Universal Soil Classification – Cold Soils Working Group
October 30 – November 1, 2012
Fairbanks, AK
OCTOBER 30, 2012
Introductions & Announcements
USC came up some years ago: Core people put in place to discuss specifics of task groups. Cold soils task group was established to discuss these soils. Sergey Goryachkin is the group task leader.
What is a cold soil? Looking at more than permafrost…(Sergey will revisit later)
Universal Soil Classification Working Group (Presentation) – Jon Hempel
- Guy Smith: A classification system should be dynamic
- Not looking to start over, we are looking to combine all knowledge
- Working with ecologist, engineers…etc. Not just soil scientists
- Proposal to IUSS from Hungary 2009 Conference – “Bridging the Centuries”
- Charge of IUSS
o Time frame of 8 years towards progress in developing a USC
o Provide IUSS with direction to develop a Universal classification system
o List of Core group members from all over the world
- Come up with a better way to define topsoil development (Ochric is too broad a term)
- Numerical classification
o National Systems should continue development while USC is working
o USC Working groups will suggest to IUSS leadership that Soil Taxonomy be designated Soil Classification system
o Explore numerical classification potential
o Centroid and taxonomic distance from the centroid
Vision of Cold Soil working group – Sergey Goryachkin
- Question presented- Why do we need to do this? We have already spent the money on ICOMPAS.
o Jon Hempel – Classification should be changed due to new challenges that are presented as we move forward with more knowledge.
o 1978 – Cryosol order published
§ Preparations began more than 30 years ago.
o China, Russia, France, New Zealand, US…etc. have created new classification systems since this time.
o We have new data and new technology.
§ 30-40 years ago we did not have knowledge (developed ideas) such as digital soil mapping, centroids, etc.
o Two international classification systems – Soil Taxonomy and WRB
§ ST is bias over the 48 contiguous United States. Even Alaska and Hawaii have issues within their own system (based on the information used in the 48 states), not to mention Brazil and other countries have with this system
· Deficient in tropical soils
§ WRB – taxonomy or not? Only have 2 levels. It is not a taxonomic system.
· Bridge between different classifications
o Idea of USC is a very up-to-date idea
§ Nowadays we should make an effort to update classification.
· Different classification systems (ie. WRB, ST, Russian, Canadian…etc.) can have different approaches to classifying the same soil
§ A majority of soil scientist should be happy with the new system once it is developed, but not EVERYONE will be happy (as this is nearly always the case – you can’t please everyone)
· We must make an effort to produce a system that the majority of soil scientists will be happy with.
o Soil orders are very big, just as with animal classification.
§ Use general names (such as Dog with Bulldog as subgroup…for example)
§ Start with centroid groups
- Organization of Meetings this week will be a presentation of problems that we have within coil soil classification
o We will discuss and on the 3rd day we will create a draft to present to IUSS.
§ USC should be a branch of ST since it is the most developed. We just need to make the necessary changes.
· Cold soils are mainly based on morphology
Discussion:
Chein-Lu – Object to the fact that ST does not include data from Hawaii and Alaska.
Sergey- The core of ST is based on Mollisols, Alfisols, etc. Gelisols are not nearly as elaborate. ST puts too much info on Mollisols
Charles: start with great group of soils? Sergey – ST approach is good. When talking about great groups, I mean great groups of ST. Great groups take as a centroid, get info from real profile, then compare to each great group.
Erika – great group originally was not suggested to be a numerical…great group level is now reflecting numerically that they are grouping
Phillip – we have a concept, these are reflecting numerically.
23,400 pedons reflected numerically in Alaska are skewed dramatically – chart shown by Mark Clark
Erika – people are not ready to change their system. 8 years are not long enough. We have a problem with Soil Classification as a whole is in trouble, needs to be changed. It is viewed as too complicated. Other fields bypass our systems and using their own. Cold soils are not bad, because we have not complicated them too much at this point.
Jon – once we do an analysis of taxonomic distances we might see that we really don’t have 340+ great groups.
Jim – we make too many acceptations and it has gotten out of hand
Mark – ST so complicated that we even as scientists have a problem using the keys and in turn are having problems teaching ST
Jon – “ST light” a system based on morphology instead of where it has gotten now. Lab data adds to the complication or ability of countries to convert to ST.
Chein-Lu - In ST we are not speaking English. We almost need a lawyer to read the descriptions. It needs to be simplified.
Jon – we would like for ecologists to use the system. One question is: Is the system just for soil scientists? Or for other users as well?
Mark – Important to have users understand the processes behind the classification. We need to sensitize the classification to reflect the dynamic processes that occur, specifically in cold soil systems.
Charles: kids know very little out of high school about soils. In Europe they take the little kids and muck them around in the soil to teach them about soil. I am very impressed with the general public being educated about soils (in Europe).
Phillip – If you use the other systems, is there a problem classifying soils? Group – terminology is simpler, but there is still an issue. Caution – comparing international systems to national systems. Some systems are organized like ST but terminology is easier to understand.
Mark – ST has been developed with a US focus. It does not take into account other countries - Hypergelic for example. It is bias to only what we see in Alaska.
Chein-Lu - the hierarchy of ST allows you to build into the system to add more information.
The Field Mapper needs to be at the forefront of our discussions. We need a system that mappers can use.
Currently taxonomy does not have sub-groups that reflect the range of global cold soils.
EXPECTATIONS FOR THE WEEK
- By the end of the week we should have an outline of what the central great soil groups are and what they need to include
o Discussions are important, but we need a framework on great groups
o We need something solid that we can add to and finalize
- How do we define cold soil? What do we mean by this term? How does the temperature regime interface?
o Cold soils are those which frost have some effect on the soils.
· Would soils in which potatoes driven to the surface in MN count?
§ ST has a control section within 2 meters. Soils with permafrost beneath 2 meters, is not taken into account, this needs to change. These soils are very strongly cryoterbated. Very hard to put them into agriculture. They act as Gelisols but they technically are not classified as such.
§ Some processes occur in orders other than those in which they were originally defined.
· EX. Spodolization occurs in Inceptisols as well as Spodosols.
§ Which are closer to Gelisols? Cryoturbation without permafrost? Or Permafrost without cryoturbation?
- Which are the properties describing cold soil (Define), ecologic functions that characteristics, and a common definition for cold soils?
- Diagnostic criteria for cold soils
o Identify important soil groups
- Building a data base to calculate the centroids based on the criteria and compare them to the actual soil data to determine the accuracy.
- Is the USC going to be an individual system or a “bridge” between the existing systems? - Maintain a hierarchy of a taxonomic system but develop a numerical component as well.
o Need data for Australia, and other countries
o Need to capture diagnostic features –
§ Currently we assign them without hands on knowledge. Making inferences that may not be true.
§ Based on how well the soil scientist classified the soil.
o Each of us can find large differences within each system. Is it possible to develop a system that will cover generally enough to incorporate the orders that we have not discovered. There needs to be some flexibility within the classification system. At this point with ST we cannot make changes at a high level. WRB allows for flexibility. Not sure if it is possible to make ST more flexible.
o Needs to show the continuum of soils. Numerical classification can help us do this.
o Decide basic philosophy of a classification system and where technology is headed.
o Where do temperature and moisture regimes fit into how we would classify cold soils?
§ Not much agreement on soil climate – there are some who believe soil climate should not belong in a classification system.
· Where would climate be expressed?
o On what level?
o Forming list of great groups – are there categories that are represented that are useful to other users.
o Botanists have to know some thousand names of different species. Soil taxonomists do not have to know this amt. There is some agreement on a Taxonomy Light.
o Other scientists want to know the function of soil, how it cleans our water, how we grow our food
Characteristics and Distribution of Deep Permafrost Conditions in AK – (Presentation) - Vladimir Romanovsky
- Major 2 characteristics
o Depth
o Temperature
- Central AK most of Permafrost 0OC to -2OC
- No longer have temps < -10OC
- Take step measurements at specific depths
- See continual warming from 1993 – 2011 by 2OC
o Major change in the 90’s and now significant warming
- See air temp rising, the permafrost temps are shifting with the air temp.
- Seeing increase in snow depth as well
- Warm in 30’s – 50’s, Cooling period until 80’s and warm from 90’s on
o However, Somewhere in the 2000’s there is a cooling period
- Vegetation is one of the major contributing factors to permafrost
o Fire removal, which moves too rapidly to effect permafrost
§ Variations in permafrost can be from -4OC to +3OC with the only differing variable being the surface conditions
Is there any correlation between the permafrost layer and the active layer? Active layer depth depends on : Conductivity of the material, water content, and temperature of permafrost layer.
Very small layer of snow makes a big difference, very good insulator – early snow is important.
Talic conditions upper soil is not freezing year round, deep depth to permafrost.
Heat going into the ground, goes through the silt and permafrost layer degrades almost instantly.
Cold soil classification systems & their logic. Problems of cold soils in Universal Soil Classification (Presentation) – Sergey Goryachkin
- What is Cold Soil in USC?
o Cryosols/Gelisols
o Permafrost Affected Soils
o Soils with Gelic temperature regime
o Permafrost-Free Cryoturbated soils
(Frost should have some pronounced signature in the soil)
- History
o Dokuchaev & Ramann 1900s
§ First references of permafrost affected generalized concept
o 1950s Ivanova & Rozov
§ Further development of permafrost: first use of permafrost nomenclature
o Charles Tarnocai 1980s
§ Developed Cryosolic order in Canadian system
- Only 2 suborders
o Turbels & Histels
- Only 5 Subgroups
o Most are in Typic Histiturbels & Typic Aquiturbels
- Only 3 suborders in Gelisols while 5-8 in every other Order
- Basic soil processes in Artic
o Redox
o OM accumulation
o Podzolization
o Calcification
o Salinization
o Others that occur in other Orders
- Problems
o Gelorthents is proposed for soils with permafrost within the 1-2meters of solid rock
o Soils in loose materials with permafrost below 2 meters but permafrost result in cryoturbation and salinity of soil due to impermeable permafrost layer.
o Soils with well pronounced cryoturbation & no permafrost
o Soils of highly continental climates
§ Very productive but low MAST
· Former frigid (non-cryic) soil having O horzon with MAST <0OC
o Antartic soils have the same names as tundra soil
§ Behave differently, microsoils or soils with extremely low OM content.
o Nowadays
§ Cold soils are distinguished in 6 soil systems
· US ST & Canadian – 1 first order & 3 suborders
o US ST
§ Gel- for suborders and greatgroups
§ Control section (gelic materials) between 100 – 200cm
§ Do we only classify soil above rock or classify soil with rock (???)
§ Cryotubation definition will not classify certain groups
§ Gelept…etc. does not indicate whether there is permafrost or not.
o Canadian
§ What is strongly cryoturbated?
§ Cryic – noncryoturbated material or organic soil having permafrost below 1 meter or cryoturbated mineral soil having permafrost below 2 meters
§ Cryoturbated – any nonpermafrost soil having one or more cryoturbated horizons.
§ Identified “Regosolic” – organic layer over C (shallow soil over lithic)
· WRB- 1 forth order w/ 16prefix & suffix qualifiers
o “Permafrost : layer of soil or rock at some depth beneath the surface in which the temp has been continuously below 0OC for some (???) years…”
o Oxyaquic is allowed with Cryosols – not an option in Gelisols of ST
o Alisol – very acidic typical of higher mountains of warmer territories
o No mention of deep permafrost and role of influence of soil
· French –1 third order w/ 2 suborders