Patterns of Soil Health for Prime Agricultural Lands in the Greater City of Sudbury Area By Jonathan Waddell A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (MSc) in Biology The Faculty of Graduate Studies Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada ©Jonathan Waddell, 2015 iii Abstract At the regional scale, soil information regarding commonly employed land uses allows for improved negotiations between land owners, land managers and city planners, and also guides the adoption of sustainable policies and management practices to maintain the finite soil resources required for the on-going preservation of the local agricultural industry under stresses of a changing climate. The increasing management intensity of agricultural soils in the Greater Sudbury region, as elsewhere around the world, is placing negative pressure on the critical soil resource. This pressure is a result of reduced land availability from encroaching non- agricultural land uses, more powerful farming equipment, and a heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers. These diverse pressures are also intensified in the study area due to the strong local demand for topsoil and sod for urban development on the shallow rocky soils of much of the nearby urban area. In this study, a novel geo-referenced database was developed from measured soil health properties sampled in locally significant prime agricultural lands. Using Kruskal-Wallis comparisons, descriptive statistics and coefficients of variation, seven common land uses of the region were evaluated. Soil health properties were found to reflect land use cover and varied along a land use intensity gradient. The results from this study suggest that intensive land management practices in the region decreased topsoil total C concentrations, increased bulk density, narrowed the soil C to N ratio, increased total and available soil major nutrient levels, whilst triggering decreased micronutrient availability. Furthermore, in combination to contrasting soil health differences between dominant land uses, continuous predicted surfaces of soil properties created using GIS software, proved to be useful to highlight spatial patterns of soil properties influenced by local land use decisions. The results in this study confirm that soil resources in the prime agricultural lands of the region are at greater risk of ongoing loss of soil health due to management intensification. iv Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Graeme Spiers for his continuous support and contributions throughout the project, for sparking my interest in soil and agriculture, and for the countless opportunities he has presented before me. A nod of the hat goes out to Mike Soenens of Green Zone Farms. Mike contributed enormously behind the scenes, by providing advice, time, equipment, and most importantly, for being a good friend. I’m also very grateful for the contributions and support by Dr. Jennifer Hargreaves. I am appreciative of Brian Tisch for his kind offering that enabled the much needed particle size analyses. I would like to thank Michael Fulcher and Christine Cousins for their strong effort in the field. I am also very thankful for Troy Maki of the Elliot Field Research Station for keeping the torch alive. I would like to thank Kierann Santala for her prominent wisdom. I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Peter Beckett and Dr. Kabwe Nkongolo, for their guidance. As well, I would like to thank Dr. Stewart Sweeney for his positive insight. I would to also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Sudbury Chapter of the Ontario Crop Improvement Association and the former Greater City of Sudbury’s Topsoil and Agricultural Advisory Panel for their support and providing me with an opportunity to learn. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support from the Greater City of Sudbury, the Elliot Lake Field Research Station, and Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation. Finally, thank you to everyone who had allowed me to access their property. It was uplifting to see the vast majority of landowners in the community support this project. v Table of Contents Thesis Defense Committee ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………iii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..viii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xii List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xiv Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….1 Introduction……….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 2.1 History of the Farming Community in the Sudbury Area………………………………………………………6 2.2 Sudbury’s Agricultural Reserve……………..……………………………………………………………………………..8 2.2.1 The Geographical Extent of Sudbury’s Agricultural Reserve…………………………………………….11 2.3 Background Knowledge of Sudbury’s Agricultural Soils………………………………………………………12 2.3.1 The Sudbury Soil Survey and the Canada Land Inventory………………………………………………..13 2.3.2 Soil Agricultural Capability Classification…………………………………………………………………………14 2.3.3 Soil Types of the Agricultural Reserve lands…………………………………………………………………….19 2.3.3.1 Gleysolic Soils……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 2.3.3.2 Podzolic Soils………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 2.3.4 Limitations of Conventional Local Soil Survey Data………………………………………………………….27 2.3.5 Upgrading Conventional Soil Surveys………………………………………………………………………………32 2.4 Soil Variation at the Regional Scale…………………………………………………………………………………….33 2.4.1 The Formation of Soil and its Inherent Variability……………………………………………………………33 vi 2.4.1.1 The Geological Landscape of Sudbury Basin…………………………………………………………………35 2.4.1.2 Topography and Drainage of the Sudbury Basin…………………………………………………………..38 2.4.1.3 Climate……………………………………………………………………………………………………......................42 2.4.1.4 Vegetation and Land Use History………………………………………………………………………………….44 2.4.1.4.1 Forested Soils Response to Cultivation………………………………………………………………………46 2.4.1.4.2 Abandoned Farm Land………………………………………………………………………………………………48 2.4.1.4.3 Forage Crops and Other Crop Rotations…………………………………………………………………….50 2.4.1.4.4 Potato Rotation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………52 2.4.1.4.5 Sod Production………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53 2.4.1.4.6 Topsoil Removal………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 Chapter 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………56 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56 3.1 Site Sampling and Sample Preparation………………………………………………………………………….……56 3.2 Laboratory Analyzes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..58 3.3 Soil Attribute Calculations……………………………………………………………….…………………………………59 3.4 Statistical Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60 3.5 Spatial Representation of Soil Database Attributes…………………………………………………………….60 Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………62 Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..62 4.1 Statistical Comparison of Dominant Land Uses…………………………………………………………………..62 4.1.1 Topsoil Total C Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………………..62 4.1.1.1 Spatial Relationship between Topsoil Total C and Land Use…………………………………………64 4.1.2 Topsoil Bulk Density Variability across Land Use Patterns……………………………………………….66 4.1.2.1 Spatial Relationship between Topsoil Bulk Density and Land Use…………………………………67 4.1.3 Topsoil Total N Variability across Land Use Patterns……………………………………………………….69 4.1.3.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Total N to Land Use………………………………………………………71 vii 4.1.4 Topsoil Total C to N Ratio Variability across Land Use Patterns..……………………………………..73 4.1.4.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil C to N Ratio to Land Use.………………………………………………74 4.1.5 Topsoil Total Available P Variability across Land Use Patterns…………………………………………76 4.1.5.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Available P to Land Use………………………………………………..78 4.1.6 Topsoil Total P Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………………..79 4.1.6.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Total P to Land Use………………………………………………………82 4.1.7 Topsoil Available K Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………….83 4.1.7.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Available K to Land Use………………………………………………..85 4.1.8 Topsoil Total K Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………………..87 4.1.8.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Total K to Land Use………………………………………………………89 4.1.9 Topsoil Available Zn Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………..91 4.1.10 Topsoil Total Zn Variability across Land Use Patterns…………………………………………………….93 4.1.10.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Total Zn to Land Use…………………………………………………..95 4.1.11 Topsoil Available Cu Variability across Land Use Patterns……………………………………………..96 4.1.11.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Available Cu to Land Use…………………………………………….99 4.1.12 Topsoil Total Cu Variability across Land Use Patterns………………………………………………….101 4.1.12.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Total Cu to Land Use…………………………………………………103 4.1.13 Topsoil Available Mn Variability across Land Use Patterns……………………………….............105 4.1.13.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil Available Mn to Land Use…………………………………………107 4.1.14 Topsoil Total Mn Variability across Land Use Patterns…………………………………………………109 4.1.14.1 Spatial Relationship of Topsoil