Appraisal of The World Reference Base for Soils (WRB) and US Soil Taxonomy for Classification of Developed Soils of Zayandeh-rud River’s upper Terrace

آب و خاک

Article 13, Volume 33, Issue 1 - Serial Number 63, March 2019, Pages 181-189   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v33i1.75468

Authors

Shaghayegh Havaee^{* 1}; Ardavan Kamali¹; Norair toomanian²

¹Vali-e-Asr University of Rafasnjan

²Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

Abstract

Introduction: Sustainable management of natural resources is one of the main goals of land use planning and is quite complicated due to various interactions in any given ecosystem. Therefore soil as the bed for interactions of main ecosystem components can be a good indicator candidate as the main requirements of sustainable land use management. Soil classification is a valuable technique for transferring a large set of data along with soil history and is a necessary tool for zoning and soil management plans. This indicates efficiency and potential of classification for showing inner and outer soil properties and stimulating for achieving the best possible soil classification system. Among various existing soil classifications, the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) as an international soil classification system and USDA Soil Taxonomy (STus) are more globally accepted and applied. In both systems soil orders are similar and their classifications are based on acceptable rules. However each one of them has its own characteristics and reflects its potentials. Also the relationship between soil and landscape and the necessity of sustainable nature management convert soil classification to a tool which is essential for appropriate management decisions about utilization and conservation of natural resources. This study was conducted to investigate the efficiency of Soil Taxonomy and WRB for classification of developed soils of Zayandeh-rud River’s upper terrace.
Materials and Methods: This study applied on the current pathway of Zayandeh-rud River.  Several pedons were studied in a semi-detailed scale study. Finally, four different pedons were selected. Routine physical and chemical analyses Selected physicochemical properties of the soil samples were determined according to the Soil Survey Laboratory Manual and soils were classified according to Soil Taxonomy (2014) and WRB (2015) systems. Argillic (Argic), and Cambic diagnostic horizons were investigated after field and laboratory work.
Results: Based on both field and lab studies, for these soil pedons due to lithologic discontinuity, presence or absence of Cambic horizon and accumulated clay horizon, four different sequence of horizons are realizable. Calceric matrix of soil pedons is also another prominent property of them. Due to aridity condition of the region and presence of Argilic horizon based on STus, all soil pedons were classified in great group of Haplargids. According to WRB, all pedons considered as reference group of Luvisols. As the results show, the difference between these two systems of classification was originated at family level for STus and qualifiers for WRB. In fact the difference is due to environmental qualifiers and intrinsic soil profile propertie. STus is performing better than WRB indefining the environmental conditions. Such pattern reflects the climate conditions in any given soil name. Moisture regime (Aridic) at order level (Argids) and temperature conditions (Thermic) at family level have been realized for all soil pedons. However WRB not only at first level but also for second level of classification (qualifiers) was not able to indicate. On the other hand this study results showed that main qualifiers have enhanced WRB efficiency compared to STus and was also able to define the variety of horizon sequences. STus did not show such potential even at family level and all four soils were classified under one name.
Based on the findings of the research, using qualifiers and little laboratory data requirement by WRB caused this system to be more successful than Soil Taxonomy to describe internal attributes in the pedons. WRB was more flexible in reflecting described properties in soil nomenclature. But WRB was not able to reflect soil variability in this semi-detailed study, completely. Also results showed that Soil Taxonomy couldcharacterize environmental properties of soils using soil moisture and temperature regimes. On the other hand, the presence or absence of Cambic diagnostic horizon in the four pedons can indicate a difference in their evolutionary pathway, but the presence or absence of Cambic horizon has been disregard in the names of both systems.
Conclusion: The efficiency of each system is vary according to the aims of soil survey, and both systems have advantages and disadvantages in relation to displaying the internal features and the soil environment. The WRB was more succeed than STUS in displaying variety of the characteristics of developed soils in this study, due to its advantages such as Clayic, Cutanic, Ochric, Ruptic, Endocalcaric and also requires less laboratory data. On the other hands, WRB is facing a serious challenge to management objectives related to climatic conditions and vegetation. Therefore, it can be concluded that purpose and scale of a study affects the efficiency of Soil Taxonomy and WRB classification systems to describe soil properties.
 

Keywords

Soil classification system; Sustainable Nature Management; Developed Soils of Zayandeh-rud River’s Terraces

References

1. Bahmani M., Salehi M.H., and Esfandiarpour Boroujeni I. 2014. Comparison of American Soil Taxonomy and WRB Classification Systems in Describing the Properties of Some Soils in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions of Central Iran. Journal of Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences and Technology 67: 11–21.

2. Cline M.G. 1949. Basic principles of soil classification. Soil Science 67(2): 81–91.

3. Deckers J., Driessen P., Nachtergaele F.O.F., Spaargaren O., and Berding F. 2003. Anticipated developments of the world reference base for soil resources. In: Eswaran, H., Rice, T., Ahrens, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference. CRC PRESS, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington DC. pp. 245–256.

4. Esfandiarpour Boroujeni I., Farpoor M.H., and Kamali A. 2011. Comparison between Soil Taxonomy and WRB for Classifying Saline Soils of Kerman Province. Journal of Water and Soil 25: 1158–1171. (In Persian)

5. Eswaran H., Rice T., Ahrens R., and Stewart B.A. (Eds.). 2002. Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

6. Gee G.W., and Bauder J.W. 1986. Particle size analysis, In: Klute A. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1,Am. Soc. Agron. Inc., Madison, WI. USA. pp. 383-411.

7. Gerasimova M.I. 2010. Chinese soil taxonomy: between the American and the international classification systems. Eur. Soil Science 43(8): 945–949.

8. Hasaninekuo A., Karimi A.R., Haghnia, G.H., and MahmoodiGharaii M.H. 2012. Investigating the Concepts of Residual Soils Based on Evolution of Soils Derived from Different Parent Materials in Binaloud Zone, Mashhad. Journal of Water and Soil 26: 460–470.

9. Isfahan Meteorological Administration. 2014. Isfahan climate profile.

10. Morand D.T. 2010. The World Reference Base for Soils (WRB) and Soil Taxonomy: an initial appraisal of their application to the soils of the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. Pp. 28-31. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, Australia.

11. Muir J.W. 1962. The general principles of classification with reference to soils. Journal Soil Science 13(1): 22–30.

12. Nelson R.E. 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: K. I. Peverill, L. A. Sparrow, D. J. Reuter (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part I: Agronomy Handbook No 9, ASA/SSSA, Madison, WI.

13. Nelson D.W., and Sommers L.E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter, In: Sparks D.L. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Am. Soc. Agron. Inc., Madison, WI. USA. pp. 961-1010.

14. Nourbakhsh F. 2002. A Study on the Soils of ZarrinShahr, Talekhoncheh and Kharmhine. Soil and Water Research Center Journal No. 1143.

15. Phillips J.D. 1999. Earth surface systems: complexity, order, and scale. Oxford: Blackwell.

16. Roca P.N. and Pazos M.S. 2002. The WRB applied to Argentinian soils: two case studies. European Soil Bureau, Research Report No. 7. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, Latvia, pp. 191–197.

17. Salehi M.H., and Khademi H. 2007. Fundamentals of soil mapping. Isfahan University of Technology press. (In Persian)

18. Sarmast M., Farpoor M.H., and Esfandiarpour Boroujeni I. 2016. Comparing Soil Taxonomy (2014) and updated WRB (2015) for describing calcareous and gypsiferous soils, Central Iran. Catena 145: 83–91.

19. Schad P., and Micheli E. 2010. The next steps in soil classification or how to kill 3 birds with 1 stone: pedons, landscapes, functions. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. pp: 40–42.

20. Schoeneberger P.J. Wysocki D.A., Benham E.C., and Broderson W.D. (Eds.). 2002. Field book for describing andsampling soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

21. Secu C.V. Patriche C., and Vasiliniuc I. 2008. Aspects regarding the correlation of the Romanian soil taxonomysystem (2003) with WRB (2006). Ґрунтознавство 9: 56-62.

22. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy.11th ed., NRCS, USDA, USA.

23. Toomanian N., Jalalian A., and Eghbal M.K. 2003. Application of the WRB (FAO) and USTaxonomy systems to gypsiferous soils in Northwest Isfahan. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science of Techology 5: 51–66.

24. Toomanian N. 2006. How to develop land, soil diversity and quantitative mapping of some pedogenic characteristics in some parts of Central Iran, Ph.D., Soil college, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology.

25. Wondzell S.M., Cunningham G.L., and Bachelet D. 1996. Relationships between landforms, geomorphic processes, and plant communities on a watershed in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. Landscape Ecology 11: 351–362.

26. Wiens J.A. 2009. Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecology 24: 1053–1065.

27. WRB. 2015. World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International soilclassification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World SoilResources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome.

28. Zachar D. 1982. Developments in Soil Science 10: Soil Erosion. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.