4.7 Article

Mind the gap: A classification system for integrating the subsolum into soil surveys

Journal

GEODERMA
Volume 264, Issue -, Pages 332-339

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.031

Keywords

World Reference Base; Soil Taxonomy; Regolite; Saprolite; Saprock; Bedrock

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry for Agriculture, Viticulture and Consumer Protection
  2. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As soil surveys were traditionally conducted in support of agriculture, soil classification tended to focus on upper soil horizons and their characteristics. However, when dealing with environmental issues such as vegetation ecology or water quality an integrated knowledge of the soil, soil-to-substratum, and deeper substratum continuum is required. In both World Reference Base for soil resources (WRB) and Soil Taxonomy (ST), the lower boundary for soil classification is arbitrarily set at 2 m, including weathered and continuous rock. However, as soil classification hinges on diagnostic horizons and characteristics, which often occur within the first 100 cm, collecting data on the subsolum is often neglected. We propose a classification system of the subsolum, the structure of which is inspired by WRB. We define Regolite, Saprolite, Saprock and Bedrock as four subsolum reference groups corresponding to different weathering stages. Intergrades of these reference groups can be qualified with principal qualifiers, while morphologic and lithologic characteristics can be presented with supplementary qualifiers. The proposed subsolum classification system is not intended to substitute geological surveys, but rather to complement existing soil classification systems such that at least the whole 2 m can be categorized. Still, whenever desired the system can also be used for deeper materials. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available