Joseph Alfred Zinck Graciela Metternicht Gerardo Bocco Héctor Francisco Del Valle Editors An

550 Pages·2015·20.8 MB·English

Joseph Alfred Zinck
Graciela Metternicht
Gerardo Bocco
Héctor Francisco Del Valle Editors
Geopedology
An Integration of Geomorphology and
Pedology for Soil and Landscape Studies
Geopedology

Joseph Alfred Zinck
Graciela Metternicht (cid:129) Gerardo Bocco
Héctor Francisco Del Valle
Editors
Geopedology
An Integration of Geomorphology and
Pedology for Soil and Landscape Studies
Editors
Joseph Alfred Zinck Graciela Metternicht
Faculty of Geo-Information Science Institute of Environmental Studies
and Earth Observation (ITC) University of New South Wales
University of Twente Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
Enschede , The Netherlands
Héctor Francisco Del Valle
Institute of Environmental Studies Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
University of New South Wales Científi cas y Técnicas (CONICET)
Sydney , New South Wales , Australia Centro Nacional Patagónico (CENPAT),
Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de
Gerardo Bocco los Ecosistemas Continentales (IPEEC)
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Puerto Madryn , Chubut , Argentina
Ambiental (CIGA)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México (UNAM)
Morelia , Michoacán , Mexico
ISBN 978-3-319-19158-4 ISBN 978-3-319-19159-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-19159-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015958768
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
T his work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
T he use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
T he publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.
springer.com)
Pref ace

My Dilemmas with Soil-Landscape Relationships
I n 1952 I graduated and was employed full time as a soil scientist with the USDA
Soil Conservation Service. That winter I went back to Iowa State College to attend
a course studying Hans Jenny’s 1941 book – all that good information and discus-
sion with other students and soil scientists. The big dilemma was that it was not
possible to solve the soil forming equation; it merely was a stimulus to guide our
thinking about soils and their distributions in time and space. Now it is 60+ years
later, and we still can’t solve the axiom of pedology; but, oh my, we have learned a
tremendous lot about “reading soil landscapes.”
A dilemma may be considered an undesirable choice suggesting reluctance to
make a decision. Often it occurs because we believe we do not have enough infor-
mation to make the right one or at least a better decision. Most of life is this way;
we make judgments all the time, for example, much of each day involves evaluating
choices, putting them into classes that separate them from each other or grouping
them into populations of similarity.
T he articles in this book are about prototypes. They are perceptions of what has
been selected as starting points in classifying. They are the basis for creating groups
of objects, entities, and even ideas that enable us to separate the complexity of the
world about us into manageable formats. You likely were a young adult when some-
one thought you ought to know something about landforms, maybe even soils, and
by then you already had developed some prototypes of what those objects were
based on where you lived and how you grew up in a family and a community. It is
highly possible that soils and their relationships with landscapes were mainly intro-
duced when you went to a university. There you were introduced to many new
prototypes, and the teachers were anxious that you accepted them and that they
became part of your archives of working knowledge.
Your whole life is built around prototypes and classifi cations and what you do
with them. Those which you accept eventually become the basis for “aha moments”
when you comprehend what they seem to mean to you. In this book the authors
v
vi Preface
hope you will have some good “aha moments” as soon as possible and that you
continue using and learning more about geoforms and soils as seen in the fi eld. They
are sharing with you what they mean (information) and want you to accept what
they say (intent). Each of us is unique in what we have been exposed to all of our
life; thus, our experiences are not the same, our prototypes are not the same, and our
“aha moments” are quite different. What you do with the information provided is up
to you.
We tend to like causal relationships as they enable us to interpret the stimuli we
receive through our senses as well as our thought processes. And this becomes a big
dilemma as we try to comprehend soil-landscape relationships. Regression analyses
and correlations do not prove causal relationships. We want them to, so we often
take them as positive evidence of causal relationships. Let us not be pessimistic.
There is too much excitement and joy in pedology to be negative; however, I want
to tell you some dilemmas in my ability to read landscapes.
Can we say what we mean and mean what we say? I would like to share with you
some dilemmas of mine about understanding soil-landscape relationships. I will
discuss nine dilemmas that have faced me along pathways I did not always antici-
pate. They are classifying and classifi cations, scales of seeing and presenting infor-
mation, properties and their interpretations, sampling, building mental models,
applying models, evaluating relationships, presenting our understanding, and the
future. I suggest you read “Advancing the frontiers of soil science towards a geosci-
ence” by Larry Wilding and Henry Lin, published by G eoderma in 2006. It is a nice
summary of the past and looks to the future.
Classifying and Classifi cations
The fi rst is the process of making decisions, and the other is a means of organizing
information; thus, one is doing and the other is having. As humans we do not seem
to have the choice of segregating and grouping entities; it obviously was a matter of
survival and dealing with conditions and situations every day. To help us do this, we
develop prototypes that eventually represent large populations. Everything we see,
smell, taste, hear, and touch is classifi ed. In pedology we have developed many
standards to assist us in selecting prototypes and many of their properties. This
enables us to communicate better with one another. I think that if we can’t classify,
we may be brain dead.
A major dilemma in classifying is agreeing on what are the objects (entities) that
we want to recognize as the individuals of a larger population. For some it is a pedon
or profi le, both of which are small volumes. If you accept a pedon, there are trillions
in the soil populations of our pedosphere. We commonly select small volumes as
samples of a soil, but for me they are not soils themselves. That decision is infl u-
enced by our beliefs of what a soil is.
Classifi cations, and more particularly taxonomies, are multi-categorical systems
to organize classes recognized at each categorical level according to a set of
Preface vii
r equirements. The purpose of taxonomy is to better understand the relationships
among members of smaller groupings based on defi nitions at each categorical level.
The classes of higher levels are divided into small groups at each lower level, and
the classes at the lowest category are similar to individual entities. The diagnostic
features at higher categories accumulate through the system and determine bound-
aries for classes at lower levels.
Naming systems are applied to taxonomies. Every country or culture has devel-
oped their own soil classifi cation; however, most have related them to the names of
the US Soil Taxonomy or the World Reference Base of IUSS. These two systems
rely on concepts of soil formation and evolution for defi ning categories and classes
within. Similar efforts continue today as we search for improved global
communications.
The dilemma in classifying and in having taxonomies is directly tied to our per-
ceptions associated with scales. It is diffi cult to change old habits.
Scales of Observation and Presenting Information
A s we consider soil-landscape relationships, we immediately are faced with the
scales at which we observe soils and the landscapes in which they occur. Do we
think about pedons, or is something larger and more inclusive relevant to what we
visualize and want to convey to others with maps? It seems to come down to what
you believe soils are and how they are distributed in a landscape. This is what soil
survey is all about, and it is particularly important for maps at detailed scales, e.g.,
1:10,000–1:30,000. Why? At these scales the smallest delineations cover areas
much larger than individual kinds of soils; thus, they have inclusions of other soils
and landscape features. For example, a wet area in a larger fi eld of similar soils can
be an inclusion or it can be depicted with a defi ned spot symbol. Thus, we have a
spatial dilemma but also have options, and their use depends on the purpose of that
survey. What is acceptable in one region may not be satisfactory in another.
There are names and descriptions of many landforms. They are often perceived
as what we observe where we are, standing in a fi eld or looking at satellite images.
This may easily become a dilemma. I previously thought that in the USA it would
be desirable to have a standardized set for a scale of 1:24,000 which was common
for many topographic maps. Landforms can be based on specifi ed geometric forms
of components or as concepts of landscape formation and evolution. Both are rele-
vant when they satisfy the purpose; otherwise, they may create a dilemma for a user.
When pedogenesis is of interest, then time scales need to also be considered. The
same is true for landform evolution which generally has a longer time frame than
soil property development because of our axiom of soils. Very few soil landscapes
are older than Pleistocene, and their surface layers are usually much younger. Many
are now modifi ed by human interactions making recognition, description, and clas-
sifi cation more problematic.
viii Preface
Presentations explaining or hypothesizing soil-landscape relationships are never
quite satisfying because the applications of space and time scales are complex. But
we teach and learn by communicating with others and try to understand their opin-
ions and conclusions which are crucial for advancement of our fi eld of science. It is
a never-ending struggle, and each of us is a product of the progress associated with
these struggles.
Properties and Their Interpretations
P roperties are those features of soils and landforms which we measure, commonly
in the fi eld with rather simple tools. For soil profi les we have standards for colors
and their patterns, texture, structure, consistence, coarse fragments of stones and
wood, thickness and boundaries of horizons, nature of materials in layers, and
uncommon inclusions often related to animals and insects.
In a landscape there are external features such as positions of slopes, their steep-
ness, shape, size, extent, and surfaces may have rock outcrops, scree, or even evi-
dence of prior anthropic uses. Tools of measurement may be simple and with
guidelines for recording the observations provided. As technology provides higher
precision instruments and products, our measurements have increased, are made
more easily, and provide data not previously available. Different kinds of imagery
often provide clues related to features of interest. For example, infrared photogra-
phy colors are associated with vegetation health and vigor. Normal colors may high-
light small differences of plant growth, moisture status, and irregularity of surface
features.
Combinations of properties are used as diagnostics for taxonomies; however,
they may differ in national taxonomies. The US Soil Taxonomy and the World
Reference Base have many similar diagnostics (often with different names) and
some striking differences. For example, US ST accepts soil moisture and tempera-
ture regimes as diagnostic properties at high categorical levels, whereas WRB does
not. Alternatives to provide such information are dilemmas that must be
considered.
For those interested mainly with pedogenesis, the soil properties to describe,
measure, and interpret usually exist at larger scales. For example, concretions, salts,
cutans, pores, and their spatial distributions are relevant to ascertaining the pro-
cesses affecting such properties. Meso and micro features of landforms, both surfi -
cial and internal, such as microtopography or internal stratifi cation patterns are used
to support concepts of formation and evolution. Scales of space and time need to be
considered when interpreting how and when landforms have developed and been
modifi ed. Most of these decisions relate to identifying and classifying soils.
W hen land is used to produce agricultural crops, pastures or forestry, the users
want to know about qualities of soils and how well they will perform. These are
complex interpretations of current and future behavior and functions which benefi t
from the expertise of other disciplines and on different time scales.
Preface ix
An early interpretive classifi cation organized soil information into a land capa-
bility system, mainly for agricultural uses. As soil survey organizations worked
more closely with agronomists, engineers, geologists, and extension personnel,
functional interpretations became ever more popular. In the USA soil potential rat-
ings made in cooperation with land users were efforts to directly work with owners
and operators. In a recent published survey in California, there are 500+ pages
devoted to 30 kinds of interpretations for 155 soil map units.
Soil surveys open doors for people to better understand the complexity of soils
in landscapes. Confl icts, different points of view, and other dilemmas are common,
normal, and part of our learning processes.
Sampling Soil-Landscape Relationships
When soils are sampled as part of pedogenesis research, the individuals selected are
usually small volumes such as pedons or profi les. Depth samples are taken to enable
vertical differences to be detected. These depth distributions of properties provide
data that are recognized as layering, often as lithological discontinuities, suggesting
changes in a landscape that have infl uenced soil properties and their distributions in
space or time or both.
Should samples be by horizons or by equal depth increments? This depends on
the questions you are asking! Over time we have learned it is useful to have bulk
density measurements to determine weight per unit volume rather than only weight
per unit weight (usually as percent). If you only have weight measurements, then
depth functions would relate to different thicknesses in a profi le. We use wt/vol data
because for most soils there are general linear trends of volume in each material
present in a profi le. For materials that shrink and swell with moisture changes, or
have obvious accumulations of soluble salts, there may also be changes of volume
in addition to weight changes. Dilemmas, of course, are constantly testing the way
you make choices! The deeper you go below a soil profi le, as in critical zone sites,
the more geomorphic and geologic properties you will encounter.
P erhaps more common is recognition of the components in map unit delinea-
tions. Hopefully most of them will be other soils of similar nature and not domi-
nated by non-soil entities. Rocky surfaces, small areas of coarser textures (like
drifting sands), small wet depressions, small bedrock outcrops, and abandoned
building sites or excavations all are possibilities depending on where you are.
T here have been many schemes proposed and used to estimate map unit compo-
sition. Some transects are perpendicular to hill slopes to identify changes of soils
from summits across upper, mid, and lower backslopes and then into or across foot-
slopes and into toeslopes. Sedimentation patterns differ among these segments of a
slope providing clues to the erosional-depositional evolution of that landscape.
Various statistical schemes and procedures support such estimates.
I n the 1950s–1970s studies were made by Bob Ruhe and colleagues in Iowa,
New Mexico, Oregon, and North Carolina in the USA. It was usual to prepare