DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in Classifying Soils: Some Examples from Iranian Soils ISSN 2080-7686

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in Classifying Soils: Some Examples from Iranian Soils ISSN 2080-7686 Bulletin of Geography. Physical Geography Series, No. 14 (2018): 63-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/bgeo-2018-0005 Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in classifying soils: some examples from Iranian soils ISSN 2080-7686 Mohammad Hassan Salehi Shahrekord University, Iran * Correspondence: College of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The two most widely used soil classifications are the Soil Taxonomy (ST) and the World Ref- erence Base for Soil Resources (WRB). The purpose of this paper is to clarify the differences and the similarities between ST and WRB in their current state, with some examples for representative soils in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. Four representative pedons were classified and soil units from WRB were compared to those obtained by using ST at the family level. WRB could show the status Key words: of soils polluted by heavy metals through the Toxic qualifier and its subqualifiers. On the other hand, Arid and semi-arid regions, ST could indicate the status of shallow soils in our studied soils but it was not able to show gleyic poorly drained soils, conditions and the existence of a salic horizon because of the differences in its criteria compared to polluted soils, those of WRB. Special effort should be made to quantify various anthropogenic activities in upcom- Soil Taxonomy, ing editions of both classification systems. WRB Introduction ogists with different experiences to classify soils in much the same way. The two most widely used modern soil classifi- Soil classification systems generally aim to establish cation schemes are American Soil Taxonomy, or ST a taxonomy based on breaking the soil continuum (Soil Survey Staff 2014) and the World Reference into more or less homogeneous groups (Guo et al. Base for Soil Resources, or WRB (IUSS Working 2003). Furthermore, most modern soil classification Group WRB 2015). After years of intensive world- systems are developed to complement and support wide testing and data collection, new versions of soil survey activities (Ahrens et al. 2003). Classifi- the ST and WRB systems have been released. In cation systems are conceptual frameworks that ena- its current state, ST has a strong hierarchy with six ble the assimilation of information and the delivery categorical levels, i.e., order, suborder, great group, of information to a user (Blum and Laker 2003). subgroup, family, and series (Soil Survey Staff 2014), Since the earliest days of soil science, attempts have whereas the WRB has a flat hierarchy with only two been made to develop a universal soil classification categorical levels, i.e., reference soil groups and soil system. Most early soil classification systems were units (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015). Rossit- based on the recognition of soil-forming process- er (2001) stated that the reference soil group level es, whereas modern systems classify soils based on of WRB is an intermediate in the conceptual lev- quantitative characteristics defined as diagnostic ho- el between ST orders and suborders, while the sec- rizons, properties, and materials. This allows pedol- ond-level subdivisions, i.e., soil units, which are Bulletin of Geography. Physical Geography Series 2018. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- -NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 Nicolaus Copernicus University. All rights reserved. © 2018 De Gruyter Open (on-line). Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in classifying soils: some examples from Iranian soils M.H. Salehi defined by combinations of qualifiers, are similar to way for the possibility of comparing differing tax- ST great groups (one qualifier) or subgroups (mul- onomies and could open the way for a more com- tiple qualifiers). prehensive classification method. Some scientists have tried to compare the advan- In recent decades, the role of humans in soil tages and disadvantages of these soil classification formation has become a matter of great concern systems and give comments for their improvement among soil scientists. Human influence is now con- (e.g., Deckers et al. 2003; Esfandiarpor et al. 2013). sidered as a soil-forming factor, and anthropogeni- Toomanian et al. (2003) focused on gypsiferous soils sation is recognised as a soil-forming process that in Central Iran and argued that the WRB seems to consists of a collection of geomorphic and pedo- be the most appropriate system for the classification logical processes resulting from human activities. of these soils. Dazzi et al. (2009) proposed a new di- Industrial developments, mines and their activities agnostic horizon for Anthrosols in WRB as a “ge- and intensive agriculture have all led to soil chang- omiscic” horizon which can be succinctly defined es in urban areas. The importance of human impact as a horizon that develops when a layer of at least on soil properties is considered in soil classification 30 cm thick and of different kinds of earthy mate- systems and both soil classifications have experi- rials is added to the soil using earthmoving equip- enced important enhancements which allow urban ment. Charzyński et al. (2013) proposed that new and industrial soils to be described and mapped. qualifiers of Edific, Nekric, Misceric, Artefactic, Ra- For instance, the new reference soil group of Tech- dioactivic and new specifier of Technic be added to nosols was introduced from the 2006 edition of the Technosols in WRB. They also recommended that WRB onwards (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). Salic and Sodic qualifiers should be available for Ahrens and Engel (1999) reported that although a Technosols. Hulisz et al. (2010) suggested that two few categories in the ST distinguish anthropogenic new qualifiers (Anthrosalic and Anthrosodic) be soils, two soil reference groups, i.e., Anthrosols and used with the Technosols Reference Soil Group of Technosols, were distinguished in the WRB system WRB. Charzyński et al. (2018) studied the soils of at a higher level and it is also possible to account gardens in Toruń and stated that none of the stud- for different anthropogenic elements in other refer- ied mineral surface horizons meets the criteria for ence groups. On the other hand, from the 2010 edi- hortic horizon according to WRB 2015, due to the tion onwards, the Soil Taxonomy tried to consider phosphorus content being too low. They suggest- human effects in different ways, mainly by defini- ed that the research on classification issues of gar- tion of a Master horizon, M, the horizon suffix, u, den soils should be continued on a larger scale to and recently (Soil Survey Staff 2014) by introduc- evaluate whether WRB criteria are not too strict in ing “Human-altered and human-transported mate- taking into account only the features of the most rial classes” at family level. typical, few-decades-old garden soils. Most soils around cities are intensively used and Esfandiarpour-Borugeni et al. (2018) mentioned heavily influenced by humans. Processes in these that the presence of lithologic discontinuity in taxon soils often differ greatly from those in rural soils, name was totally neglected by the ST system but the with features such as contaminant loads, parent ma- WRB system showed this property with the Rap- terials and chemical composition (Rossiter 2007). tic qualifier. They recommended the “Raptic” sub- Soil classification should provide a method for plan- group for all taxa in the ST system. ning agricultural output, allowing the application of Láng et al. (2016) and Michéli et al. (2016) test- new management techniques and supporting the use ed the distance calculation for comparing the great of environmentally sound land-use practices (Shi group of the ST and concluded that it was useful et al. 2010). The concept of soil security serves to in determining differences between soil taxa and make explicit the connections between soil and oth- improving classification definitions. Hughes et al. er global existential challenges. Therefore, a better (2017) compared the USDA Soil Taxonomy and understanding of the connections between the earth the Australian Soil Classification System using their and its inhabitants is needed. Indeed, it is necessary taxa centroids calculated via principal component to consider geologic, geographic, and climatic con- analysis and concluded that this method opened the tributions to public health (Catherine and Skinner 64 Citation: Bulletin of Geography. Physical Geography Series 2018, 14, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/bgeo-2018-0005 M.H. Salehi Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in classifying soils: some examples from Iranian soils 2007). Therefore, soil classification systems should The representative pedons were selected and de- also explain the soil’s pollutants and also their ef- scribed according to the “Field Book for Describ- fects on human health. However, one of the impor- ing and Sampling Soils” (Schoeneberger et al. 2002). tant missions of soil classifications is still to identify Then, soil samples from different genetic horizons important properties which have an effect on man- of all pedons were taken, and were analyzed to de- agement purposes and health issues. The purpose of termine: particle size distribution by hydrometer this study was to compare the efficiency of current method); calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) by editions of the American Soil Taxonomy and WRB HCl treatment or titrimetric method; cation ex- soil classification systems in describing the manage- change capacity (CEC) by NH4Ac method (at pH ment properties of some representative soils in arid 7.0); organic matter (OM) by Walkley–Black meth- and semi-arid regions of Iran. od; gypsum percentage by acetone method; and percentage of rock fragments (RF) (by volume). Saturated paste extracts were prepared to evaluate Materials and Methods soil salinity.
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]