4.2 Article

A history of soil classification and soil survey in Canada: Personal perspectives

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 675-694

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.4141/CJSS10063

关键词

Soil taxonomy; pedology; soil survey; National Soil Survey Committee; Canada Soil Survey Committee; Soil Landscapes of Canada; Canadian System of Soil Classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anderson, D. W. and Smith, C. A. S. 2011. A history of soil classification and soil survey in Canada: Personal perspectives. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 675-694. This paper presents an overview of soil classification and soil survey in Canada based on both historical documentation and the personal experiences and perspectives of the two authors. The first soil surveys in Canada beginning in Ontario in 1914 are described along with the earliest systems of soil classification. The roots of the current system of soil classification in Canada can be traced back to the establishment of the first meeting of the National Soil Survey Committee (later the Canada Soil Survey Committee) held in Ottawa in 1945. The Committee met every 2 to 3 years and a hard-cover first edition, The Canadian System of Soil Classification was published in 1978 and a slightly revised second edition in 1987. The third edition (1998) includes a more complete key and a tenth order, the Vertisolic Order. The four to five decades starting in the late 1940s were the glory years for soil survey in Canada, with well-funded and productive programs in all provinces and territories, with major outputs like the Canada Land Inventory. The period between mid 1990s and 2010 saw declining activity in new field survey and reductions in staff levels by government agencies, but a rise in private sector soil survey, largely for environmental assessment purposes. There is a renewed and ongoing interest in and need for soil information. The challenge for pedologists is to provide reliable information in innovative and proactive ways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据