From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Jul 3 19:01 EDT 1995
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 18:01:13 -0500
Message-Id: <9507032250.AA17581@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
From: listserv@unl.edu
Subject: GET SOILS-L LOG9401

Archive SOILS-L: file log9401, part 1/1, size 81810 bytes:

------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------


From EM230PE@ncccot2.agr.ca Tue Jan 4 08:02:19 1994
Date: 04 Jan 1994 13:02:19 -0500 (EST)
From: EM230PE@ncccot2.agr.ca
Subject: information on software programs
Message-Id: <01H7AAK7WGZM0001NH@GW.AGR.CA>

Hi, my name is Delmar Holmstrom. I currently am employed by
Agriculture Canada at Charlottetown Research Station in PEI.
My interests are in: use of a portable rainfall simulator to
evaluate the effect of residue levels on soil erosion; use of
a TDR to evaluate soil moisture under various levels of
residue and use of a cone penetrometer to evaluate soil
compaction.

At this time one of my colleagues has a special request. He
was wondering if anyone has information on available software
programs which record soil fertility/soil management/nutrient
budgets.



From russelle@nx1.soils.umn.edu Tue Jan 4 06:41:56 1994
From: "Michael Russelle" <russelle@Soils.Umn.EDU>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 12:41:56 CST
Message-Id: <45728.russelle@nx1.soils.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: information on software programs

On Tue, 4 Jan 1994 12:09:28 -0600, <soils-l@unl.edu> wrote:

>Hi, my name is Delmar Holmstrom. I currently am employed by
>Agriculture Canada at Charlottetown Research Station in PEI.
>
>At this time one of my colleagues has a special request. He
>was wondering if anyone has information on available software
>programs which record soil fertility/soil management/nutrient
>budgets.

Delmar,
Your colleague might want to check with Dr. Les Lanyon, Penn. State Univ.,
telephone 814-863-1614 or Dr. Doug Beegle, also at Penn State, telephone
814-863-1016. Both have been working on field-scale nutrient budgets for
on-farm use.
-


From CSCHULTH@canr1.cag.uconn.edu Tue Jan 4 09:50:04 1994
Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE-101.940104145004.416@canr1.cag.uconn.edu>
From: "Cristian Schulthess " <CSCHULTH@canr1.cag.uconn.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 14:50:04 EST
Subject: Position Announcement

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT

POSITION: Assistant Professor of Soil Science and Extension Specialist;
tenure-track, 11-month appointment (60% extension, 30% research,
10% teaching).

LOCATION: Department of Plant Science, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269-4067.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Applications accepted until March 1, 1994 or until the
position is filled. Starting date is September 1, 1994.

QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. in Soil Science with specialization in soil fertility
and/or soil analysis. Demonstrated ability to conduct
research in this area, and ability to work with others in
developing multidisciplinary extension programs. Knowledge
of laboratory instrumentation and computers is required.

RESPONSIBILITIES: The appointee will be required to develop a
multidisciplinary extension program in soil analysis, soil
fertility and environmental quality in support of the
state's agricultural industries. The individual will serve
as Director of the Soil Testing Laboratory. The individual
will teach one course annually; a graduate level course in
soil analysis and one other course in soil science offered
in alternate years. The development of a fundable research
program is expected.

SALARY AND Salary competitive and commensurate with candidate's
BENEFITS: qualifications. The benefit package includes health
insurance, retirement, and group life insurance.

APPLICATION AND For further information please write or call. To apply,
INFORMATION: send letter of application, resume, university transcripts,
reprints of publications, and three letters of
recommendation to: Dr. Suman Singha, Head, Department of
Plant Science, U-67, 1376 Storrs Road, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4067. Telephone 203/486-2924

The University of Connecticut is an
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer


From hermawan@unixg.ubc.ca Wed Jan 5 08:20:12 1994
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 16:20:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Bandi Hermawan <hermawan@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Aggregate stability under rainfall
In-Reply-To: <9311182038.AA17112@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401051610.C23017-a100000@unixg.ubc.ca>

Hi netters,

Is there anyone in this soils-list@ working on or had experience
in measuring water-stable aggregates (aggregate stability)
under rainfall?
I am interested in quantifying the actual, field water-stable aggregates
under different cover crops during winter (i.e. rainy season in British
Columbia, Canada). The idea is to compare the aggregate breakdown by
rainfall water in the field and the breakdown by the wet-sieving
machine (Yoder method). The latter is measured during the spring-to-
fall period.

Many thanks for the information.

Bandi Hermawan
hermawan@unixg.ubc.ca
Soil Science, Univ. British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada



From jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Thu Jan 6 06:48:24 1994
From: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu (jerome pier)
Message-Id: <9401061848.AA19401@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Subject: Sumary of list activity during Dec. 93
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 12:48:24 -0600 (CST)

Dear Soils-l Subscribers,

Happy New Year to you all!

At this time, there are just over 200 persons subscribed to
soils-l! I am quite pleased. I am also pleased with the
diversity of backgrounds of the subscribers who have
introduced themselves. I would like to hear from more of you
as these introductions are good fuel for discussion.
To those of you who took the time to introduce yourselves
Thanks and welcome to soils-l. The following 10 people
posted introductions:

Dan Potter <DPOTTER@orange.cc.utexas.edu>
E.jayalath <jayalath@dpc.ehime-u.ac.jp>
E. Lopez-Baeza <LOPEZ@vm.ci.uv.es>
Jim Tindall <jtindall@servrcolkr.cr.usgs.gov>
Michael Russelle <russelle@Soils.Umn.EDU>
Mark Chladil <chladil@geo.geol.utas.edu.au>
Dennis Timlin <dtimlin@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Lars Franzen <LARS@gig.gu.se>
BILL FIEBIG <BILL_FIEBIG.parti@parti.inforum.org>
Laosheng Wu <lwu@soils.umn.edu>

For the rest who have not introduced yourselves, please don't
be shy.

There is a new archive file available for retrieval from
the listserv daemon for those of you who would like a record
of all the soils-l mail during the month of December. To get
the archive for Dec. 93, send an email message to listserv@unl.edu
with the message:

get soils-l log9312

The file is not too long and can be compressed further using
your favorite compression tool.

Several topics of interest were discussed during December.
There was a very interesting discussion regarding TDR and
heavy as well as organic soils. I will not attempt to
summarize that exchange (maybe Gail, Dennis or Jim would care to
tackle that task?) but in a conversation with Dr. Doran, who is
evaluating B. Hook's Diode Shorting TDR probes with a Tek 'scope
he mentioned that the values of volumetric water content
determined by the probes was lower than expected and the deviation
appeared to be similar to the residual water content. Please
correct me if I have misunderstood, Dr. Doran. This would
support the observation mentioned by Gail that TDR does not
measure bound water. Any other comments on this?

I would like to thank M. Russelle for his very detailed description
of C:N properties of forage legume roots. One of the most difficult
aspects of determening a nitrogen budget for plants is the amount of
N tied up in the roots. I have used a trench profile method for
determing root distribution patterns but needless to say, that method
is rather invasive! Is the minirhizotron the best method for
in situ determinations of plant root characteristics?

Gail requested information regarding organic matter breakdown
rates in soils and no one posted information to the list. I
might suggest reviewing work by W.J. Parton who has done
a significant amount of work with carbon cycles over _very_
long time periods under native grasslands. Parton has identified
5 distinct organic matter pools with associated rates of
decomposition based on C:N ratios. This research lead to
the simulation model CENTURY. A good reference would be:

Parton, W.J. et al. 1983. Simulation of soil organic matter
formations and mineralization in semiarid ecosystems
IN: Nutrient Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems
(Lowrance et al. eds.) Spec. Pub. 23, Univ. GA, College
of Ag. Expt. Sta., Athens, GA.

Another reference might be:

Juma and McGill. 1986. Decomposition and nutrient cycling in
agro-ecosystems. IN: Microfloral and Faunal Interactions
in Natural and Agro-Ecosystems. M.J. Mitchell and Nakes
eds. pp. 74-136
Hope this helps.

Finally, C.P. Schulthess informed the list of the creation
of an Environmental Science degree program which did not include
soil science! I am still scratching my head about that one and
wish Dr. Schulthess luck with getting soils into the curriculum.

As for myself, I have been busy the last few weeks exploring
the latest Windows tools available for accessing the Internet.
I am excited about the possibilities of multimedia in presenting
research. The Agronomy Society is moving forward with the creation
of an electronic journal for peer reviewed software and other
research items which cannot be presented in a print format. The
advent of HTML and PDF formats which will allow users with the
correct software to view documents which include sound, full
color pictures, short video and even spreadsheets and executable
programs will change the way we envision information. The
technology is still in it's infancy but I am eager to see the
possible applications of multimedia to research presentations.

Once again, welcome back from your holiday vacation and I
look forward to future list discussions.

Sincerely,

Jerome Pier
Soils-l List Owner
jp@unl.edu




From smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu Thu Jan 6 11:02:18 1994
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 16:02:18 EST
From: Alvin Smucker <smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <9401062102.AA01764@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Aggregate stability under rainfall

Dear Bandi Hermawan,

I saw your plea for assistance in the study of a complex process of soil
aggregation. It is a myth to believe that one measurement can estimate the
aggregation process. Nevertheless, some try. I forward the following
experiences for your processing.

Estimations of aggregate stability by the wet (Yoder) method has been used a
long time. However, we find that the outcome of this method is often influenced
more by the method of sampling, subsequent sample treatment, and the procedures
used during wet sieving, than by most treatments (eg., tillage, crop management,
surface cover, manure applications, fertilizer applications, etc. Our experience
has been that the crushing of soil peds, 3-7 mm in diameter, at air dry soil
water contents, provide better estimates of differences between field treatments.

In your case, using the "shower-head" approach, which applies a cascade of
water to a selected group of soil aggregates on a screen, may be a better
comparison with the rainfall modifications of aggregates in the field.

I recommend the following references for these two approaches:

1) Dexter, A.R. 1975. Uniaxial compression of ideal brittle tilths. J.
Terramechanics 12:3-14.

2) Kemper, W.D. and R.C. Rosenau. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution.
A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods, 2nd Ed.

Hopefully, this will be of some assistance.

Alvin Smucker
Soil Biophysics


From smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu Thu Jan 6 12:35:22 1994
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 17:35:22 EST
From: Alvin Smucker <smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <9401062235.AA01767@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Subject: Another Soil Biophysist

At Jerome Pier's insistance, here is what we have done in the Soil Biophysics
Laboratory at Michigan State University, during the past few years.

Alvin Smucker
New Member of soilnet

ALVIN J.M. SMUCKER, PI

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Born May 13, 1942
Michigan State University Wayne County, OH
East Lansing, MI 48824
Voice: 517/355-8370
Fax: 517/353-5174
e-mail: 18325ajs@msu.bitnet
roots@lternet.washington.edu

Education:
1971 Ph.D. Michigan State University
1969 M.S. Michigan State University
1965 B.A. Goshen College

Professional Experience:
1983-now Professor, Michigan State University
1977-1983 Associate Professor, Michigan State University
1974-1977 Assistant Professor, Michigan State University
1971-1974 Exchange Professor and Co-chairman, Argentine Graduate School of
Agricultural Sciences (MSU-USAID)
1967-1971 Research and Teaching Assistants, Michigan State University

Awards and Sabbaticals:
1989 Fellow, American Society of Agronomy
1989 Fellow, Soil Science Society of America
1987-88 MacMaster Research Fellowship, CSIRO, Australia
1979 & 1987 Sabbatical studies at University of Wisconsin, Madison and CSIRO, Perth, Australia

Publications:
Authored and co-authored more than 231 journal articles, book chapters, abstracts and research reports. Selected publications during the past five years:

1. Smucker, A.J.M. 1993. Soil environmental modifications of root dynamics and measurement. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 31:191-216.
2 Huang, Q., A.K. Jain, G.C. Stockman and A.J.M. Smucker. 1993. A new
perspective on segmen-tation: Token-based grouping at multiple levels. Image
Processing: Theory and Applications on Segmentation. (in press).
3. Smucker, A.J.M., B.G. Ellis, and B.T. Kang. 1993. Root, nutrient and water
dynamics in alley cropping on an Alfisol in a forest savanna transition zone. Agroforestry (in press).
4. Huang,C., A.K. Jain, G.C. Stockman and A.J.M. Smucker. 1992. Automatic image
analysis of plant root structures. Proceedings of the 11th IAPR Conference on
Pattern Recognition Methodology and Systems. The Hauge, The Netherlands. 8p.
5. Smucker, A.J.M. and R.M. Aiken. 1992. Dynamic root responses to soil water
deficits. Soil Science 154 (4): 281-289.
6. A.J.M. Smucker, 1992. Contemporary analytical methods for quantifying plant root dynamics. In: L. Kutschera, E.Hubl, E.Lichtenegger, H. Persson and M.
Sobotik (eds.). Root Ecology and its Practical Application, A Contribution to
the Investigation of the Whole Plant. Proceedings of the 3rd ISRR Symposium,
Vienna, Austria. Verein Fur Wurzelforschung, Klagenfurt. pp. 721-726.
7. Majdi, H., A.J.M. Smucker, and H. Persson. 1992. A comparison between
minirhizotron and monolith sampling methods for measuring root growth of maize
(Zea mays, L.) Plant and Soil 104:127-134.
8. Smucker. A.J.M., A. Nunez-Barrios and J.T. Ritchie. 1991. Root dynamics in
drying soil environments. Belowground Ecology 2:4-5.
9. Snider,R.J., R. Snider, and A.J.M. Smucker. 1990. Collembolan populations
and root dynamics in Michigan agroecosystems. pp 168-191. In: J.E.Box and L.C.
Hammond (eds.) Rhizosphere Dynamics. AAAS Symposium 113.
10. Smucker, A.J.M. 1990. Quantification of root dynamics in agroecological
systems. Instrumentation for Studying Vegetation Canopies for Remote Sensing
in Optical and Thermal Infrared Regions. Remote Sensing Reviews 5: 237-248.
11. Smucker, A.J.M. and Erickson, A.E. 1989. Tillage and compactive modifications
of gaseous flow and soil aeration. (W.E. Larson et. al. eds.). In: Mechanics
and Related Processes in Structured Agricultural Soils. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. pp 205-221.
12. Ferguson, J.C. and A.J.M. Smucker. 1989. Modifications of the minirhizotronvideo camera system for measuring spatial and temporal root dynamics. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 53:1601-1605.
13. Box, J.E.,Jr, A.J.M. Smucker, and J.T. Ritchie. 1989. Minirhizotron
installation techniques for investigating root responses to drought and oxygen
stresses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:115-118.
14. Asady. G.H. and A.J.M. Smucker. 1988. Compaction and root modifications of
soil aeration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:251-254.



From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Fri Jan 7 03:36:38 1994
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 08:36:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: C:N ratios; CO2 evol. rates help!
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401070838.B14654-c100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

I am working on soil indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
(EMAP), attempting to "assess the condition of agroecosystems" on a
regional basis. We would like to minimize the amount of money that we
spend on evaluating each sampling unit (e.g., field) so that we can have
more fields. We are trying to identify meaningful (unambiguous) indicators
of agroecosystem condition that have manageable (or known) variability,
and that don't have to be normalized too much (i.e., we don't want to have
to identify mineralogy, for example, in order to make sense of the
data--an extreme example).

In 1992 (North Carolina) and 1993 (Nebraska), we successfully employed
non-soil scientists
(NASS enumerators) to collect composite samples, which we had analyzed
for texture, pH, organic matter, phosphorus, cec, some trace elements, and
nematodes. We would like to include other organic/biological type
indicators.

We are really struggling with identifying indicators that we can employ on
a national scale, and are hoping to find some that are economically
feasible and ecologically meaningful. And even if we find indicators that
might be meaningful to soil condition, do these translate to
"sustainability"? We are leaning towards integrating our soils
measurements with management practices (the obvious approach), but are
struggling with trying to find soil indicators that reflect
sustainability. Does a high pH reflect sustainabiilty? No. Does 18%
clay reflect sustainabiilty? No. Does 100 ppm phosphorus reflect
sustainability? No.

Clive Edwards has recommended the following: o.m. breakdown rate,
microbial biomass, soil respiration, c:n ratios, and free enzyme activity
and maybe earthworms. For physical condition, he recommends infiltration
rate, aggregate stability, and erodibility. Comments welcome.
I don't know enough about the biological measurements to determine if
these are feasible. My feeling is that there is too much spatial and
temporal variability. Also, we are not a research program and are
inclined to select indicators that require samples for laboratory
analysis. We don't want to bury and retrieve litter bags (although not
entirely infeasible), and we don't
want to have to spend a whole day tending one sample point. We want to
grab a sample and go on. This year we will have composite samples, and
will probably run c:n ratios on them.

I would appreciate any comments and discussion along these lines. We have
worked extensively with the SCS and researchers, but haven't come up with
the "right" answer yet. IT has only been recently that we have had soil
scientists on board, however, so there is hope!

Thanks in advance.

gail



From smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu Fri Jan 7 05:08:08 1994
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 10:08:08 EST
From: Alvin Smucker <smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <9401071508.AA01870@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Indicators of Sustainability

Gail,

Your shopping list for "meaningful indicators" of sustainable agroecosystems on
a shoestring budget is a big order. One response would be to expand on your
hypothesis that more biological indicators are needed. Since sustainability
includes the production of an economic biomass, the maintenance or improvement
of current soil conditions, and the reduction of environmental hazzards, then
one suggestion I have for cross-site comparisons is to quantify the development
of the plant root system. It seems logical and has been our experience that
the number of roots within a soil volume at a given soil depth, at certain
times during the season, would be an "indicator" of all the above parameters
needed for comparing the sustainability of multiple environments. This root
parameter can be determined both nondestructively, by the minirhizotron and
video recording methods, or destructively by sampling, washing, and analyzing
the roots removed from the soil.

Plant roots integrate climatic and soil conditions with the genetic potential
of the plant, microbial, and mesafaunal communities for the life of the plant
community in question. Since root systems are the net result of time, space
and genetic responses to climatic and soil conditions, it would be most
beneficial to incorporate multiple evaluations of root quantity, depth, etc.
into your efforts to "assess the net or integrated condition of an agroecosystem."

There are rapid, quantifiable, and comparable methods for separating roots
from large numbers of soil samples, by the hydropheumatic elutriation method
(up to 100 separations per day), and quantifying root morphology by image
processing procedures (up to 200 per week). The root washer costs $5,550, a
minirhizotron microvideo camera costs $16,000, and an image processing computer
and accompanying equipment and software costs from $15,000 to 35,000. After
the initial purchase costs, the primary cost per sample is limited to the labor
involved.

Your potential requirements and the requirements of many soil, ecological and
plant scientists for a rapid and inexpensive plant root analyses facility, which
can process root samples for less than $10.00 per sample, emphasizes, again,
the need for the establishment of a national root analysis laboratory.

Regards,

Alvin Smucker


From dickr@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu Fri Jan 7 12:07:47 1994
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 12:07:47 -0600
Message-Id: <199401071807.AA04153@crcnis1.unl.edu>
From: dickr@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu (R. H. (Dick) Richardson)
Subject: Re: C:N ratios; CO2 evol. rates help!

Gail, you "nailed" a critical issue on "indicators" vs. "parameters":

>I am working on soil indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and
>Assessment Program
>(EMAP), attempting to "assess the condition of agroecosystems" on a
>regional basis. We would like to minimize the amount of money that we
>spend on evaluating each sampling unit (e.g., field) so that we can have
>more fields. We are trying to identify meaningful (unambiguous) indicators
>of agroecosystem condition that have manageable (or known) variability,
>and that don't have to be normalized too much (i.e., we don't want to have
>to identify mineralogy, for example, in order to make sense of the
>data--an extreme example).

Managers of land monitor the effects of their treatments and have different
requirements than researchers of land who are studying processes to develop
models of how the processes interrelate. There is a degree of overlap in
the activities managers and researchers use to determine what is happening,
but sometimes the overlap is limited to "calibration" of one set of
indicators with another set of measurements.

I believe Dr. Smucker's reply to you made a good case for the researchers'
requirements when he discussed roots in a soil volume. I also believe you
made a good case for the managers' requirements. (I use "manager" in a
general context where space may be large so that monitoring logistics
relative to resources of equipment, data analysis, technical personnel,
etc. require "quick and dirty" (pun intended) methods of tracking
biological processes.)

Often the characteristic used by managers is "change" in a feature that is
easily observed under particular climatic, soil, and management history.
As I understand your needs, you want to determine if the management is
"sustainable" on a semi-quantitative scale. It seems to me that the first
thing you need to let us know is how are you defining "sustainable" in
terms of the processes affected by the management decisions. Economics as
well as biologics enter in some way, not to mention the conservation of
managenment options for the future.

That is, bankruptcy would break an essential for sustainability, as well as
extensive erosion, loss of beneficial invertebrates and microorganisms, and
flexibility for future corrections of past "mistakes". I've seen little
discussed about conservation of options. In managing any complex system we
cannot act such that eventually the results will lead to detrimental
effects. We must continue to adjust the processes. (We don't manage
"results" -- we affect processes that lead to results, only a few of which
are predictable).

Therefore, to monitor sustainability we observe certain results, over time
relate these to certain changes, and infer how the processes are turning
out desired results in a sustainable way. But, a process going one way at
one time is "beneficial" and contributes to passing through that phase of
being sustainable, but another time it is "detrimental" and may break the
chain of continuity that is part of "sustainability."

Having said that, I believe there are certain aspects that are generally
part of a sustainable system in agriculture. For example, soil organic
matter is one, provided that it it is not detrimental to the micro and
macro flora and fauna. Soil cover is another, provided it is consistent
with infiltration of water, allows good aeriation, and benefits plants in
completing their life cycle. We could list others, but this illustrates a
point I want to make.

Each "indicator" of process functions has some conditions that allow us to
interpretate it as "good" or "bad" and these conditions may be fairly "site
specific." If you do not require certain consistency of data for the
statisticians, why not take a look at an index that has components of
direction of changes -- economic, biological, even quality of life of the
people depending on the land? Is a feedlot sustainable? It may have lots
of organic matter, even earthworms and dung beetles. Is the monitoring for
sustainability to include wetlands? forests? oceans? rural communities? I
totally agree with Dr. Smucker's comment, "Your shopping list for
"meaningful indicators" of sustainable agroecosystems on a shoestring
budget is a big order." And, although I add to the tallness of the order,
I believe we need to find the indicators you need.

We need to be able to know quickly and easily whether we made decisions
last year in our management that are having unexpected effects on our total
system of finances, biological processes, and life in general. I think we
can do it adequately if we remember that a General Practitioner type of
physicial does a lot with temperature and pulse, but needs to look at mucus
membranes, eyes, and reflexes. GP's and veterinarians have a lot of skills
in "reality checks" for us to keep in mind, especially if we think of them
practicing without antibiotics, aspirin and other miracle cures. (Maybe we
should include a shaman or two as well.)

We use our understanding of processes to find meaningful and obtainable
indicators for management's effects on processes, but we are asking
different questions and therefore have essential differences in what we
call "results" than does a specialist building models of the processes
themselves. Although the two perspectives are complementary and
interdependent, the differences are critical to the quest.
R. H. (Dick) Richardson
Zoology Dept.
Univ. of Texas
Austin, TX 78712

email: dickr@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
office: 512-471-4128
home: 512-476-5131
FAX: 512-471-9651



From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Mon Jan 10 05:16:24 1994
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 10:16:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: C:N ratios; CO2 evol. rates help!
In-Reply-To: <199401071807.AA04153@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401101022.D21090-c100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

Last week, I sought input on soil indicators for agroecosystems, and
received replies from Alvin Smucker and Dick Richardson. Thanks,
Alvin and Dick, for your thoughtful comments. I will summarize and
respond below.

Alvin highlighted the painful truth:

"Your shopping list for meaningful indicators on a shoestring
budget is a big order,"

then suggested that we look at quanitfying the development of the plant
root system within a soil volume.

I like the idea, but here are some considerations: In our North
Carolina Pilot, for example, we took 321 soil samples. Of these, 74 were
from soybean fields, 29 from wheat, 22 from tobacco, 29 from hay, 20
cotton, 17 silage corn, 10 peanuts, and the remaining 120 from 15
different crops. The samples come from a wide range of soil types
(from sandy Coastal Plain soils to clayey Piedmont soils), and were
collected post-harvest. Assume that we have root data for all of these
samples; my questions are:

1. Do soil samples for root analysis have to be collected during the
growing season? Is one sample per field adequate?
2. Do we know enough about the roots of each of these crops to interpret
the data?
3. Is the variability of the data such that 22 tobacco samples from a
wide range of soil types would be adequate?
4. Can trained laymen collect the samples?
5. What volume of soil are we talking about? Does shipping become a huge
expense?
6. What do we do about the weather variables??!

I like the idea of the root analysis because, as Alvin pointed out, roots
integrate information from the soil, soil water, air, etc. But how
do we interpret the data regarding sustainability? If, for example,
we have one soil that has "good" root development and one that has
"bad" root development, is the "good" one sustainable and the "bad"
one not? What if the "good" one is from a mollic silt loam, while
the "bad" one is from a clayey Ultisol that is being carefully
managed? Do we know what the "potential" root growth is for all soil types?

Also consider that North Carolina's 321 sites were part of a Pilot program.
The budget for '94 allows us to have 100 sites across 6 states
(mid-Atlantic).

Dick Richardson asked that I define our use of the word sustainability.
This is tricky. We have identified three aspects of sustainability:
ecologic, economic and social.
1. An _agroecosystem_ is ecologically sustainable if it
maintains or enhances its own long-term productivity and biodiversity, the
biodiversity of surrounding ecosystems, and the quality of air, water, and
soil.

2. A _farm_ is economically sustainable if it is economically viable over
the long-term.

3. An _agricultural system_ is socially sustainable if it meets the basic
food and fiber needs of society and maintains or enhances the quality of
life for farmers and society.

Three scales. We are focusing on #1. We recognize the need for #2 and #3,
but leave
these to the ARS, NASS, and the Census Bureau; these agencies are
funneling considerable resources to these problems, and even have some
answers. Eventually, we would like to compare ecologic trends with
economic and social ones, but first things first.

Dick said that
"Each indicator of process functions has some conditions that
allow us to interpret it as "good" or "bad" and these conditions may be
fairly site-specific".

As I see it, herein lies one of our biggest problems (or, excuse me,
"challenges"). The site-specific-ness of all these
indicators precludes us from taking any one or two or three measurements
and drawing any conclusions about resource "condition" or trends. Unless that
"condition" is on a relative scale, e.g., deep mollisols are the
ultimate agricultural soil and all others shall be compared to
those. Can you imagine the "what-ifs" applicable to this approach?

That said, I'll pause for comment.

gail



From smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu Mon Jan 10 08:13:49 1994
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 13:13:49 EST
From: Alvin Smucker <smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <9401101813.AA02209@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: C:N ratios; CO2 evol. rates help!

Gail,

More responses:

>1. Do soil samples for root analysis have to be collected during the
growing season? Is one sample per field adequate?

Root samples collected during the growing season are more easily identified as
roots, in contrast to plant fragmentes, dead roots, and coarse organic matter.
Living roots stain better, with the viable stains we use before video recording.

>2. Do we know enough about the roots of each of these crops to interpret
the data?

Yes, more information is being collected, annually, so that as soon as regional
and/or national databases of these root data (e.g., depth, length, diameters,
branching classes, biomass, turnover rates, etc) can be assembled, then more
comparisons of one or two samplings for a given soil type can be made. Currently,
it is very risky, at best, to reach global conclusions with only one root smaple
per year. Here is where, I believe, that your project could greatly contribute
to the growing database of root information. That is, take at least the depth
and number (or weight) of roots observed in each sample. A minimumal approach
would be to air or oven dry the soil samples. Then, using a "high-tech"
electrostatic device consisting of an empty glass bottle, which has been rubbed
with wool, cat hair or some other device which adds a charge to the bottle, pass
the charged bottle over the top of your dry sample, where the peds have been
broken, while shaking the sample so that all dried roots will cling to the
charged bottle. Remove the roots from the bottle, count and weigh. A more
sophisticated approach would be to use the methods we outlined in a recent
chapter in Annual Rev. of Phytopathology 31:191-216 (1993).

>3. Is the variability of the data such that 22 tobacco samples from a
wide range of soil types would be adequate?

If the sample number could be increased to 60 plus, then you could apply the
methods of kreiging, which would provide some covariant relationships which may
be of assistance to your project.

>4. Can trained laymen collect the samples?
>5. What volume of soil are we talking about? Does shipping become a huge
expense?

Yes, good undergrad and high school students can be trained to sample roots and
soil samples having volumes of 200-450 cc per given depth. Our best comparative
data is when we sample roots by horizon rather than by soil depth. This approach
provides for comparable soil water, nutrient and microbial dynamics and histories
across landscapes, rather than to a limited group of similar soil types. For
example, root growth, for a given crop, is similar, when the area sampled is
overlayed by crust and sampled above a horizon which is high in clay (i.e., a Bt horizon). Therefore, soil taxonomies should be consulted and the soil maps
should be compared with the actual site of sampling, before deciding the sample
and subsample depths.

Root data truly is the best integrator of recent climate, soil, and genotype
conditions. Once your database becomes larger, then you will be free to make
comparisons across agroecosystems from numerous geoclimatic locations.

Alvin Smucker


From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Thu Jan 13 04:26:16 1994
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 09:26:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: More about roots
In-Reply-To: <9401062102.AA01764@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401130915.B4314-b100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

Dear Alvin,

Thank you for your help on the roots. Incorporating root mass into a
monitoring program might be feasibile (and meaningful) provided we can
eliminate/account for/ or normalize the results for weather variables and
plant life-stage. Is this possible? If, for example, you collect field
data in the same soil for two years (each year you collect samples on July
1): the first year you have
droughty conditions; the following year, you have unbelievably perfect
conditions. Could you
account for weather variables so that you would come up with essentially the
same answer about soil conditions each year? Surely you
wouldn't have the same
root mass. Could the data be "normalized" by looking at morphological
parameters such as
branching patterns or diameter class ? Can the data be "normalized" by
associating root measurements with plant life-stage , or root-to-shoot
ratios? Would such parameters be
indicative of soil conditions? Are such measurements feasible
for a monitoring program?
I maintain cautious optimism for this indicator; perhaps we could
incorporate such a measure in our North Carolina pilot in 1994. Currently,
our 1994 pilot includes an ant study at about 50 sites, along with John
Doran's soil quality tests (for Db, infiltration, EC, pH, nitrate,
respiration, soil water content, whc, and water-filled pore space). Maybe
we could dig up a few roots, too.

gail



From smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu Thu Jan 13 06:20:27 1994
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 11:20:27 EST
From: Alvin Smucker <smucker@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <9401131620.AA00296@ajms.pss.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Root integration of soil, climate and time

-----------------------------
>Thank you for your help on the roots. Incorporating root mass into a
monitoring program might be feasibile (and meaningful) provided we can
eliminate/account for/ or normalize the results for weather variables and
plant life-stage. Is this possible?
----------------------------

Gail,

Yes, it is possible only with the use of models, eg., CERES-crop, which can
be used to normalize the growing conditions. You are correct, no two years
produce the same root growth, root to shoot ratios, nor root demographics. This
is the reason that measurement of one sample of any soil parameter at one time
per year is a dangerous source of information to build models or to make general
comparisons. Generally, years and hopefully, multiple sites, although few data
sets have been compared, see Ratliff, et al., 1983, A survey of field-measured limits of soil water availability and related laboratory-measured properties.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 47:770-775, can be used to predict above ground
biomass, average soil water regimes and temperatures, and other parameters
which you believe influence root growth, ie., tillage, nutrition, etc. These
parameters can be compared and normalized to provide the information you need.

As you can see, it is essential to use "long-term" integrations of a given
soil parameter for the best evaluation of soil properties which characterize
a given agroecosystem.

I encourage you to implement a root parameter into your 1994 plot studies at
North Carolina. Adding a root parameter would give you excellent data for
writing a paper comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different soil and
plant parameters which best characterize agroecosystems.

Regards,

Alvin


From tmgidley@eos.ncsu.edu Tue Jan 18 04:17:01 1994
From: tmgidley@eos.ncsu.edu
Message-Id: <9401181417.AA06116@c10036-422mn.ce.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Nitrogen models in saturated substrates
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 09:17:01 EST

Hello!

I'm Tess Gidley and I'm an M. S. student in environmental engineering
at N. C. State. My thesis concerns a compartmental simulation model of a
subsurface flow constructed wetland (basically a horizontal flow, gravel/sand
filter, usually 30-70 cm deep, planted with cattails, reed, and/or
bulrush). I'm looking for mechanistic models of the nitrogen cycle in
saturated substrates (specifically mineralization, nitrification,
denitrification, and adsorption). Engineers typically use kinetic
models, but I am looking for more general models that describe the rates in
terms of microbial growth. I would also like to incorporate the influence of
multiple substrate limitations, since it is generally held that oxygen
limits nitrification and carbon limits denitrification in constructed
wetlands. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions of specific models, or
places to look for such models.

Thanks,

Tess

tmgidley@eos.ncsu.edu
208 Mann Hall
Box 7908 NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
Tel: (919) 515-4342
Fax: (919) 515-7908


From Z_CLENDENELD@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU Tue Jan 18 03:32:26 1994
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 9:32:26 -0600 (CST)
From: LARRY CLENDENEN <Z_CLENDENELD@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
Message-Id: <940118093226.28420098@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
Subject: Introduction: Larry Clendenen

Soils-l;

Hello, my name is Larry Clendenen.

I received my BSF in Forest Recreation/Natural Resource Interpretation
with a minor in aquatic Biology. Currently working toward a MSF in
hydroclimatology, with a minor in applied statistics. BSF and current
work at Stephen F. Austin State University, College of Forestry,
Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.

Thesis topics include interpreting the long term climate at Nacogdoches
according to Thornthwaite. I have discussed this topic a lot on another
list (climlist) but any comments are welcomed.

I am also looking at the relationships between municipal water demand
and climatic parameters, including those involved with the water budget.
I would like to discuss this also.

I have work experience with site assessments for leaking underground
petroleum storage tanks, as well as vapor and water well monitoring for
underground petroleum storage tanks.

I have also worked during summers for the USDA Forest Service as an
Interpreter/Naturalist.

I would also like to increase my work experience :)

I am planning on finishing up my work here by this summer.

Have a super day,

-Larry ^
/ \ ^
^ | ^ / \ ^
/ \ ^ ^ / \ | / \
= = = = = = = = = | / \ | | | = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Larry D. Clendenen | email: z_clendeneld@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
College of Forestry Voice: +1 409 568 3301
Stephen F. Austin State University FAX: +1 409 568 2489
Nacogdoches, Texas, USA Snail-mail: PO Box 6109 zip 75962
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =>


From cepgl@scri.scot-agric-res-inst.ac.uk Tue Jan 18 16:51:46 1994
From: Graham Lewis <cepgl@scri.scot-agric-res-inst.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 16:51:46 GMT
Message-Id: <9948.9401181651@scri.sari.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Introduction: Larry Clendenen

Hi Larry,
How do I contact climlist?

Thanks

Graham


From DON@TIFTON.CPES.PEACHNET.EDU Tue Jan 18 09:07:22 1994
Message-Id: <199401181905.AA04108@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:07:22 EST
From: DON WAUCHOPE <DON@TIFTON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Nitrogen models in saturated substrates
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 18 Jan 1994 08:30:18 -0600 from

On Tue, 18 Jan 1994 08:30:18 -0600 <tmgidley@eos.ncsu.edu> said:
>Hello!
>
> I'm Tess Gidley and I'm an M. S. student in environmental engineering

Don't know if it's exactly what you want but check out pubs by Lowrance in J.
Environmental Quality.


From DPOTTER@orange.cc.utexas.edu Mon Jan 24 10:28:05 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 16:28:05 -0600 (CST)
From: DANIEL POTTER <DPOTTER@orange.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Tropical soils
Message-Id: <01H82FKDDRYWR5NC9M@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>


In 1959 Simmons, Tarano, and Pinto published a survey and
classification of Guatemalan soils. Among other things, their data
revealed that the soils of the tropical lowlands (Peten) were quite
"patchy" in their distributions. My question to soils-l is this:
Have any studies been done in this region (southern Mexico, Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras) more recently? Are there any good current
summaries of what is known of the soils of this region? Can soils
(particularly *soil distributions*) in tropical environments in
general be compared/contrasted with those of other environments in
a meaningful way (physically, genetically, economically, etc)? My
interests are specifically with the karstic lowlands of southern
Central America rather than the volcanic uplands, but studies from
other, similar tropical environments welcomed also...

Thanks,

Dan Potter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Potter Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
Dpotter@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From DPOTTER@orange.cc.utexas.edu Mon Jan 24 10:55:04 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 16:55:04 -0600 (CST)
From: DANIEL POTTER <DPOTTER@orange.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Tropical Soils
Message-Id: <01H82GIS3XJCR5NC9M@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>

In 1959 Simmons, Tarano, and Pinto published a survey and
classification of Guatemalan soils. Among other things, their data
revealed that the soils of the tropical lowlands (Peten) were quite
"patchy" in their distributions. My question to soils-l is this:
Have any studies been done in this region (southern Mexico, Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras) more recently? Are there any good current
summaries of what is known of the soils of this region? Can soils
(particularly *soil distributions*) in tropical environments in
general be compared/contrasted with those of other environments in
a meaningful way (physically, genetically, economically, etc)? My
interests are specifically with the karstic lowlands of southern
Central America rather than the volcanic uplands, but studies from
other, similar tropical environments welcomed also...

Thanks,

Dan Potter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Potter Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
Dpotter@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Tue Jan 25 05:50:21 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:50:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tropical Soils
In-Reply-To: <01H82GIS3XJCR5NC9M@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401251018.B13732-b100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

Daniel:

Dr. Mick Day at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Geography Department
has been working in Belize for the past 10 years or more. I'm not sure
what he could tell you about soils, but could probably provide some good
references for you.

gail_olson@ncsu.edu

On Mon, 24 Jan 1994, DANIEL POTTER wrote:

>
> In 1959 Simmons, Tarano, and Pinto published a survey and
> classification of Guatemalan soils. Among other things, their data
> revealed that the soils of the tropical lowlands (Peten) were quite
> "patchy" in their distributions. My question to soils-l is this:
> Have any studies been done in this region (southern Mexico, Belize,
> Guatemala, Honduras) more recently? Are there any good current
> summaries of what is known of the soils of this region? Can soils
> (particularly *soil distributions*) in tropical environments in
> general be compared/contrasted with those of other environments in
> a meaningful way (physically, genetically, economically, etc)? My
> interests are specifically with the karstic lowlands of southern
> Central America rather than the volcanic uplands, but studies from
> other, similar tropical environments welcomed also...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Potter
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Potter Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
> Dpotter@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Tue Jan 25 05:52:24 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:52:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tropical Soils
In-Reply-To: <01H82GIS3XJCR5NC9M@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401251021.C13732-9100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

Daniel,
By the way, a student in the Soils dept. at NCSu is starting to work on
the topic of sustainability of hillslope farming in Honduras and would be
interested in any info you can glean from this group!
For the group: it would help if you could post your responses to the
group rather than to Daniel directly. Thanks in advance.

gail



From ad18@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu Tue Jan 25 10:06:44 1994
Message-Id: <199401251905.AA18534@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 14:06:44 -0400
From: ad18@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Ariel Diaz)
Subject: Re: Tropical soils

Perhaps the following could be of some use:

Van Wambeke, A. 1987. Soil moisture and temperature regimes of Central
America, Caribbean, Mexico. SMSS Technical Monograph #16. Soil Management
Support Services, Soil Conservation Service. USDA.

Copies can be obtained (for $10 or $14 air mail) from:

International Soils
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

This work is a compilation of data from several locations within each
country. Soils are classified according to temperature and moisture regimes
and data on mean annual, winter and summer soil temperatures, as well as
some data on moisture are presented. Also, it includes maps for soil
moisture and temperature regimes.



From jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Tue Jan 25 07:19:59 1994
From: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu (jerome pier)
Message-Id: <9401251920.AA27468@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Subject: Re: Tropical soils (fwd)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 13:19:59 -0600 (CST)

> Perhaps the following could be of some use:
>
> Van Wambeke, A. 1987. Soil moisture and temperature regimes of Central
> America, Caribbean, Mexico. SMSS Technical Monograph #16. Soil Management
> Support Services, Soil Conservation Service. USDA.
>
I was going to post a message to the list vis a vis Dr. Van
Wambeke but I wanted to include an address (email or snail mail)
but Gophering to Cornell UNiv. turned up nothing. Is the
venerable Dr. Van still in Residence at CU?

Jerome Pier
jp@unl.edu



From ad18@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu Wed Jan 26 06:00:30 1994
Message-Id: <199401261458.AA07654@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:00:30 -0400
From: ad18@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Ariel Diaz)
Subject: Re: Tropical soils (fwd)

This is the current addressfor Dr. Vanwambeke.

>102:There was 1 match to your request.
>------------------------------------------------------------
> name: Armand R Vanwambeke
> send_email_to: arv1@cornell.edu
> campus_address: Bradfield Hall 1014
> : Ithaca, NY, 14853-1901
> campus_phone: 607 255 1738
>------------------------------------------------------------
>200:Ok.



From tjs1@cornell.edu Wed Jan 26 06:17:11 1994
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:17:11 -0500
Message-Id: <199401261617.AA27302@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
From: tjs1@cornell.edu (Thomas J Shelley)
Subject: Dr. Wambeke's address

At 6:09 PM 1/25/94 -0500, jerome pier wrote, in part:

>Is the venerable Dr. Van still in Residence at CU?

Dr. Wambeke's information is as follows:

Name: ARMAND R VAN WAMBEKE
Phone: (607) 255-1738
E-Mail: ARV1@CORNELL.EDU
Office: 1014 BRADFIELD HALL
Department: SOIL CROP & ATMOS SCI
Fax: (607) 255-8615

Tom Shelley

***************************************************************************

Tom Shelley, Environmental Health and Safety, Cornell University, 118 Maple
Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850. (607) 255-4288 tjs1@cornell.edu
List owner--CMTS-L(Chemical Management and Tracking Systems Discussion
Group).



From GEPHILLI@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Wed Jan 26 06:27:47 1994
Message-Id: <199401261631.AA29715@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 11:27:47 EST
From: "JONATHAN D. PHILLIPS" <GEPHILLI@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU>
Subject: Introduction and chronosequences

First, an introduction. I'm a geomorphologist interested in soils both as
indicators of and products of complex earth surface systems involving the
interaction of geomorphic, hydrologic, atmospheric, and biological processes.
My recent work has involved applications of nonlinear dynamical systems
theory to soils, and has yielded the hypothesis that under certain circum-
stances, the soil landscape should become increasingly complex over time,
even in the absence of human agency, climate change, etc., etc. I've been
able to test this at one pair of sites in eastern N.C., but ultimately
I'd like to revisit a variety of some of the best chronosequences to gather
the data necessary for a fuller test. My question to all you pedologists,
paleopedologists, and soil geomorphologists out there is this: What do you
consider to be the "best" chronosequences (not necessarily the best analyses,
but the "purest" sequences in terms of holding other soil-forming factors
reasonaly constant)?

Jonathan Phillips
Department of Geography & Planning
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
gephilli@ecuvm1
919/757-6082


From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Thu Jan 27 02:43:00 1994
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 07:43:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Introduction and chronosequences
In-Reply-To: <199401261631.AA29715@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401270759.A21130-9100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

Re: the "best" chronosequences: quite a bit of work has been done in the
west on alluvial terraces. Comparisons have been made between soils in
the older vs. the younger terraces...as I recall, the primary focus was on
the development of the calcic horizon. Since aridisols are different from
ultisols in just about every way, a comparison of the two chronosequences
might make for an interesting study.

gail_olson@ncsu.edu



From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Thu Jan 27 16:23:00 1994
Message-Id: <199401280121.AA05397@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 94 20:23:00 EDT
From: "JONATHAN HASKETT" <jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov>
Subject: RE: Introduction and chronosequences

>What do you consider to be the "best" chronosequences
I would think that Glacier Bay in Alaska would be a strong contender,
since the retreat of the glacier is very well documented spatially
and chronologically. It is however a relatively young landscape.

Jonathan Haskett
jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov



From bruce@prism.nmt.edu Thu Jan 27 14:16:21 1994
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 21:16:21 MST
From: bruce@prism.nmt.edu (Bruce Harrison)
Message-Id: <9401280416.AA18041@prism.nmt.edu>
Subject: RE: Introduction and chronosequences

The most important feature of a chronosequence is the quality of the dates of the surfaces, if these are not good, then you can't really define temporal chang
in pedogenic processes.
It is not usually easy to keep environmental parameters constant, especially
in glacial chronosequences.
There has been a lot of work done in the western US on chronosequences, butin mab
ny cases the age control is not great.
Bruce Harrison
bruce@prism.nmt.edu


From mindlink!Stan_Hirst@rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca Thu Jan 27 18:12:00 1994
Message-Id: <m0pPkYv-0004flC@rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 23:12:00 -0500
From: Stan_Hirst@mindlink.bc.ca (Stan Hirst)

Self-introduction:

Stan Hirst from Vancouver, British Columbia. Independent consultant in
environment and resource management and assessment. Registered Professio-
nal Agrologist in B.C.

I recently returned from a 3-year ISPAN/USAID assignment in Bangladesh
where, amongst other activities, we investigated the soil fertility
implications of flood control structures which prevent annual inundation
of paddies and consequent river-borne silt deposition. My Bangladeshi
colleagues are following up with more studies. We've been searching
for literature on experiences in other major deltas in the world without
much success. Would appreciate some pointers on methodologies for
quantifying spatial extent and depth of annual sediment deposition in
intensively cultivated areas.

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Stan Hirst | |
| Applied Ecology International | e-mail: stan_hirst@mindlink.bc.ca |
| 2919 Argo Place | Phone: (604) 420-6580 |
| Burnaby, B.C. | Fax: (604) 681-4176 |
| Canada V3J 7G4 | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|



From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Fri Jan 28 02:44:41 1994
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 07:44:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Introduction and chronosequences
In-Reply-To: <9401280416.AA18041@prism.nmt.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401280740.A25043-a100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

In reply to age control in the western US chronosequences, I think that
the situation is improving dramatically. Steve Forman, if you're out
there, please comment!! He and others have been working on dating the
loess deposits of SE Idaho, and Maynard Fosberg (U of Idaho) has done
quite extensive work on the soil development in the alluvial floodplains.

gail

On Thu, 27 Jan 1994, Bruce Harrison wrote:

> The most important feature of a chronosequence is the quality of the dates of the surfaces, if these are not good, then you can't really define temporal chang
> in pedogenic processes.
> It is not usually easy to keep environmental parameters constant, especially
> in glacial chronosequences.
> There has been a lot of work done in the western US on chronosequences, butin mab
> ny cases the age control is not great.
> Bruce Harrison
> bruce@prism.nmt.edu



From halite@sils.umich.edu Fri Jan 28 04:41:45 1994
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 09:41:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven A. Bischof" <halite@umich.edu>
Subject:
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9401270759.A21130-9100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9401280945.A18715-0100000@sils.umich.edu>

usub soils-l steven bischof



From spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU Fri Jan 28 01:06:06 1994
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 09:06:06 -0800
From: spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola)
Message-Id: <9401281706.AA01537@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: effects of flooding

Mr Hirst:

I saw your post on soils-l. I am helping some researchers at Duke
University who are trying to evaluate the flood control benefits of
preventing deforestation in the upland areas. We too are looking for
any information on the effect of flooding and sediment deposition on
lowland crops, both in-period (damage to growing crop stands) and
inter-temporal (any improvements in soil fertility resulting from
sediment deposition).

I would be very grateful if you could you forward any pointers you
receive. I will see what we have available at this end and forward
that information.

Thank you in advance.

Stefano
---
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305-6084
Tel 415-725-0939, Fax 415-725-7007
Email spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)


From bcook@soils.umn.edu Fri Jan 28 06:43:12 1994
From: "Bruce Cook" <bcook@soils.umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 12:43:12 CST
Message-Id: <1925.bcook@soils.umn.edu_POPMail/PC_3.2>
Subject: RE: Chronosequences

The word, "chronosequence", is a combination of the Greek root "chron"
(meaning time) and the Latin root "sequa" (meaning following).

Unfortunately, the construction of this word is does not follow rules of
scientific nomenclature, because two different source languages are
combined.

I'm curious to know what alternative terms might be used for this
ecological phenomenon (e.g., "sucessional sequence").

Bruce Cook
Department of Soil Science
University of Minnesota
1991 Upper Buford Circle
St. Paul, MN 55108

(612) 624-6251
bcook@soils.umn.edu


From DON@TIFTON.CPES.PEACHNET.EDU Fri Jan 28 09:55:48 1994
Message-Id: <199401282211.AA21715@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 14:55:48 EST
From: DON WAUCHOPE <DON@TIFTON.BITNET>
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 27 Jan 1994 23:27:50 -0600 from

On Thu, 27 Jan 1994 23:27:50 -0600 Stan Hirst said:
>Self-introduction:
Surely there are lessons that have been learned from the experience of
the Mississippi alluvial flood plain? When was it leveed? I know some
of the soils there have supported 50 years of cotton with no sign of
decline.
>
>Stan Hirst from Vancouver, British Columbia. Independent consultant in
>environment and resource management and assessment. Registered Professio-
>nal Agrologist in B.C.
>
>I recently returned from a 3-year ISPAN/USAID assignment in Bangladesh
>where, amongst other activities, we investigated the soil fertility
>implications of flood control structures which prevent annual inundation
>of paddies and consequent river-borne silt deposition. My Bangladeshi
>colleagues are following up with more studies. We've been searching
>for literature on experiences in other major deltas in the world without
>much success. Would appreciate some pointers on methodologies for
>quantifying spatial extent and depth of annual sediment deposition in
>intensively cultivated areas.
>
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Stan Hirst | |
>| Applied Ecology International | e-mail: stan_hirst@mindlink.bc.ca |
>| 2919 Argo Place | Phone: (604) 420-6580 |
>| Burnaby, B.C. | Fax: (604) 681-4176 |
>| Canada V3J 7G4 | |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>


From a16jberc@attmail.com Tue Feb 1 13:41:55 1994
Message-Id: <199402011340.AA05014@crcnis1.unl.edu>
From: a16jberc@attmail.com (Jeri L BERC )
Date: 1 Feb 94 13:41:55 GMT
Subject: chronosequences

Hans Jenny's study of the Pigmy Forest in Mendocino Calif
is a classic chronosequence covering 5 million years of
soil development on marine terraces. The soil has been preserved,
in fact, in a park to ensure its continued development.

Jeri Berc


From jackd@heart.cor.epa.gov Tue Feb 1 02:59:53 1994
From: jackd@heart.cor.epa.gov (Jack Doyle)
Message-Id: <9402011259.AA13070@heart.cor.epa.gov>
Subject: Self-Introduction
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 07:59:53 -0500 (PST)

Self-Introduction:

Jack Doyle, Project Scientist, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.

I am currently the lead ManTech Scientist on projects investigating the
ecological effects of anthropogenic disturbances, including the
introduction of genetically engineered microorganisms and chemical
compounds, on microbial populations and processes in the terrestrial
environment. My research interests extend from basic microbial ecology and
bacterial survival/metabolism to bioremediation/reclamation and rhizosphere
virology.

Of great interest to myself and my colleagues is the question of
significance. We can test for statistical relationships and statistical
significance. But, how do we know when statistically significant findings
are ecologically significant? At the present time, this decision is based
on the judgement of the investigator. Does anyone have any suggestions or a
decision-making model for determining ecological significance?

Thanks,
Jack Doyle


From bruce@prism.nmt.edu Tue Feb 1 02:02:09 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:02:09 MST
From: bruce@prism.nmt.edu (Bruce Harrison)
Message-Id: <9402011602.AA12067@prism.nmt.edu>
Subject: Re: chronosequences

I don't think that the pigmy forest sequence is a true chronosequence,
as I find it hard to believe that some of the soil forming factors
have not changed significantly in that time.

Bruce Harrison


From GEPHILLI@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Tue Feb 1 07:44:58 1994
Message-Id: <199402011744.AA17318@crcnis1.unl.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 12:44:58 EST
From: "JONATHAN D. PHILLIPS" <GEPHILLI@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU>
Subject: Re: chronosequences
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:06:11 -0600 from

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments on chronosequences . . . keep
'em coming! J. Bockheim published a review article on chronosequences in
about 1980. Has anything similar been published more recently, that would
catalog the major chronosequence studies?

Also, is anyone aware of a good tropical chronosequence?

Jonathan Phillips
Department of Geography & Planning
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
gephilli@ecuvm1
919/757-6082


From gail@arrc.ncsu.edu Tue Feb 1 08:18:48 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 13:18:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Gail Olson <gail@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical signif of eco measures (fwd)
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9402011348.G8817-a100000@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu>

I forwarded Jack's comment to our group here at NCSU (we're working on
identifying the status and trends of US agroecosystems) and got this
reply...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jeff@essnvd5.arrc.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Statistical signif of eco measures

Jack makes a good point in that there is a difference between
statistical significance and practical, or in this case, ecological
significance. Usually we try to plan studies with large enough
samples sizes to statistically detect meaningful differences
or relationships. Of course, that requires us to have an idea
of meaningful differences prior to planning a study. EMAP has
some DQOs but I'm not sure that they are based on ecology.
If we come up with definitions of ecological significance then
we should be able to plan studies with high power of
statistically detecting such differences or relationships, if
they exist.

Jeff

------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------



Prepared by Steve Modena AB4EL modena@SunSITE.unc.edu