Concept Of Soil

doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60853-6

Advances in Agronomy

Volume 20, 1968, Pages 1-47

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60853-6 Get rights and content

Publisher Summary

The basic concept of soil, since humankind as an entity worthy of attention first recognized it, seems to have been that of a thin mantle over the land surface. The past conceptions of soil are both the foundations and major building stones for the conceptions prevailing now. The examination of some earlier conceptions of soil and the ways these developments can throw light on the nature of present conceptions. The conceptions of soil held at various times and places in the past are reviewed in this chapter, as a medium for plant growth, as one of the four basic components of all matter, as products of rock weathering, and as organized natural bodies worthy of scientific study. The chapter also discusses the nature of basic soil entities and considers their functions in the mapping and classification of soils. Soil resources in the industrialized nations are being used more and more in the construction of highways, as foundations for homes, for the disposal of sewage, and for parks and playgrounds. The uses of soils that are not directly related to the production of crops, pasture, and trees require attention for the study of soil characteristics that were of little consequence in the past.

References (111)

A. Muir
Adv. Agron.
(1961)
J.N. Afanasiev
Russ. Ped. Invest. No.
(1927)
R.W. Arnold
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
(1964)
B. Barber
Science
(1961)
W.V. Bartholomew et al.
Trans. 7th Intern. Conn. Soil Sci.
(1960)
C.A. Black
“Soil-Plant Relationships,”
(1968)
J.A. Bonsteel
U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Soils Cir.
(1911)
R.J. Braidwood
Chicago Nat. Hist. Museum Popular Ser. Anthropol. No.
(1961)
R.J. Braidwood et al.
E. Brehaut
“Cato the Censor on Farming.”
(1933)

P.E. Brown

Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Spec. Rept.

(1936)

Bureau of Soils 1902. “Instructions to Field Parties and Descriptions of Soil Types—Field Season, 1902.” U.S. Dept....

Bureau of Soils 1903. “Instructions to Field Parties and Descriptions of Soil Types.” U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington,...

Bureau of Soils 1904. “Instructions to Field Parties and Descriptions of Soil Types—Field Season, 1904.” U.S. Dept....

Bureau of Soils 1906. “Soil Survey Field Book, Field Season, 1906.” U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington,...

B.E. Butler

J. Australian Inst. Agr. Sci.

(1958)

A.J. Cain

Proc. Linnean Soc. London

(1958)

A.J. Cain

Symp. Soc. Gen. Microbiol.

(1962)

J.G.D. Clark

“Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis.”

(1952)

M.G. Cline

Soil Sci.

(1949)

M.G. Cline

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.

(1961)

M.D. Coe et al.

Science

(1964)

G.N. Coffey

Proc. Am. Soc. Agron.

(1912)

G.N. Coffey

U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Soils Bull.

(1912)

Ca. Columella

60 A.D. “Res Rustica (On Agriculture)”

(1941)

J.B. Conant

“On Understanding Science.”

(1951)

E.M. Crowther

J. Soil Sci.

(1953)

H. Davy

“Elements of Agricultural Chemistry.”

(1813)

J. Dewey

V.V. Dokuchaiev

A. Eaton et al.

“A Geological Survey of the County of Albany.”

(1820)

E. Ehwald

Albrecht-Thaer-Arch.

(1962)

E. Ehwald

Albrecht-Thaer-Arch.

(1964)

E.E. Evans

F.A. Fallou

“Pedologie oder Allgemeine und besondere Bodenkunde.”

(1862)

E.O. Fippin

Proc. Am. Soc. Agron.

(1911)

P. Fireman

Expt. Sta. Record

(1901)

P. Fireman

Expt. Sta. Record

(1901)

J.S.L. Gilmour et al.

Vistas Botany

(1963)

K.D. Glinka

“Die Typen der Bodenbildung.”

(1914)

K.D. Glinka

“The Great Soil Groups of the World and their Development.”

(1927)

K.D. Glinka

Hilgard, E. W. 1860. “Report on the Geology and Agriculture of the State of Mississippi.” E. Barksdale, State Printer,...

E.W. Hilgard

U.S. Dept. Agr. Weather Bur. Bull.

(1892)

E.W. Hilgard

U.S. Dept. Agr. Off. Expt. Sta. Bull.

(1904)

Hitchcock, E. W. 1838. “Report on a Re-examination of the Economical Geology of Massachusetts.” Dutton and Wentworth,...

B.K. Hough

“Basic Soils Engineering.”

(1957)

H. Hudson

The Prairie Farmer

(1844)

C.B. Hunt

“Physiography of the United States.”

(1967)

Cited by (37)

Soil horizon variation: A review
2020, Advances in Agronomy
Soil horizons reflect soil processes and convey information about past and present soil conditions. The identification and delineation of soil horizons are affected by lateral and vertical variation in soil properties. Early studies focused on the variation of horizon thickness and the waviness of horizon boundaries, but did not consider within-horizon lateral and vertical variation. Here we review studies that investigated variation in the master horizons O, A, E, B, and C. We summarize what is known about soil horizon variation, quantify the variation in different horizons, and investigate whether the variation increases or decreases with depth. The variation within horizons differs among soils, and the magnitude of the variation varies for different soil properties. Variation within soil horizons or laterally within a few square meters may be considerable, and the within-horizon variation changes with depth. Horizon thickness does not seem to be related to the variation of soil chemical and physical properties within the horizon, i.e., thicker horizons do not necessarily have higher variation in their soil properties. Three case studies are presented: Spodosols and Histosols (Russia), Alfisol and Mollisol (USA), and Oxisol (Brazil). Factors that affect the within-horizon variations include landscape position, parent material, vegetation, fertilization, tillage, drainage, and time. The vertical distribution of soil properties can be quantified using soil depth functions. Digital soil morphometrics techniques can assist in the quantification of two-dimensional soil profile properties and variations.
The definition of soil since the early 1800s
2016, Advances in Agronomy
Citation Excerpt :
One of the challenging issues in soil classification has been the soil individual, or simply said: what can be defined a soil. Simonson (1968) defined the soil individual as a three-dimensional body on the surface of the earth unlike the adjoining bodies, with the area of individual soils ranging from less than 0.2 ha to more than 120 ha. According to Cline (1949) the pedon is “the smallest natural body that can be divided as a thing complete in itself.”
The soil is defined differently by soil scientists, and its definition has changed over time. This paper reviews how the definition of the soil has changed since the early 1800s by selecting and listing 81 definitions given in a wide range of soil science books, handbooks, glossaries, and dictionaries. Initial definitions of the soil were based on developments in agricultural chemistry or geology. The soil was seen as a production factor (medium) for agriculture that needed to be understood before it could be improved, or the soil was defined as disintegrated rocks mixed with organic matter. Definitions were rudimentary reflecting the overall level of understanding. Soil variation was not well understood. Overarching soil definitions appeared in the late 1800s following some major shifts in the understanding and knowledge about soils. The definition of the soil was particularly relevant for soil survey and in soil classification because it affected how soils were viewed in the field and represented in a two dimensional way (soil maps). Both the World Reference Base (WRB) and Soil Taxonomy have defined the soil, but standard field books describing soils often lack a definition. Most of the definitions in dictionaries and glossaries are detailed stressing the organic and inorganic part of the soil as well the origin, complexity, and some of its functions. Current soil definitions have a more environmental outlook reflecting the broadening of the soil science discipline but definitions will change following scientific advances and discovery. Soils are defined differently by subdisciplines. Considerable research is conducted nowadays outside soil science departments and research centres, and for some researchers the soil may solely be a medium—just as it was in the mid-1800s. The effect of increased specialisation and expansion in soil science causes the detail of the investigation to prevail over the idea of soil as a complex dynamic system that is part of a much wider Earth system. This review ends with a proposal for a scientific definition of soil, and a definition for lay persons and the general public.
Soil Geochemistry in the Critical Zone: Influence on Atmosphere, Surface- and Groundwater Composition
2015, Developments in Earth Surface Processes
Citation Excerpt :
Soil, as defined here, is thus inclusive of all unconsolidated material above bedrock (e.g., the regolith profile including mobile colluvium and saprolite). This definition of soil is consistent with early notions of soil as “a thin layer over the Earth’s surface” or “a medium for plant growth” (Bockheim et al., 2005; Churchman, 2010; Simonson, 1968) and its conceptualization as “a natural body independent of surface rocks and biota” (Coffey, 1909; Dokuchajev, 1883; Hilgard, 1882; Jenny, 1941; Shaler, 1892), as well as more recent concepts of soil as a landscape-scale expression of geomorphologic forces (Daniels and Hammer, 1992; Huggett, 1975). This broad conceptualization of soil provides a framework for scaling biogeochemical approaches and fosters development of transdisciplinary research (Fig. 6.1).
In this chapter we introduce soil biogeochemical processes that have broad influence on Critical Zone function. Soil comprises all unconsolidated material above competent bedrock that is open to – and structured by – fluxes of energy and matter. These fluxes drive biotic and abiotic reactions that result from the open system disequilibria. While (bio)geochemical reactions occur at the molecular scale, they have implications for ecosystem function and human sustainability. Many of the characteristic changes of the Anthropocene – including climatic and land use changes – have direct influence on soil biogeochemistry with cascading effects on the capacity of the Critical Zone to sustain human life. Here we highlight several of these “scalable” soil biogeochemical reactions, give examples on how they are impacted by external forcings, and show how they “reach” beyond the extent of soils to impact atmosphere, surface- and groundwater composition.
Differing views of soil and pedogenesis by two masters: Darwin and Dokuchaev
2015, Geoderma
Citation Excerpt :
Philosophically, mixing pedogenic processes with state factors – especially at the time in history when pedogenic theory was still in its infancy – would have been analogous to mixing oil and water. As Simonson (1968) and Johnson (2002) emphasized, such is the power of theory. In short, Dokuchaev viewed soil formation largely through a wide-angled and holistic soil factors lens, whereas Darwin viewed soil formation largely through a faunal mixing–sorting–burying, and texturally organizing, soil process lens.
Charles Darwin and Vasily Dokuchaev made early and important, but quite different, contributions to pedogenic theory. Their major contributions were both written as books — Darwin's, 1881 The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, With Observation on Their Habits, and Dokuchaev's, 1883 Russian Chernozem. Although most soil scientists are familiar with Dokuchaev's legacy and lasting impact, far fewer know about or value equally Darwin's “worm book.”
Dokuchaev's factorial approach to soil science, drawn from observations across the Eurasian steppe, helped map, classify, and place economic value on soils, while also providing key insight into their formation. This approach gained visibility in the 1930s and 1940s, when personnel at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and some academic pedologists, recognized its utility for soil survey and for interpreting pedogenesis. Jenny's (1941) book, Factors of Soil Formation, helped the model to gain acceptance, and it eventually became entrenched as the core pedogenic model for North America, if not the world. Dokuchaev's legacy is tied to this model. Alternatively, Darwin's main contribution to the field was to shed light on soil processes, particularly faunal mixing (bioturbation) and the textural sorting it can produce. Although Darwin's findings fostered an array of multidisciplinary studies on pedogenic processes during the ensuing 50 years, his work languished in the broad shadow cast by Dokuchaev's model. In 1975, Darwin's ideas reappeared in Soil Taxonomy — associated with rudimentary biomantle concepts. Recently, empowered with new concepts and language, bioturbation concepts have gained considerable traction.
We briefly summarize the backgrounds of Darwin and Dokuchaev, and compare their fundamentally different approaches to pedogenesis. But insofar as Dokuchaev's approach is more mainstream, we emphasize Darwin's, for balance. We show how Darwin's model, updated with current understandings of biomantle formation, is allowing new questions to be asked about pedogenesis and landscape evolution, and formerly intractable ones to be answered. We stress the profound role of conceptual models in guiding explanatory thought, and end by positing that both Darwin's and Dokuchaev's approaches, while different in their basic structure and goals, provide together a more complete view of pedogenesis than either can do singly.
Disaggregating and harmonising soil map units through resampled classification trees
2014, Geoderma
Citation Excerpt :
Over time, rules have been developed in various soil survey programs (for example Powell, 2008; Soil Survey Staff, 1993) that govern the design of soil map units. Different kinds of map unit have been conceived; we are familiar with consociations, complexes, associations and undifferentiated groups, for example (Avery, 1973; Simonson, 1968). The choice of mapping scale affects the kind of map units that can be delineated (Valentine, 1981).
Legacy soil maps typically consist of a tessellation of polygon soil map unit delineations where the map units consist of a defined assemblage of soil classes assumed to exist in more-or-less fixed proportions. There are several limitations in this kind of mapping approach that relate to the original intent of the soil survey, the effect of mapping scale, and the nature of soil polygon boundaries. Yet perhaps a more fundamental limitation is the fact that most of the time, the soil classes that comprise the soil map units are not mapped individually: in effect their spatial distributions are unknown beyond the qualitative indications given in the accompanying soil map unit report.
Spatial disaggregation of soil map units attempts to map the spatial distribution of the individual soil classes that comprise a legacy soil map. We developed an approach called “Disaggregation and Harmonisation of Soil Map Units Through Resampled Classification Trees” (DSMART). DSMART samples the polygons of a legacy soil map and uses classification trees to generate a number of realisations of the potential soil class distribution. The realisations are then used to estimate the probability of occurrence of the individual soil classes. These estimates are mapped as raster grids, which can overcome some of the limitations of mapping scale and polygon boundaries inherent in the original legacy soil map.
We demonstrate the DSMART approach on a legacy soil map from the former Dalrymple Shire in central Queensland, Australia. We mapped the estimated probability of occurrence of the 71 soil classes in the legacy soil map, as well as the most probable soil class, second-most-probable soil class and the degree of confusion between them as determined by a confusion index. Validation on 285 observed soil profiles indicated that for 48.4% of the validation profiles, the observed soil class was identified in the top three most probable soil classes.
Historical development of key concepts in pedology
2005, Geoderma
As a subdiscipline of soil science, pedology consists of an accepted body of laws and theories that cover a range of related ideas and concepts. We have traced the history of these concepts as they pertain to the definition of the soil; soil horizons, profiles, and pedons; soil-forming factors; pedogenic processes; soil classification; soil geography and mapping, and soil–landscape relationships. The presented concepts have proven to be useful in our careers and are offered here to generate discussion in the pedology community. Because of space limitations, we have not attempted to critique these concepts. The concepts identified here are useful not only for understanding the development of pedology, but also for identifying future areas of research and providing a frame of reference from which pedologists can evaluate potential scientific contributions to a rapidly changing world.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Concept Of Soil

Publisher Summary

Adv. Agron.

Russ. Ped. Invest. No.

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.

Science

Trans. 7th Intern. Conn. Soil Sci.

“Soil-Plant Relationships,”

U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Soils Cir.

Chicago Nat. Hist. Museum Popular Ser. Anthropol. No.

“Cato the Censor on Farming.”

Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Spec. Rept.

J. Australian Inst. Agr. Sci.

Proc. Linnean Soc. London

Symp. Soc. Gen. Microbiol.

“Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis.”

Soil Sci.

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.

Science

Proc. Am. Soc. Agron.

U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Soils Bull.

60 A.D. “Res Rustica (On Agriculture)”

“On Understanding Science.”

J. Soil Sci.

“Elements of Agricultural Chemistry.”

“A Geological Survey of the County of Albany.”

Albrecht-Thaer-Arch.

Albrecht-Thaer-Arch.

“Pedologie oder Allgemeine und besondere Bodenkunde.”

Proc. Am. Soc. Agron.

Expt. Sta. Record

Expt. Sta. Record

Vistas Botany

“Die Typen der Bodenbildung.”

“The Great Soil Groups of the World and their Development.”

U.S. Dept. Agr. Weather Bur. Bull.

U.S. Dept. Agr. Off. Expt. Sta. Bull.

“Basic Soils Engineering.”

The Prairie Farmer

“Physiography of the United States.”