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
35
Embed
Towards a Universal Soil Classification System - fao.org · Some part of the epipedon is moist for 90 days or more (cumulative) in normal years during times when the soil temperature
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
USC Vision
• To use the most up to date information, data and technology to enhance Soil Classification
USC Mission
• To work with all sectors of the Soil Science community to improve soil classification tools
“ 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
“Bridging the Centuries” Conference in Gödöllő, Hungary-September 2009
Declaration to “IUSS” (on the need for a Universal Soil Classification system)
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.
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
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
Considerations for a Universal Soil Classification System
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
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
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
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
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
Important Information Relating to Soil Classification • Moisture and Temperature Regimes
– Define potentials for the development of soil moisture and temperature regimes.
classification wider than traditional users – Are there users other than SS that would
use soil classification – Chair: Luca Montaneralla
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
Why simplification?
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.
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 !!!!!
Thickness of the mollic horizon All together :
4 critera, 5 subcritera, 4 sub-sub criteria
dire
ctly
abo
ve d
ensi
c, li
thic
, or p
aral
ithic
co
ntac
t, a
petro
calc
ic h
., or
a d
urip
an;
petrocalcic
calcic
calcic
seconday carbonate
argic
mollic
mollic
mollic mollic mollic mollic
mollic mollic
Taxonomic relationships between WRB Solonetz and Solonchak soils
Natric Soil Taxonomy Mollisols
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.
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.
Calcixeroll 3,0 2,0 23,7 2,9 99,6 2,3 2,8 11,6 1,5 17,6 100,0 20,6 27,2 100,0 100,0 26,3 23,6 26,0 8,5 7,9 10,2 0,0 12,5 45,8 3,8 14,0 61,6 1,1 115,8 NA NA NA 34,7 NA NA 33,0 65,0
Cryaquoll 2,4 1,3 32,7 4,6 71,9 2,9 4,6 0,0 1,4 24,9 86,3 23,3 35,7 86,4 95,6 39,0 39,9 39,0 7,2 6,7 3,0 0,5 5,7 42,3 6,0 26,4 48,3 2,6 NA 79,0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Duraquoll NA NA 11,7 1,3 99,6 1,0 NA NA 0,6 9,0 99,9 10,9 59,5 100,0 100,0 13,6 8,7 13,6 8,7 6,0 1,0 0,0 9,0 2,0 1,7 10,0 69,0 1,2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Durustoll 3,0 2,1 15,6 1,6 97,9 1,2 NA 31,6 1,0 18,1 99,3 19,9 53,6 100,0 100,0 24,7 23,0 24,7 9,2 6,9 14,3 0,0 23,3 25,8 1,8 35,4 49,4 1,4 NA 44,0 NA NA 43,4 NA 55,0 NA NA
Endoaquoll 2,4 1,2 31,5 2,8 90,7 2,1 3,3 0,3 1,3 26,7 94,9 31,9 18,6 93,6 96,2 37,4 30,2 36,9 7,4 6,4 6,2 0,0 8,2 10,9 3,3 25,0 55,1 1,3 95,5 18,0 NA NA 67,3 NA NA 29,0 20,0
Epiaquoll 2,4 1,1 29,7 3,0 84,1 1,8 NA 0,2 1,2 26,5 87,9 32,6 37,7 89,4 90,1 47,6 37,9 47,4 7,1 5,8 NA NA NA 19,5 3,6 21,0 73,2 1,7 76,3 NA NA NA 109,4 NA NA 62,8 147,0
Haplaquoll 2,5 1,1 31,1 2,9 65,3 2,3 2,6 0,3 1,5 25,7 72,4 31,9 23,3 67,6 71,8 36,5 30,3 36,2 7,5 6,5 8,8 0,3 7,5 9,9 3,2 26,0 60,1 1,2 95,3 148,5 NA NA 72,3 NA NA 33,2 155,0
Haplocryoll 2,8 2,2 14,1 3,0 70,2 2,2 0,7 0,7 1,0 13,5 91,4 10,7 57,5 80,2 93,7 14,7 26,7 14,7 6,7 6,1 5,0 0,0 5,5 2,5 3,6 20,2 21,5 1,0 NA NA NA NA 43,0 NA NA NA NA
Haplogeloll 2,6 1,2 6,3 1,3 69,9 0,9 NA 0,0 NA NA NA NA NA 100,0 NA 11,3 25,6 11,3 8,1 6,2 NA NA NA 14,0 3,4 13,0 35,0 1,9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hapludoll 2,4 1,6 24,5 1,9 85,9 1,5 1,0 1,2 1,0 19,0 86,7 23,3 27,1 86,3 88,2 28,3 22,9 27,9 7,2 6,0 2,0 0,0 3,1 11,1 2,2 20,0 57,3 1,2 132,3 NA NA NA 89,8 NA NA 29,2 67,6
Haplustoll 2,8 1,9 24,9 1,7 95,1 1,4 0,9 4,0 0,9 19,8 97,2 22,9 35,7 96,6 98,3 29,4 24,5 29,0 7,9 6,8 4,8 1,2 6,1 12,2 2,1 19,2 47,5 1,2 117,5 NA NA NA 60,6 NA NA 27,4 69,5
Haprendoll 3,0 2,1 32,9 3,4 NA 1,9 NA 1,2 1,4 9,3 NA 14,1 54,1 NA NA 36,1 28,2 36,1 8,1 7,6 0,0 NA 3,0 79,0 2,6 24,8 32,4 1,0 NA NA NA NA 21,5 NA NA 15,8 NA
Natralboll 2,9 1,7 21,6 1,7 88,2 1,2 0,9 0,0 0,8 25,9 95,4 31,7 29,4 94,3 99,7 53,3 35,4 46,9 8,1 6,0 14,0 0,0 15,5 19,0 1,9 14,0 69,0 2,4 48,0 NA NA NA 69,0 NA NA NA NA
Natraquoll 2,5 1,5 30,8 2,1 93,8 1,5 5,5 0,0 0,9 21,5 98,0 36,9 17,7 98,6 99,8 46,0 26,9 43,6 8,3 6,9 96,1 0,4 26,1 10,8 2,5 15,8 40,5 1,6 13,7 NA NA NA 36,6 NA NA 0,8 NA
Natrudoll 3,0 1,3 25,1 1,3 93,6 1,3 NA 0,0 NA NA NA NA NA 100,0 NA 46,4 30,5 46,4 9,1 6,9 17,0 0,0 38,0 43,0 1,4 8,0 67,0 1,8 NA NA NA NA 43,0 NA NA NA 56,0
Natrustoll 2,7 1,7 24,2 1,6 93,8 1,2 3,4 0,7 0,8 22,6 98,7 30,7 25,2 99,1 100,0 39,9 27,9 39,7 8,5 6,6 30,0 2,3 30,2 9,7 2,1 14,4 62,9 1,9 20,8 NA NA NA 54,6 NA NA 22,1 124,4
Palecryoll 2,0 2,0 22,4 3,6 92,0 3,0 NA 0,0 2,3 18,0 92,6 19,2 14,7 90,1 94,1 30,0 20,3 24,1 6,4 5,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 5,0 9,0 0,0 1,1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Paleudoll 2,5 1,8 26,1 2,3 83,1 1,8 NA 0,3 1,2 20,8 79,8 32,6 19,6 78,9 80,8 47,1 28,2 44,1 7,0 5,7 2,3 0,5 5,0 25,0 2,7 16,0 68,3 1,8 38,0 NA NA NA 83,6 NA 81,0 43,0 169,0
Paleustoll 2,8 2,3 25,3 1,5 90,2 1,2 0,6 0,7 0,8 21,5 93,0 32,6 26,9 92,8 95,0 43,3 27,4 41,1 7,8 6,5 4,4 0,0 6,4 9,6 1,7 18,5 63,2 1,8 37,1 NA NA NA 62,4 NA 71,0 23,5 141,6
Rendoll 2,5 1,9 15,9 6,2 100,0 5,4 0,7 0,0 1,0 4,7 100,0 7,9 54,7 100,0 100,0 20,2 28,5 20,2 7,9 7,3 0,0 NA 0,0 46,5 8,3 14,0 24,0 1,7 23,0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Centroid approach Average values of the selected
37 properties of the available profiles
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Taxonomic distribution of the 5298 profiles of the NASIS database used in the calculation
Concept based – no climate included - calculation
Taxonomic distances visualizied soil groups plotted along the first two principal coordinates