REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY of HALDIMAND=NORFOLK Soils Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Soils of the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND=NORFOLK Volume I Report No. 57 e Ontario Institute of Pedology Ministry of Agriculture Agriculture and Food Canada ONTARIO Research Direction Jack Riddell, Minister Branch de la recherche Clay Switzer, Deputy THE SOILS OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK VOLUME 1 REPORT NO. 57 OF THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGY Research Branch, Agriculture Canada Soil and Water Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph by E.W. Presant and C.J. Acton Land Resource Research Institute Research Branch, Agriculture Canada Guelph, Ontario 1984 Land Resource Research Institute Contribution No. 84-13 1 forest land management. INTRODUCTION (7) For detailed morphological, chemical and physical The soil survey conducted to gather information for the descriptions of typical soils, as well as tables of statistical maps and text of this report was actually a resurvey of the means and engineering test data, users are referred to former counties of Norfolk and Haldimand. The original Volume 2. surveys for these counties were completed during the 1920's- Users should understand that each soil exhibits a range of and 1930's and, although soil maps and reports were compiled properties, and that boundaries between map units, even from the soils information, only the maps were published. though they represent the best estimate of where soils These maps and their extended legends were published at change, may only be approximately located. They should scales of approximately 1 :125 000 (1,2). also be aware that there could be inclusions of unidentified The decision to resurvey Norfolk and Haldimand counties, soil components, as large as a few hectares in area, within now combined into the Regional Municipality ofHaldimand- any map unit, because of the map scale and the nature of the Norfolk, was made in response to increasing demands for soil mapping. Most soils information is based on the better and more detailed soils information than the old maps examination of soil characteristics to a depth of about 100 could supply. Hence, soil mapping at a scale of 1 :25 000 was cm below the surface. begun in 1974 and completed in 1980. Preliminary soil maps, incorporating this new soils information, were made available during this time period. The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 Many individuals contributed to this project. includes descriptions of the environmental setting Most members of the of the Ontario Institute of Pedology were very helpful, soils, generalized descriptions of the soils, and soil especially G. Patterson, B. van den Broek, interpretations . Volume 2 contains detailed M. Langman, J. morphological, Hansen, M. McKnight and A Montgomery, who were chemical and physical descriptions of typical soils, as well as responsible tables of statistical means for much of the field mapping and preliminary and engineering test data. In map preparation. They were ably assisted in the field B. addition to the report, there are thirteen soil maps published by Maclean, R. Denis, S. James, G. Winnicki, J. Kiss, D. Aspinall at 1 :25 000 scale, and one soil map with generalized soil and S. Lee. information at 1 :100 000 scale. Field sampling and laboratory analyses were carried out by R. Viitala, B. Hohner and C. Heath of Agriculture Canada, and J. Gillespie and M. Markle of the University of HOW TO USE THE SOIL Guelph. Engineering testdata were provided by the Aggregates Section laboratory of the Highway Engineering Division of MAPS AND REPORT the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Resource managers, such as farmers or foresters, usually Cartographic assistance, throughout the project, was know the characteristics and variations of soils on their own provided by D. Irvine and A. McLennan of the University of properties, or in the immediate vicinity. Without a soil map Guelph. Personnel from the Ontario Institute of Pedology, and report, comparison with other soils in the region is very who contributed substantially to-the data compilation and difficult. With the help of a soil map, regional similarities and analysis, were M. Schmidt, J. Cook, J. Greuel, A. Munson, differences between soils can be shown. Such information P. Allen and A. Sanderson. Special thanks are extended to J. can be an aid in buying or renting land, or in transferring Cook who was also responsible for the typing and word management techniques to similar soils, thereby reducing processing of the report. the risks of managing new land. The assistance of R. Chard, extension horticulturist with To use the soil maps and report most efficiently the the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in developing following procedure is suggested: interpretations for special crops, was much appreciated . (1) Locate the area of interest on the "Soil Map Index" The assistance of M. Watson, N. Sheidow and J. Elliott, of included with each volume. Note the number of the soil the Tobacco Research Station, Delhi, in developing tobacco map on which your area of interest is located. interpretations, was also appreciated. The preparation of the (2) Obtain the appropriate soil map, and locate your specific soil erosion section, by G. Wall, Agriculture Canada, and I. area of interest. Natural and cultural features on the Shelton and J. Greuel, of the Institute of Pedology, was map, such as streams, contours, roads, buildings, lots greatly appreciated. Thanks are also extended to P. Chisholm and concessions, should assist in location. and R. Irwin, of the School of Engineering, University of Guelph, for their section on drainage interpretations, and to Note the map unit symbols within the map unit delineation T: Taylor of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and that includes your area of interest. K. Jones of Agriculture Canada, for their section on interpre- (4) Consult the legend on the map to aid in understanding tations for forest land management. the symbol and in determining the soil components, Appreciation isexpressed to allmembers of the Cartographic their slopes, parent materials, and drainage. Section ofthe Land Resource Research Institute, Agriculture (5) If more information is required on the sôil components, Canada, Ottawa, who were involved in the cartography and locate them by name in Volume 1 of the report. A map digitization. Special thanks to B. Edwards who supervised generalized description of each soil is presented in this work, and to A. Villeneuve who worked with the maps Volume 1, as well as some comments on land use, and throughout the project. Appreciation is also extended to suitability for certain uses. J.H. Day of the same Institute for his suggestions throughout the project, and critical review of the manuscript. (6) For specific soil interpretations, refer also to Volume I . It contains soil capability for common agricultural field crops, soil suitability for special agricultural and horticultural crops, soil erosion interpretations, soil interpretations for drainage, and soil interpretations for TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . .2 Waterin Soils (WRN) . 51 HOW TO USE THE SOIL MAPS AND REPORT . 2 Wattford Soils (WAT) . 52 Wauseon Soils (WUS) . 52 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .2 Welland Soils (WLL) . 53 LIST OF TABLES . 4 Wilsonville Soils (WIL) . 53 LIST OF FIGURES . 5 Miscellaneous Land Units . 54 Complex 1 (CPX1) . .. .. 54 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Complex 2 (CPX2) . 54 Location, Size and Population . 7 Complex 3 (CPX3) . 54 Agricultural Development and Land Use . 7 Complex 4 (CPX4) . 54 Physiography and Drainage . 12 Complex 5 (CPX5) . 55 Bedrock Geology . 14 Complex 6 (CPX6) . 55 Surficial Geology and its Relation Marsh (MAR) . 55 to the Soils of the Region . 14 Ridge (RID) . 55 Climate . 18 Urban Land (U.L.) . 55 Forest Vegetation . 22 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE HOW THE SOILS WERE MAPPED AND CLASSIFIED Soil Mapping . 25 A. AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION Survey Intensity and Map Reliability . 25 FOR COMMON FIELD CROPS . 56 Soil Classification . 25 (1) Capability Classification for Mineral Soils . 56 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOILS (a) Soil capability classes . 56 (b) Soil capability subclasses . 56 Soil Key . 29 Soil Descriptions . 31 (2) Capability Classification for Organic Soils . 56 Alluvial Soils (ALU) . 31 B. AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY Berrien Soils (BRR) . 31 CLASSIFICATION FOR SPECIAL CROPS . 61 Beverly Soils (BVY) . 32 . 32 (1) Climatic Considerations . 61 Bookton Soils (BOO) . 61 Brady Soils (BAY) . 33 (2) Soil Considerations . 33 (3) How to Determine Special Crop Suitability Brant Soils (BRT) . Brantford Soils (BFO) . 34 Ratings . 61 Brooke Soils (BOK) . 35 C. SOIL EROSION INTERPRETATIONS . 65 Burford Soils (BUF) . 35 (a) Soil Interpretations for Water Erosion . 65 Colwood Soils (CWO) . 35 (1) Introduction . 65 Fartnington Soils (FRM) . 36 (2) Factors Affecting Soil Erosion by Water . 65 Fox' Soils (FOX) . 36 (3) Measurement of Factors Affecting Gobles Soils (GOB) . 37 Water Erosion . 66 Granby Soils (GNY) . 38 (a) Rainfall Factor (R) . 66 Haldimand Soils (HIM) . 38 (b) Soil Erodibility Factor (K) . 66 Hampden Soils (HMP) . 39 (c) Slope Gradient (S) and Slope Length Kelvin Soils (KVN) . 39 (L) Factors . 70 Lincoln Soils (LIC) . 40 (d) Cropping-management Factor (C) . 70 Lonsdale Soils (LDL) . 41 (4) Soil Erosion Assessment . 76 Lowbanks Soils (LOW) . 41 (a) Regional Soil Loss Potential . 76 Maplewood Soils (MPW) . 41 (b) Site-specific Soil Loss Potential . 78 Muriel Soils (MUI) . 42 Niagara Soils (NGR) . 42 (b) Soil Interpretations for Wind Erosion . 78 Normandale Soils (NDE) . 43 (1)Introduction . 78 . (2) Wind Erodibility Groups . Oakland Soils (OKL) . 43 . 78 Oakview Soils (OVW) . 43 (c) Erosion Appendix . 81 Ontario Soils (OTI) . 44 D. SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR DRAINAGE . 44 Plainfield Soils (PFD) . (1) Hazards to Agriculture . Scotland Soils (STD) . 45 84 . (2) Factors that Affect.