Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 5.2
Soil Classification and Scientific Research in Other Natural, Technical, Social, and
Economic Sciences
Field of Science
Possible Questions to Soil Classification
Agriculture:
soil fertility, precision agriculture, etc.
Horticulture:
selection of species according to soil type, etc.
Forestry:
forest growth, reforestation, etc.
Biology (e.g., Botany, Zoology):
plant sociology, species distribution, etc.
Ecology:
resilience, etc.
Hydrology:
ground water protection against contamination, etc.
Geography:
soil distribution and land use, etc.
Geology:
soil distribution and weathering processes, etc.
Land use planning:
soil distribution, etc.
Urban planning and architecture:
soil distribution and rainwater infiltration, etc.
Archaeology:
soil distribution and conservation status of remnants, etc.
Social Sciences (e.g., ethno-sociology):
survival strategies of indigenous people, etc.
Economic Sciences:
life (health) insurance risks and environmental conditions, etc.
CONCLUSIONS
The following are general conclusions:
¤ Soil classiÝcation is important not only for scientiÝc research in soil sciences themselves, but also
for many other natural, social, economic, cultural, and technical sciences.
¤ The main contribution of soil classiÝcation is to allow for the deÝning of clusters of different soil
characteristics, relevant in space and time to the speciÝc research needs in the respective Ýelds of
sciences.
¤ The access of nonsoil scientists to soil classiÝcation is very limited because there is not enough
information available in a written form to understand soil classiÝcation, which must be urgently
improved.
¤A user-friendly key to soil classiÝcation must be developed as soon as possible.
REFERENCES
Century, in Soil 2000: New Horizons
for a New Century. Australian and New Zealand Second Joint Soils Conference, Volume 1: Plenary
Papers. J.A. Adams and A.K. Metherell, Eds. 3Ï8 December 2000, Lincoln University, New Zealand
Society of Soil Science, 35Ï42.
Isbell, R.F. 1996.
Blum, W.E.H. 2000. Challenge for Soil Science at the Dawn of the 21
st
. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Jones, T.A. 1959. Soil ClassiÝcation Ï A destructive criticism.
The Australian Soil ClassiÝcation
10:196Ï200.
Kellogg, C.E. 1961. Soil interpretation in the soil survey. U.S. Government Printing OfÝce, Washington, DC.
Kubina, W.L. 1958. The classiÝcation of soils.
J. Soil Sci.
9:9Ï19.
Laker, M.C. 1978. Soil science in relation to development processes in less developed areas. Proc. 8
J. Soil Sci.
Nat.
th
Congr. Soil Sci. Soc. S. Afr., 182Ï187.
Laker, M.C. 1981. The value of soil resource inventories in national research planning. SMSS Tech. Monogr.
1, 149Ï157. SMSS, USDA, Washington, DC.
Leeper, G.W. 1956. The classiÝcation of soils.
7:59Ï64.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science.
J. Soil Sci.
Science
.
279:491Ï496.
Manil, G. 1959. General considerations on the problem of soil classiÝcation.
J. Soil Sci.
10:5Ï13.
Muir, J.W. 1962. The general principles of classiÝcation with reference to soils.
13:22Ï30.
Van Wambeke, A. and Forbes, T. 1986. Guidelines for using Soil Taxonomy in the names of soil map units.
SMSS Tech. Monoger. No. 10. SCS, USDA, Washington, DC.
Wild, A. 1989. Soil scientists as members of the scientiÝc community.
J. Soil Sci.
40:209Ï221.
WRB Working Group, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. FAO World Soil Resources Report
84. FAO, Rome.
J. Soil Sci.
