Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
it is stated that ÑWRB is designed as an easy means of communication amongst scientists to
identify, characterize and name major groups of soils. It is not meant to replace national soil
classiÝcation systems, but to be a tool for better correlation between national systemsÒ (WRB
Working Group, 1998).
TYPES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND TYPES
OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
Before discussing the interrelationships between soil classiÝcation and soil research, it is
necessary to deÝne the kinds of research that are relevant. Essentially, two kinds of scientiÝc
research can be distinguished:
¤ ÑBasicÒ research, which is curiosity driven, has no speciÝc targets except to understand nature
through rational, analytical approaches, e.g., the morphology of a soil body, surface reactions of
soil constituents, soil organisms, and their function within soils and others.
¤ÑTargetedÒ research, which responds to problem-oriented questions, mostly so-called ÑappliedÒ
empirical/practical research with a background within soil sciences or in other natural, social,
economic, and technical sciences, e.g., soil quality for speciÝc uses, etc.
ClassiÝcation systems are conceptual frameworks for dividing a continuum into units. Analo-
gous to the above two kinds of research, most soil classiÝcation systems can also be divided into
two main groups:
¤ÑTaxonomicÒ systems that are developed essentially for scientiÝc communication. These are
systems, which deal Ñonly with the higher categories, in which case its chief interest lies in the
scientiÝc sideÒ (Manil, 1959).
¤
ÑPragmaticÒ (utilitarian, technical) systems, which deal with the Ñlower categories which are
essential for more immediate practical purposesÒ (Manil, 1959). These are developed for technical
communications in regard to aspects such as land suitability, etc. Since these classiÝcations are
developed for speciÝc purposes, the purpose of the system determines the manner in which it is
structured and the emphasis given to diagnostic properties and attributes.
regarding
ÑnaturalÒ and ÑartiÝcialÒ soil classiÝcation systems, the latter supposedly being the ÑpracticalÒ
system (Leeper, 1956; Kubina, 1958; Manil, 1959; Jones, 1959; and Muir, 1962).
During the 1950s and 1960s, a large debate was waged in the
Journal of Soil Science
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SOIL RESEARCH
Information on properties of the soil is used to structure a soil classiÝcation system. ScientiÝc
research from other Ýelds within Soil Sciences, such as Soil Physics, Soil Chemistry, and Soil
Mineralogy, provides the basis for the identiÝcation and selection of appropriate diagnostic soil
properties and attributes for classiÝcation, especially for the development of meaningful class limits
.
Without the necessary input from specialists in these Ýelds, no proper classiÝcation system can be
constructed. But to make useful contributions, these specialists must, like the pedologists, know
what the Ñactual soilsÒ in the Ýeld are like, and not try to mold classiÝcations in terms of Ñpure
ideas, abstractionsÒ (Manil, 1959). Just as the specialists from other Ýelds must realize their
responsibility for the development of a soil classiÝcation system, the pedologists must realize that
they cannot Ñdo it alone,Ò and must interact with their colleagues. ÑIf one part isolates itself it can
become sterile because soil biology, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, and pedology interact with
