Towards a Universal Soil Classification System a working Group of the International Union of Soil Sciences - Jon Hempel, United states department of Agriculture NRCS
Towards a Universal Soil Classification System a working Group of the International Union of Soil Sciences - Jon Hempel, United states department of Agriculture NRCS
1. Towards a Universal Soil
Classification System
a working Group of the International Union of Soil Sciences
Towards Global Soil Information: Activities with the
GEO Task Global Soil Data
Jon Hempel
Global Soil Partnership Workshop 2012
FAO Headquarters
Rome, IT
20 – 23 March, 2012
2. Pillar Five of the Global Soil Partnership
• Harmonization of methods, measurements
and indicators for the sustainable
management and protection of soil resources
Pillar One
• Harmonization and establishment of
guidelines and standards of methods
measurements and methods
3. USC Vision
• To use the most up to date information,
data and technology to enhance Soil
Classification
4. USC Mission
• To work with all sectors of the Soil
Science community to improve soil
classification tools
5. “ A classification system should be dynamic, in
the sense that it should be continuously used
and in the process continuously tested.
You must remember that a classification is
a creation of man and is a reflection of the
state of knowledge at that time and the uses
that were intended at that time. Both of these
may and will change and the system should be
able to accommodate these changes. If not it,
becomes decadent.”
Guy Smith
6. “Bridging the Centuries” Conference in Gödöllő,
Hungary-September 2009
Declaration to “IUSS”
(on the need for a Universal Soil Classification system)
7. IUSS Council Approval of USC
Working Group from the minutes of IUSS Council, Brisbane,
AU, August 2010
• The Working Group on Universal Soil
Classification was agreed with a time
limit of 8 years (2018) and a review of
progress towards an agreed Soil
Classification System after 4 years
(2014), with an interim document report
in 2012.
8. Core Working Group Membership
• Jon Hempel, Director-National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE (Chair)
• Erika Micheli, Head Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry Szent Istvan
University Gödöllő, Hungary (Co-Chair)
• Alex McBratney, University of Sydney, Sydney, AU
• Alfred Hartemink, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Ben Harms, Department of Natural Resources, Indoorroopilly, QLD, AU
• Curtis Monger, New Mexico State University
• Ganlin Zhang, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanzing, China
• Humberto Santos, Embrapra Solos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• John Galbraith, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA
• Luca Montanarella, Action Leader, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy
• Lucia Anjos, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Soils Department, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
• Method Kilasara, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science, Tanzania
• Micheal Golden, Director-Soil Survey Division, Washington, DC
• Peter Schad, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Sciences, Technische Universitat,
Munchen, Germany
• Pavel Krasilnikov, Institute of Biology , Karelia Research Center RAS, Petrozavodsk , Russia
• Phillip Owens, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN
• Sergey V. Goryachkin, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
9. Ways forward for a Universal Soil
Classification System
• Very positive responses from many
sectors of soil scientific community
• IUSS Backing
• Growing interest in soil science
information
• We need not start from scratch
• Needs for the future
10. Considerations for a Universal
Soil Classification System
• Simplification
• Enable others???
• Anthropogenic concerns (erosion,
compaction, drainage, siltation, etc)
• Numeric/continuous classification
12. Task Groups-Major Categories
• Soil Classification Issues
• Diagnostic and Soil Profile Information
Harmonization
• Important Information Relating to Soil
Classification
14. Diagnostic and Soil Profile Information
Harmonization
• Evaluate and compare diagnostic criteria
from existing systems
– Prepare a dataset of options
– Chair: Erika Micheli
• Compare guidelines for field profile
descriptions (redox, structure, color,
consistency, texture, etc.)
– Propose a standardized nomenclature
– Chair: Joe Chiaretti
15. Diagnostic and Soil Profile Information
Harmonization
• Compare and compile horizon
nomenclature, designations, definitions
– Propose a standardized nomenclature
– Chair: Curtis Monger and Lucia Anjos
• Development of a horizon classification
system
– R&D a process to logically group
characterization data
– Chair: Alex McBratney
16. Contemporary soil classification systems
(including Soil Taxonomy) are very poor for
topsoil assessments
Ochric horizon is a “garbage can” for different topsoil types
USC should take into account the real diversity of topsoils of the world
17. Important Information Relating to
Soil Classification
• Larger user groups than the current
systems
– Chair: Luca Montanarella
• Dual (parallel) nomenclature that
includes and accommodates both a
scientific and non-technical language
(English lay / Texas vernacular)
– Chair: John Galbraith
18. Important Information Relating to Soil
Classification
• Recommend laboratory methods and
correlation rules
– IUSS Liaison: Alfred Hartemink
• Explore other diagnostics (e.g. soil
biology)
– IUSS and NCSS soil ecology Liaison:
Alfred Hartemink
• Explore other observation methods (e.g.
spectroscopy, gamma radiometrics)
– Chair: Alex McBratney
19. Important Information Relating
to Soil Classification
• Moisture and Temperature Regimes
– Define potentials for the development of
soil moisture and temperature regimes.
– Chair: Phillip Owens
• Define potential users interested in soil
classification wider than traditional
users
– Are there users other than SS that would
use soil classification
– Chair: Luca Montaneralla
20. Steps, activities to test the diagnostics
1. Determine (select) diagnostics which are the
commonly accepted main distinguishing factors of
soils (soil classes).
2. Review and evaluate the concepts, definitions and
criteria for the diagnostics (G. Smith concepts,
original definitions / current definitions, consistency
within ST, WRB correspondence
3. Simple statistical approaches to test the limits
4. Testing the taxonomic differentiation function
5. Making conclusions, recommendations
22. Required Characteristics of the Mollic epipedon
The mollic epipedon consists of mineral soil materials and has the following properties:
1. When dry, either or both:
a. Structural units with a diameter of 30 cm or less
or secondary structure with a diameter of 30 cm or less;
or
b. A moderately hard or softer rupture-resistance class;
and
2. Rock structure, including fine (less than 5 mm) stratifications, in less than one-half of the volume of all parts;
and
3. One of the following:
a. All of the following:
(1) Colors with a value of 3 or less, moist, and of 5 or
less, dry; and
(2) Colors with chroma of 3 or less, moist; and
(3) If the soil has a C horizon, the mollic epipedon has a color value at least 1 Munsell unit lower or chroma at least 2 units lower (both moist and dry) than that of the C horizon or the epipedon has at least
0.6 percent more organic carbon than the C horizon; or
b. A fine-earth fraction that has a calcium carbonate equivalent of 15 to 40 percent and colors with a value and chroma of 3 or less, moist; or
c. A fine-earth fraction that has a calcium carbonate
equivalent of 40 percent or more and a color value, moist, of
5 or less; and
4. A base saturation (by NH4OAc) of 50 percent or more; and
5. An organic-carbon content of:
a. 2.5 percent or more if the epipedon has a color value,
moist, of 4 or 5; or
b. 0.6 percent more than that of the C horizon (if one occurs) if the mollic epipedon has a color value less than 1 Munsell unit lower or chroma less than 2 units lower (both moist and dry) than the C horizon;
or
c. 0.6 percent or more; and
6. After mixing of the upper 18 cm of the mineral soil or of the whole mineral soil if its depth to a densic, lithic, or paralithic contact, petrocalcic horizon, or duripan (all defined below) is less than 18 cm, the
minimum thickness of the epipedon is as follows:
a. 10 cm or the depth of the noncemented soil if the epipedon is loamy very fine sand or finer and is directly above a densic, lithic, or paralithic contact, a petrocalcic horizon, or a duripan that is within 18 cm
of the mineral soil surface; or
b. 25 cm or more if the epipedon is loamy fine sand or coarser throughout or if there are no underlying diagnostic horizons nd the organic-carbon content of the underlying materials decreases irregularly with
increasing depth; or
c. 25 cm or more if all of the following are 75 cm or more
below the mineral soil surface:
(1) The upper boundary of any pedogenic lime that is
present as filaments, soft coatings, or soft nodules; and
(2) The lower boundary of any argillic, cambic, natric,
oxic, or spodic horizon (defined below); and
(3) The upper boundary of any petrocalcic horizon, duripan, or fragipan; or
d. 18 cm if the epipedon is loamy very fine sand or finer in some part and one-third or more of the total thickness between the top of the epipedon and the shallowest of any features listed in item 6-c is less
than 75 cm below the mineral soil surface; or
e. 18 cm or more if none of the above conditions apply;and
7. Phosphate:
a. Content less than 1,500 milligrams per kilogram soluble in 1 percent citric acid; or
b. Content decreasing irregularly with increasing depth below the epipedon; or
c. Nodules are within the epipedon; and
8. Some part of the epipedon is moist for 90 days or more (cumulative) in normal years during times when the soil temperature at a depth of 50 cm is 5 oC or higher, if the soil is not irrigated; and
9. The n value is less than 0.7.
23. 1. either or both:
a.
or
b.
2.
and
3. One of the following:
a. All of the following:
(1) and
(2) and
(3) or
b. or
c.
and
4.
and
5.
a. or
b.
or
c.
and
6.
a.
or
b. or
c.
(1) and
(2) and
(3)
or
d.
or
e.
and
7.
a. or
b. or
c.;
8.
and
9.
Required Characteristics of the Mollic epipedon
The Mollic epipedon occupies 1,5 pages;
It has 9 major diagnostic requirements
6 has sub requirements
2 has 3rd level sub requirements,
includes 10 ORs and 12 ANDs
All refer to structure, color, B%, OC, depth
(and n value)
Almost identical definition in WRB !!!!!
24. Thickness of the mollic horizon
All together :
4 critera, 5 subcritera,
4 sub-sub criteria
directlyabovedensic,lithic,orparalithic
contact,apetrocalcich.,oraduripan;
27. Distance methods
Similarities and Dissimilarities (Distances)
Similarities measure the relatedness of sample
pairs, i.e. they measure how close the samples
are to each other.
Dissimilarities (distances) measure the number
of differences between a pair of samples.
28. Minasny et al. (2009) introduced an attempt to
calculate and visualize the taxonomic distances
within the WRB Reference Soil Groups (RSGs).
Láng at. al (2010) further developed and applied
for correlation of soil units of different systems.
In summer 2011 this study 37 great groups of the
Mollisols and 7 WRB RSGs were studied with
distance methods.