil degradation has more favoured “soil type mutation” (changes in pedotaxa composition of soilscapes) and/or deterioration of soil properties, whilst under more arid , soil loss and a loss of (van Linden, 1994; Ibáñez et al., 1995c, 1998c; Dazzi and Monteleone, 1998) have predominated. Some human activities, like the reclamation of wet areas, have generated type mutation both in temperate and semi-arid and arid environments. This is the case of the reduction in space occupied by to the benefit of other pedotaxa. However, this mutation also involves an expansion of the space covered by the soil cover or “pedosphere expansion”, to the detriment of the inland hydrosphere (Ibáñez et al. 1994b). Concept of anthropogenic soils: noosols, and The human kind is making a global man-nature co-evolution of the biogeosphere This framework corresponds with the concept of Noosphere coined by Vernadsky (1945): the dominion of the nature by the human mind. This fact means that many landscapes and taxa (e.g. soilscapes and pedotaxa) are located in

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 105 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7 these current sites not for the blinding natural forces if not for the human mind. Thus part of the nature acquire a teleological structure. In this context the term of “noosols” included all soils, which has been modified by human intentions. Therefore this term is lesser restrictive (but enclose) that the anthrosols, because it is not necessary any human direct intervention (e.g. livestock management, change of ecosystems typology by indirect human perturbations). In our opinion many noosols can not be included as anthrosols but have the merit to be included in many classification schemes. In similar fashion the technosphere are producing manmade soils (“Technosols?)”. Alan Rosse in the WRB Newsletter (November 2001) propose a new Reference Group to replace called “Neosols” in order to replace to the anthropic . But are all the Neosols Technosols. In our opinion it is not the case.

In summary, there is a Spanish proverb that says: “solo se ve lo que se sabe” (“We only see what we know”). In other words, conforming to a given scientific progress, our perception of nature changes too. Currently the pedologists begin to recognize that an impressive fraction of the pedosphere has been modified, directly or indirectly, in intensity and/or quality by the humankind. Their effects on the pedosphere are very disparate in nature. Thus probable we need more than a reference group in order to include the whole of this variety of modifications. Anthroposols, Urban soils, Neosols, Agrosols, Neosols, etc. are interesting terms. However we need work a lot in the future in order to introduce with a scientific sound basis this soils in our current classification schemes. Non- genetic arrangements of soil horizons The magnitude of the pedosphere extends with soils that have a pedogenetic arrangement of soil horizons that has been changed by some agricultural practices (e.g. soil tillage). Because these new assemblages (not “Aric Soil Material”) can be very disparate in nature and affect the whole of the soil profile (De Alba and Lindstrom 2002), we need to include these “non-genetic soil assemblages” in future classification schemes.

References ARNOLD, R. W. 1992. Becoming a pedologist. Soil Survey Horizons, 33: 33-36. ARNOLD, R. W., SZABOLCS, I. y TARGULIAN,V.(eds.). 1990. Global Soil Change. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 110 pp. BASHER, L. R.1997. Is pedology dead and buried?. Australian Jour. Soil Res., 35: 979-994. BEZDEK, J.C. 1974. Numerical taxonomy with fuzzy sets. J. mathematical Biology, 1: 57-71. BOHR, N. 1958. Natural philosophy and human cultures. In: Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. II (pp. 23-31), Wiley, New York. BOHR, N., 1963. Quantum physics and philosophy: Causality and complementarity. In: Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. III (pp. 1- 7), BOUMA, J. 1994. Sustainable land use as a future focus for pedology? (a guest editorial). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58: 645-646. BRIDGES, E. M. and CATIZZONE, M. 1996. Soil science in a holistic framework: discussion of an improved integrated approach. Geoderma, 71: 275-287. BRITISH SOCIETY OF SOIL SCIENCE, 1994. The decline in soil science? BSSS Nwesletter, 24: 6-7 BROOKS, D.R., WILEY, E. O., 1986. Evolution as Entropy, Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, 415 pp. BULLOCK, P. 1994. The need for a paradigm change in soil science in the next century. Trans. 15th World Cong. Soil Sci., Acapulco, Mexico, 9: 427-436. BUOL, S. 1994. Saprolite-regolith taxonomy. In: D.L. Cremeens, Brown, R.B., and Huddleston J.H. (eds.). Whole Regolith Pedology, (pp 119-132), SSSA Special Publication nº 34, Madison, WI, SSSA. BURLANDO, B. 1990. The fractal dimension of taxonomic systems. J. Theor. Biol. 146, 99-114. CARR, P. M. CARLSON, G. R., JACOBSEN, J. S., NIELSEN, G. A. and SKOGLEY, E. O. 1991. Farming soils, not fields: A strategy for increasing profitability. J. Prod. Agric., 4: 57-61. CLINE, M. G. 1961. The changing model of Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 25: 442-446. CLINE, M.G. 1977. Historical highlights in soil genesis, morphology and classification. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41, 250-254. CATIZZZONE, M. 1998. For an agreement on the soil. 16º World Congress of Soil Science, Volume with the Introductory Conferences and Debate (pp. 118), Montpellier (20-26 August), France.

106 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

DE GRUIJTER, J. J. 1977. Numerical Classification of Soils and its Applications to Soil Survey. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Neherland. DE GRUIJTER, J. J. and McBRATNEY, A. B. 1988. A modified fuzzy k-means for predictive classification. In: H.H.Bock (ed.), (pp. 97-104). Classificaation and Related Methods of Data Analysis. Elsevier. DMITRIEV, E. A. 1983. Continuity of soils and the problem of soil classification. , 38(3): 10-19. DUMANSKI, J. 1993. Strategies and opportunities for soil survey information and research. ITC Journal, 1993-1: 36-41. DE ALBA, S. and LINDSTROM, M.J., 2002. Transformation of soil landscapes due to soil redistribution by tillage. A new model of soil evolution in agricultural landscapes. (In preparation). DUDAL, R. 1987. The role of pedology in meeting the increasing demands on soils. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 7: 101-110. DUDAL, R., NACHTERGAELE, F.O. and PURNELL, M.F. (2002). The human factor of soil formation (to be publihsed). ELDREDGE, N., 1998. File in the Balance: Humanity and the Biodiversity Crisis. Princeton, NJ, 224 pp. FINKL, Jnr.C.W. 1982. Soil Classification. Benchmark Papers in Soil Science, V. 1. Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg. Pennsylvania, 391 pp. GARDNER, W. R. 1991. Soil science as a basic science. Soil Sci., 151: 2-6. GARDNER, W. R. 1993. A call for action (a guest editorial). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57: 1403-1405. FAO, 1988. FAO-UNESCO of the World: Revised Legend. FAO World Soil Resources Reports 60, Rome, 119 pp. FINKE, P., DUDAL, R., HARTWICK, R., IBÁÑEZ, J. J., JAMAGNE, M., KING, D. MONTANARELLA. L. and YASSOGLOU, N. 1999 Georeferenced Soil Database for Europe. Manual of procedures (Version 1.1). European Soil Bureau, JRC.UE, Ispra, 149 pp. FRIDLAND, V. M. 1976. Patterns of soil cover. Transl. From Russian 1972, ed. By D. H. Yaalon, IPST, Jerusalem, and Wiley, Chichester, 291 pp. FRIDLAND, V. M. 1980. Classification of the structure of the soil mantle and land typification. Soviet J. Soil Sci. 1980, 642-654. GLINKA, K. D. 1931. Soil Science. 4th ed. Moscu. GREEN, D. M., 1991. Chaos, fractals ands nonlinear dynamics in evolution and phylogeny. Tree 6, 333- 337. GREENWOOD, D. J. 1993. The changing scene of British soil science. J. Soil Sci., 44: 191-207. HARTGE, K. H. 1986. Demands on soils increasing in diversity and intensity. In: Transactions 13 th congres of ISSS., Hamburg. ISSS Plenary papers V1: 1-12. HILLEL, D. 1987. On the tortuous path of research. Soil Sci., 304-305. HOLE, F. D. y CAMPBELL, J. B. 1985. Soil Landscape Analysis. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 196 pp. HULL, D. L. 1974. Philosophy of Biological Sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ. HUDSON, H. D. 1992. The soil survey as paradigm-based science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56: 836-841. IBÁÑEZ, J. J. 1998. “Carta a Mosca”. Reflexiones sobre las actividades institucionales desarrolladas en el 16th World Congress of Soil Science. (Montpellier, 20-26 August 1998). Boletín de la Asoc. Argentina de la Ciencia del Suelo, 76: (pp.14-21). Buenos Aires IBÁÑEZ, J. J. y GARCÍA-ÁLVAREZ, A. 1991. Suelos y cambio global. Un enfoque histórico- termodinámico. Rev. Écol. Biol. Sol., 28: 349-375 (since 1992 retitled European Journal of Soil Biology). IBÁÑEZ, J. J. and de Alba, S. 1999. On pedodiversity concept and its measurement. A Reply. Geoderma, 93: 339-344 (Discussion Paper). IBÁÑEZ, J. J., JIMÉNEZ, R. y GARCÍA-ÁLVAREZ,A. 1990a. Sistemología y termodinámica en edafogénesis. II. Suelos, estructuras disipativas y teoría de catástrofes. Rev. Écol. Biol. Sol, 28: 237- 254 (since 1992 retitled European Journal of Soil Biology).

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 107 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

IBÁÑEZ, J. J., JIMÉNEZ, R. and GARCÍA ÁLVAREZ, A. 1990b. Soil landscapes and drainage basins in mediterranean mountain areas. Catena, 17: 573-583. IBAÑEZ, J. J., ZINCK, A. J. and JIMENEZ BALLESTA. 1993. Soil Survey: old and new challenges. ITC Journal, 1993-1: 7-13. IBÁÑEZ, J. J., GARCÍA ÁLVAREZ, A. and BOIXADERA, J. 1994a. Current Paradoxex in Soil Survey. 1th Meeting of the Soils Information Focal Point´s. EU-Working Group on Soils Information System Develoment, Hannover. IBÁÑEZ,J.J., PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ,A., JIMÉNEZ-BALLESTA,R. SALDAÑA,A. and GALLARDO-DÍAZ,J. 1994b. Evolution of fluvial dissection landscapes in Mediterranean environments. Quantitative estimates and geomorphological, pedological and phytocenotic repercussions. Z.Geomorph.N.F., 37(4): 123-138, (Germany). IBÁÑEZ, J. J., BOIXADERA, J. y BARAHONA, E. 1995a. Análisis de la variabilidad espacial y temporal de los suelos: Procedimientos y paradojas. In: (pp. 189-211), Ibáñez,J.J. & Machado,C. (Editores), Análisis de la Variabilidad Espacio-Temporal y Procesos Caóticos en Ciencias Medioambientales, Geoforma-CSIC, 308 p. Logroño. IBÁÑEZ, J. J., de ALBA, S. Y GARCÍA ÁLVAREZ,A. 1995b. Aportaciones del caos a las ciencias de la tierra (estructura, evolución y dinámica del modelado terrestre. In: (pp. 43-80), Ibáñez, J..J. & Machado, C. (Editores), Análisis de la Variabilidad Espacio-Temporal y Procesos Caóticos en Ciencias Medioambientales, Geoforma-CSIC, 308 p. Logroño. IBÁÑEZ, J. J., MÉNDEZ, I., MARTÍN SEMPERE, Mª. J., PLAZA, L. & REY, J. 1997. La edafología en el CSIC: evolución o involución. Productividad y política científica en los antiguos centros relacionados con la edafología y agrobiología durante el periodo 1980-1995. 50 Aniversario de la Sociedad Española de la Ciencia del Suelo, 1947-1997. (volúmen de ponencias), (24-26 de Septiembre, 1997). (pp 25-66). IBÁÑEZ, J. J., SALDAÑA, A. and de ALBA, S., 1998. In Discussion of: J.J., Ibáñez, S., De-Alba., A., Lobo, A. V., Zucarrello, Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarser scales Geoderma, 83: 206- 214. IBÁÑEZ, J. J., RUÍZ RAMOS, M., and CARRERA, C., 1999. Diversity, Power Laws and Fractals in Mental Constructs: Biological and Pedological Taxonomies. International Workshop on Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals in Geosciences. E.T.S.I. Agrónomos, Madrid, (September 14-17), Madrid (dissertation). IBÁÑEZ, J.J. GARCÍA-ÁLVAREZ, A. y DE-ALBA, 2000 Una disciplina en Crisis: Bases para un cambio de paradigma en edafología (el suelo, su clasificación e inventario). XVII Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo. ASCS, Mar del Plata, 11-14 de abril de 2000. (Texto 137 pp en CD ROM). JACOB, J. S. and NORDT, L. C. 1991. Soil and landscape evolution: a paradigm for pedology. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55: 1194. JAYNES, E. T. 1957. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev., 106: 620-630. JENNY, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 281 p. KNOX, E.G. 1965. Soil individuals and soil classification. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29: 79-84. KORWIN, G. 1992. Fractal Models in the Earth Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 396 pp. KUBIENA, W. L. 1953. The Soils of Europe. CSIC, T. Murby & Co. London, 318 pp. Económica, 320 pp. Madrid. KUHN, T. S. 1970. La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 320 pp. Madrid. LAKATOS, I. 1974. Historia de la Ciencia y sus Reconstrucciones Racionales. Technos, Madrid., 158 pp. LAKATOS, I. 1981. La Crítica y la metodología de los Programas Científicos de Investigación. Cuadernos Teorema, Valencia, 60 pp. LAYA, H., LÓPEZ LAFUENTE, A., GÓMEZ MIGUEL, V., IBÁÑEZ ,J .J. y DE ALBA,S. 1993. diversidad edáfica en Rañas: existencia de vertisoles. In: Symposium sobre la Raña, (celebrado en octubre de 1992), (p. 115-125), (SECS-CSIC-CAM). MAYR, E. 1995. This is Biology. (Translated into Spanish by Editorial Debate from English., 326 pp., Madrid).

108 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

MARBUT, C. F. 1935. Soils of the United States. In: U.S. Dept. of Agric. Atlas of American Agriculture, Pt. III Advance Sheets, Nº 8, 98 pp. McBRATNEY,A. B. and DE GRUIJTER, J. J. 1992. A continuum approach to soil classification by modified k-means with extragrades. J. Soil Sci., 43: 159-175. McINTOSH, R.P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambringe Univ. Press, 383 pp. Cambridge. MILLER, F. P. 1992. Soil science: should we change our paradigm?. Bull. ISSS 81: 26-27. MILLER, F. P. 1993. Soil science: a scope broader than its identity (A guest editorial). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57: 299 and 564. MINELLI, A., FUSCO, G. and SARTORI, S., 1991. Self-similarity in biological classifications. BioSystematics 26, 89-97. MINELLI, A. 1993. Biological Systematics. The State of the Art. Chapman y Hall, London, 387 pp. MISHLER, B.D. and DONGHUE, M.J. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Syst. Zool., 31: 491- 503. MOSTERÍN, J. 1984. Conceptos y Teorías en la Ciencia. Alianza Univ. Madrid, 220 pp. NACHTERGAELE, F. 1990. Soil surveyors: an endangered species. Soil Survey Horizons, 31:83-84 NIELSON, D. R. 1987. Emerging frontiers in soil science. Geoderma, 40: 267-273. NOTOHADIPRAWIRO, T. 1993. Rethinking soil science paradigm. In: New Ways in Soil Science. ITC Publ. Nº. 4, 4-16. ITC, Ghent, Belgium. ODEH, I. O. A. 1998. In Discussion of: J.J., Ibáñez, S., De-Alba., A., Lobo, A. V., Zucarrello, Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarser scales Geoderma, 83: 203-205. PETERS, R. H. A. 1991. Critique for Ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, USA, 366 pp. PECK, C. 1990. Precision farming coming in the '90s. Montana farmer-Stockman, 78: 6-9. PHILLIPS, J. D. 1993. Stability implications of the state factor model of soils as a non linear dynamical system. Geoderma, 58: 1-15. PHILLIPS, J. D., 1999. Earth Surface Systems, Blackwell, Oxford, 180 pp. POPPER, K. R. 1962. La Lógica de la Investigación Científica. Tecnos, Madrid, 451 pp. RAMAAN, E. 1928. The Evolution and Classification of Soils. Heffer and Sons, London, UK, REDDY, K. R., DEBUSK, W. F. and COLLINS, M. E. 1996. Role of soil scientists in wetland research. In: R. J. Wagenet and J. Bouma (eds.), (pp. 95-112): The Role of Soil Science in Interdisciplinary Research. SSSA Special. Publication, nº 45. 143 pp. REY, J., MARTÍN, L., PLAZA, L., IBÁÑEZ, J. J. & MÉNDEZ, I. 1998. Changes on Publishing behavior in response to reserach policy guidelines. The case of the Spanish Research Council in the field of . Scientometrics, 41(1-2): 101-111 (Budapest). RHOADS, B. L. and THORN, C. E. 1996. The scientific nature of Geomorphology. Wiley & Sons, 481 pp. RICHARDS, K. 1990. Real Geomorphology (Editorial), Earth, Surf. Proc. Landforms, 15: 195-197. RICHTER, D. D. and MARKEWITZ, D. 1995. How deep is soil. BioScience, 45: 600-608. SANCHEZ; P. A. 1994. Tropical research: towards the second paradigm. Transactions 15th World Congress of Soil Science, Vol 1 (pp. 65-88), Acapulco, México, ISSS. SATTLER, R., 1986. Biophilosophy. Analytic and Holistic Perpectives. Springer-Verlag, 284 pp. SCHEIDEGGER, A. E. 1991. Theoretical Geomorphology. Springer, Berlin, 434 pp. SHANNON, C. and Weaver, W. 1948. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, III., 117 pp. SIMONSON, R.W. 1985. Soil classification in the past: Roots and Philosophies. ISRIC Annual Report 1984: 6-18. SIMONSON, R. W. 1991. Soil science-goals for the next 75 years. Soil Sci., 151: 7-18. SIMPSON, G. G. 1961. Principles of Taxonomy. Columbia, NY. SINGER, M. J. and WARKENTIN, B. P. 1995. Soil in an environmental context. 18th Int. Cong. Soil Sci., Acapulco, México. SOIL SURVEY DIVISION. 1993 Soil Survey Manual. USDA Washington, 435 pp. (revised from 1962 edition) (pp. 18-21)

The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera. 109 EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7

SOIL SURVEY STAFF, 1998. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 8th Edition. Soil Survey Staff, USDA/NRCS, Washington D.C., USA, 326 pp. SPOSITO, G. and REGINATO, R. J. 1992. Opportunities in Basic Soil Science Reserach. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin, 109 pp. TARGULIAN,V.O., ARNOLD, R. W., SOLOMON,A. M. y SZABOLCS, I. 1990a: Introduction. In: R.W.Arnold, I.Szabolcs y V.O.Targulian (Eds.), Global Soil Change. 15-20. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. TARGULIAN, V. O., ARNOLD, R. W. y ROZANOV, B. G. 1990b. Pedosphere. In: R.W.Arnold, I.Szabolcs y V.O.Targulian (Eds.), Global Soil Change. 21-29. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. Van VALEN, L., 1976. Ecological species, multispecies, and oaks. Taxon, 25: 233-239 VERNADSKY, V. 1926. The Biosphere (in Russian). See translation into the English of an abridged version of this in 1986 by Synergetic Press . Von ENGELHARDT, W. and ZIMMERMAANN, J. 1988. Theory of Earth Science. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 381 pp. WARKENTIN, B. P. 1992. Soil science for environmental quality: how do we know what we know? J. Envir. Qual., 21: 163-166. WHITE, R. E. 1993. The role of soil scientists in shaping policies for sustainable . Soil News, 93: 1-4. WILD, A. 1989. Soil scientists as members of the scientific community. J. Soil Sci., 40: 209-221. YAALON, D. H. 1993 Soil Science in the eyes of the beholder. Bull. ISSS, 84: 13-14. YAALON; D. H. 1995. The soils we classify: essay review of recent publications on soil taxonomy. Catena, 24: 233-241. YAALON, D. H. 1996. Soil Science in transition: Soil awareness and soil care reserach strategies. Soil Sci., 161: 3-7. YAALON, D.H. 1997a. Soil science in transition. Soil awares and soil care research strategies. YAALON, D. H. 1997b. History of soil science in context: international perspective, In: Yaalon, D.H. y Berkowicz (eds.), (pp. 1-14). History of Soil science -International Perspectives- Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, Germany, 438 pp. ZINCK, J. A. 1990. Soil Survey. Epistemology of a vital discipline. ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands, 40pp. ZINCK, J. A. 1993. Introduction. ITC Journal 1993-1: 2-6.

110 The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology: Ibanez & Boixadera.

Top View