This is the compendium of SOILS-L digests for January 1996.
It was prepared from the daily digest mailings. Some digests
may be missing, because occasional mailings are lost en route.
Contents: Bioremediation references (Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 11:47:00 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. Subject: Bioremediation references On a more general note regarding bioremediation: Does anyone have any suggestions as to which journals might be considered important/essential reading regarding research into bioremediation of soils and waters?.......... (I don't have any specific topics of bioremediation in mind). In addition, does anyone have any suggestions as to which newsgroups/listservers etc. would prove useful ? thanks, Guy <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: Bioremediation references (KSKgeos@aol.com) Re: Bioremediation references (Jeff_Wilson_at_gal__calgary__ab@golder.com (Jeff Wilson)) Re: Bioremediation references (Pilgrampl@aol.com) Re: Bioremediation references (marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:09:31 -0500 From: KSKgeos@aol.com Subject: Re: Bioremediation references Try the following: The journal "Ground Water", published by the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE) is a good reference. Also, "Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation" by Ground Water Publishing Company (an arm of the National Ground Water Association [NGWA]. "Environmental & Engineering Geoscience", from the Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG) and the Geological Society of America (GSA) -a joint publication. I believe that their is also a "Journal of Soil Contamination" published by the Society for the International Health of Soils? but I'm not positive. Good luck, Kent S. Koptiuch, CGWP KSKGeoS, Inc. 164 Osgood Hill Essex, VT 05452 802-878-1620 KSKGeoS@aol.com <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:52:04 -0800 From: Jeff_Wilson_at_gal__calgary__ab@golder.com (Jeff Wilson) Subject: Re: Bioremediation references This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as text. To process the remainder, you will need to use a Mime compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details. --IMA.Boundary.547486028 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part This is probably the best newsgroup for bioremediation in general, though more questions are posed then answers. For journals try Journal of Soil Contamination (Lewis Publ), Environmental Science and Technology, Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology (ASM), and Remediation (Quarterly publication). There and many others, but these seem to have pretty good and detailed reports. Jeff Wilson, Ph.D., P.Biol. Environmental Microbiologist Golder Associates LTd. Calgary, Alberta ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Bioremediation references Author: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. at internet Date: 01/03/96 06:31 AM On a more general note regarding bioremediation: Does anyone have any suggestions as to which journals might be considered important/essential reading regarding research into bioremediation of soils and waters?.......... (I don't have any specific topics of bioremediation in mind). In addition, does anyone have any suggestions as to which newsgroups/listservers etc. would prove useful ? thanks, Guy --IMA.Boundary.547486028 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Received: from [129.93.1.19] by internet.golder.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b beta) id 0ea7ae60; Wed, 3 Jan 96 04:47:34 -0800 Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA02788 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for jeff_wilson_at_gal__calgary__ab@golder.com); Wed, 3 Jan 19 96 06:31:44 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 06:31:44 -0600 Message-Id: .<.30EA73C2@msm.cgnet.com.>. Originator: soils-l@unl.edu Errors-To: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Reply-To: .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. Sender: soils-l@unl.edu Version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. Subject: Bioremediation references --IMA.Boundary.547486028-- <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:33:13 -0500 From: Pilgrampl@aol.com Subject: Re: Bioremediation references Environmental Science and Technology put out by the american chemical society is good Peter Lawrence Pilgrampl@aol.com <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 19:50:57 +0100 From: marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli) Subject: Re: Bioremediation references You can found good papeers on "Journal of Environmental Quality", published by American Society of Agronomy (677, South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711). Marino --------------------------------------- Marino Perelli free-lance agronomist Via Puccini 11 - 30034 Mira VE - Italy tel/autofax: +39 41 421995 E-mail: marino@veneto.shineline.it --------------------------------------- <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: (Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>.) Bioremediation references (Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>.) Refs. on soil health reqest (Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 15:04:00 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. Subject: Thanks your help regarding sources of bioremediation references. Guy. <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 16:55:00 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. Subject: Bioremediation references In reply to the following: ( 04 January 1996) : >Hi Guy, could you please send a list > of the references you recieved & send >to the list? > I'd be a little curious. >Joerg Kaduk, ( MPI for Meteorology > Bundesstr. 55 , D-20146 Hamburg) ---------------- I assumed that the replies relating to sources of bioremediation references had been copied to everyone on the list. The replies I have recieved are as follows [ edited for brevity ] : Guy --------------------------------------------------- ******Jeff Wilson (Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary, Alberta)**** .....This is probably the best newsgroup for bioremediation .....in general though more questions posed than answered. [ Guy--> due to replies being sent direct to originator of question rather than to the group as a whole ? ] --> Journal of Soil Contamination (Lewis Publ), --> Environmental Science and Technology, --> Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology (ASM), --> Remediation (Quarterly publication). ****** Kent S. Koptiuch ( KSKGeoS, Inc., Essex, VT 05452)***** --> Ground Water (Assoc. Ground Water Sci. & Eng. - AGWSE). --> Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation (Ground Water Publishing Company). --> Environmental & Engineering Geoscience ( Assoc. Eng. Geol -AEG & Geol. Soc. Am.-GSA) --> Journal of Soil Contamination (Soc. Int. Health of Soils?). **** Peter Lawrence****** --> Environmental Science and Technology (Am. Chem. Soc.) **** Marino Perelli ( free-lance agronomist) Via Puccini 11 - 30034 Mira VE - Italy) --> Journal of Environmental Quality ( Am. Soc. Agron.). ------------------------------ <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 11:11:05 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>. Subject: Refs. on soil health reqest Dear all, I am looking for references on soil health. I know there are researchers working on this topic but have not been able to find relevant references. We are looking at biological indices as guidelines for maintaining optimum soil organic matter levels for sustained long term site productivity as well as biodiversity in forest ecosystems. I would appreciate it if you could point some directions as to sources of references on soil health. If you have internal reports dealing with soil health for distribution, I would like to receive them. Thanks and have a happy New Year! Scott Dept. of Forest Sciences Univ. of B.C. Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z4 <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: (salem@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (Salem Al-Jabri)) (KITE@wvugeo.wvnet.edu) soil fertility vs soil quality vs soil health? (Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 14:53:25 -0700 (MST) From: salem@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (Salem Al-Jabri) Subject: unsubscribe salem@ccit.arizona.edu Salem Al-Jabri phone: 520-621-1110 Soil, Water and Environmental Science Dept. FAX: 520-621-1647 University of Arizona email: salem@ccit.arizona.edu <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 17:18:01 -0500 (EST) From: KITE@wvugeo.wvnet.edu Subject: Unsubscribe kite@wvugeo.wvnet.edu <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 14:49:35 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>. Subject: soil fertility vs soil quality vs soil health? Hi all, Since I posted my request for references on soil health, I have received several messages pointing to sources of references. Thanks to those who helped. There are interests from some netters on the replies I receive. I will post a summary privately at a later stage if the interest is from a rather limited number of people. It has never been clear to me the differences among the terms soil fertility, soil quality and soil health. Seems to me soil quality is the term coined long after soil fertility. If you look for references on soil quality using Current Content, Agricola, or Tree CD, you will get an ample amount of hits. I think people are starting to talk about soil health more recently. But the earliest reference on soil health dates back to 1948 (McIntyre, A.C. 1948. Why waste wood? Soil Conserv. 14(4) 75-78). (So far as I can find) Seems to me soil fertility has a narrower application, i.e., soil fertility=soil productivity. But is soil quality the same as soil health? Seems to me soil health is a level above soil quality, as soil quality is still more inclined towards the abiotic aspects of the soil, although most of the indices used for testing soil quality are biological. There is little integration. Soil health should play a more important role in integrating the different aspects of soil quality, e.g., take into consideration soil biodiversity. Two of the replies (see below) pointed me to people working on soil quality. Sometimes the term soil quality and soil fertility is interchangeably use by authors (e.g., Gregorich et al. 1994. Can. J. Soil Sci., 74: 367-385). Therefore, I would be interested in hearing your opinion regarding those confusions in terminology. Please post to the list, as I think there is interest from other netters. The other topic for discussion is that there have been many studies on soil quality, what uses have you find for those soil quality indices? That is, it is very difficult to define a cutting point for those indices whether a particular soil has low or high quality, except applying the indices to soils of the two extremes. I did not give a sufficient introduction to the project I am working on. Here is a more detailed description. Coarse woody debris (CWD) is an integral part of the forest ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. CWD relates to nutrient cycling, soil development, and site biodiversity. The concern is CWD retention in the PNW forest ecosystems is being decreased due to increased log price and improved harvesting technology. Thus soil organic matter levels and site productivity may be reduced in the long term. Therefore we are interested in finding a biological index or (indices) as a guideline to estimate the amount of CWD retention required to maintain the optimal soil organic matter level. The method presently being explored is the procedure proposed by Harvey's group (Harvey et al. 1987. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep INT-225). They find that the optimal soil organic matter level is correlated with the highest ectomycorrhizal root tip numbers in forest ecosystem (Intermountain Region). We are testing their hypothesis in the PNW forests. Hope this helps a bit. Redards, Scott X. Chang ------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 20:42:40 -0600 From: Brian Needelman .<.needelma@uiuc.edu.>. To: xichang@unixg.ubc.ca Subject: Refs. on soil health reqest Hello, I am a graduate student at the Univ. of Illinois. I am working with the Illinois Soil Quality Initiative. I believe my advisers are some of the researchers you are referring to. We are also looking at biological indices with an emphasis on organic matter levels. However, our focus is only agricultural. A basic book on the text that has many references is: Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA Special Publication no. 35. SSSA, Madison, WI. One of the objectives of our project is to screen potential soil quality indices for use in the state of Illinois. Our strictly biological indices include soil respiration, microbial biomass. We are experimenting with the use of the Biolog system to assess biodiversity, but this has its difficulties. We are also testing for mineralizable nitrogen and particulate organic matter in an effort to indicate long-term OM changes. There was an issue of the American J of Alternative Agriculture a few years ago dedicated to the topic. It is similar to the book cited above. I am interested in what you come up with. Let me know if you have anything more specific you would like references for or if you have any more questions on our methodology, etc. Brian Needelman Univ. of Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences. Champaign, IL needelma@uiuc.edu -------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 14:33:25 -0500 From: Cynthia Grant .<.cgrant@EM.AGR.CA.>. To: xichang@unixg.ubc.ca Subject: Refs. on soil health reqest -Reply Hello Scott I believe that the Centre for Land and Biological Resource Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Ottawa just come out with a publication on the Health of Soils. You might want to contact Chung Wang. I think their phone number is 613-995-5011. (should be 613- 759-1000) Also, John Doran of Lethbridge Research Station has been working in this area and has done some review papers on the topic. The phone number there is: 403-327-4561. Good Luck Cynthia Grant <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: Refs. on soil health reqest (tomt@teleport.com (Tom Thomson)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 10:40:10 -0800 From: tomt@teleport.com (Tom Thomson) Subject: Re: Refs. on soil health reqest Try contacting Dr. Elaine Ingham at Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon. She does a lot of work involving a "holistic" look at the soil. She is one of the few people in the World (?) who looks at a soil sample as the sum of its components not at just the microbial, chemical, etc piece. Her work involves identifying all the microbes, nematodes, insects, etc which are conatined in a sample of soil. Thsi information when couples with the standard physio-chemical analysis, would allow one to monitor change in the soil from any cultural practices and/or over time. Her phone is 503-737-7715 and FAX 737-3573. I do not know her e-mail address. <---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
-----> >Dear all, > >I am looking for references on soil health. I know there are researchers >working on this topic but have not been able to find relevant >references. > >We are looking at biological indices as guidelines for maintaining optimum >soil organic matter levels for sustained long term site >productivity as well as biodiversity in forest ecosystems. > >I would appreciate it if you could point some directions as to sources of >references on soil health. If you have internal reports dealing with >soil health for distribution, I would like to receive them. > >Thanks and have a happy New Year! > >Scott > >Dept. of Forest Sciences >Univ. of B.C. >Vancouver BC >Canada V6T 1Z4 > > Tom Thomson Northwest Agricultural Consulting "The only difference between a problem and a solution is that people understand the solution." Charles Kettering <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents:
Re: soil fertility vs soil quality vs soil health? (marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli))
Re: Subscription ("NATASA.VIDIC" .<.natasa.vidic@agro.bf.uni-lj.si.>.)
Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways ("NATASA.VIDIC" .<.natasa.vidic@agro.bf.uni-lj.si.>.)
Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways (KSKgeos@aol.com)
Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways (Ulrika Rosengren .<.Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@planteco.lu.se.>.)
terravest (esuarez@sylt.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Eduardo A. Suarez))
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 19:59:05 +0100
From: marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli)
Subject: Re: soil fertility vs soil quality vs soil health?
Scott Chang proposed a discussion on soil fertility, soil quality and soil
health.
We think that it is a very important theoretical subject to discuss for
agronomist and soil scientist, because it is easier to understand soil
fertility in common language than in scientific one.
We want to express our ideas, which is not a complete theoretical system,
but only same short opinions.
Soil fertility
Soil fertility is a very old concept, known in the Nile and Euphrates rivers
valley 4500 (or more) years ago, and the word was used by Roman agronomists
from the second century B.C.
The word comes from the Greek verb "ferein", which means "to bring
(fruits)", and also "to produce (fruits)". In Latin we have the same verb
"ferre".
For "fertile" the ancient Greeks used just the adjective "agathos", which
means good (see Odyssey, IX, 134-136). "Ge agathe" (a good soil) is a
fertile field and "agathe cora" (a good region) is a fertile country. Two
ancient Greek words came from the same root: "ferbo" (to feed) and
"feres-bios" (one which give life, or food). The last one expression is more
or less equivalent to "fitos", which means also "natural" and it came from
"fiton" (plant).
The history of the word is only a little help, but still the definition of
soil fertility is not so easy.
Cosimo Ridolfi, an Italian agronomist, wrote in 1843: "Soil fertility is the
wonderful capability to produce" ("la mirabile attitudine a produrre").
Really, this definition may be good (and poetic), but it is not able to
measure the soil fertility.
In the "Glossary of soil science" you can found: "The ability of a soil to
supply the nutrients essential to plant growth" (SSSA, 1987). The same
definition is used in France ("The nutrient potential of the soil"), but we
think that soil fertility is more complex.
The nutrient availability is not the only soil factor which takes part in
plant growth. Think to water availability, soil atmosphere, organic matter,
etc. Really, the plant yield is the result of the interaction between soils
and plants.
In Europe many people involved in forestry use this definition of fertility:
"the quantity of biomass that an environment can yield". This is a
quantitative definition, but it is not the soil fertility: it is the
environment fertility, which includes rain, energy availability, etc.
Soil quality
Soil quality is a more recent term and often it is used only as a synonym of
soil fertility or to have a better definition of soil fertility.
In "Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment" (SSSA Special
Publication No. 35, SSSA, Madison, WI) Doran & Parking suggested a definition:
"The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain
biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant
and animal health." This is a good definition, but it is not a definition of
"quality". At worst, it is the definition of one of soil qualities.
We think, other definitions of soil quality, quoted by Doran & Parkin, are
better:
Inherent attributes of soil that are inferred from soil characteristics or
indirect observation (e.g., compactability, erodibility, and fertility).
(SSSA, 1987)
and especially:
Simply put "Fitness for use" (Pierce & Larson, 1993)
Really, the concept of "quality for a specific utilization" is more useful.
In a stony soil you cannot grow rice or sugar beet, but you can produce a
very good wine. The quality "stoniness" is good for grapes, but it is bad
for rice and sugar beet. It seems to be the same concept of "fertility", but
it is different. In a stony soil you have a low yield of grapes, but the
quality of wine may be high (if you work well in the cellar). The soil is
not fertile, but it has a good quality for a specific crop.
Fertility is one of the soil qualities, and the two concepts are not
interchangeable.
Finally, you must remember that in the last years, "quality" was used as a
synonym of "good quality" (see ISO 9000), but it is a neutral word: you can
have a good quality, but also a bad quality (see Aristotle and Wittgenstein,
and also the definition of the word "quality" in the Webster's Dictionary,
as quoted by Doran & Parkin in the same paper).
Soil health
Only one consideration about soil health.
It may be an important concept when the soil may be polluted, but we must
remember the soil ability to self-depuration. So you can have a dead soil,
but is very difficult to have a sick soil.
You have a sick soil only in very special situation (e.g., Chernobyl).
Suggested readings:
Michel Sebillotte (Ed.) "Fertilite et systemes de production" (Fertility and
production systems), Inra, Paris, France, 1989
L.L. Boersma et al. (Ed.) "Future development in soil science research",
Soil Science Society of America, 1987 (especially the papers by Letey; and
by Westerman and Tucker).
L. Wittgenstein. Tractatus logico-philosophicus.
------------------------------------------------------
Marino Perelli free-lance agronomist
E-mail: marino@veneto.shineline.it
Sandra Toniolo University of Padova - senior librarian
E-mail: tonsa@ipduni1.unipd.it
------------------------------------------------------
Via Puccini 11 30034 Mira VE Italy
voice: +39 41 421995 fax: +39 41 421995
------------------------------------------------------
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:24:46 +0100
From: "NATASA.VIDIC" .<.natasa.vidic@agro.bf.uni-lj.si.>.
Subject: Re: Subscription
subscribe SOILS-L Natasa Vidic
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:38:03 +0100
From: "NATASA.VIDIC" .<.natasa.vidic@agro.bf.uni-lj.si.>.
Subject: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways
Dear colleagues,
I am interested in predicting the influence of a road on
soil pollution along the road (Pb and other pollutants) with the
aid of digital soil relief, digitized soil maps, and main wind
directions of the area. The prediction would be used for
planning of economically sound sampling design - i.e., denser
network of samples in areas, where higher levels of pollution are
predicted, and less dense in others. Does anybody have any
experience with soil pollution monitoring along roads? References
would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance,
Natasa Vidic
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:30:29 -0500
From: KSKgeos@aol.com
Subject: Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways
Natasa;
I conducted an investigation of roadway subsoils and downgradient groundwater
quality along a private roadway last year. The unpaved roadway has been in
use for approximately 75 years as a private access to a lakeside Summer camp
community. Up until 1991, waste oil products had been sprayed on the roadbed
during the Summer months to keep the dust down.
In my investigation I completed a series of borings through the roadbed, and
also at a number of locations downgradient of the roadbed. Split-spoon soil
samples were secured from the roadbed borings. Groundwater monitoring wells
were installed in the downgradient borings.
Soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by EPA
Method 418.1, and for total lead (Pb) by EPA Method 3050. Groundwater
samples were analyzed by EPA Method 3010/3020 for Pb, EPA Method 8100 for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and by EPA Method 8080 for PCBs.
Results of the study were interesting in that soil samples from the roadbed
yielded TPH concentrations ranging from 24.0 to 660.0 mg/kg, and total Pb
concentrations ranging from 17.4 to 37.8 mg/kg. Downgradient water samples
yielded no impact from PCBs or from PAHs. Total Pb in groundwater ranged
from none detected (<2.0 ug/L) to 18.0 ug/L. The upgradient groundwater
"control" sample yielded no impact from PCBs or from PAHs, and 12.0 ug/L
total Pb.
The State of Vermont enforcement standard for lead in groundwater is 20.0
ug/L. Although concentrations of lead in the roadbed subsoils exceed this
value, because the investigation yielded no impact to downgradient
groundwater above enforcement standards (and only barely above control
concentrations), no further action was taken and the site was closed.
The roadbed was constructed of gravelly sands and weathered shale fragments
densely compacted to a depth of 2.0 to 4.0 -feet over a calcareous shale
bedrock.
Downgradient soil profiles consisted of 1.0 - 2.0 -feet of fine, granular
silt-loam overlying 3.0 - 5.- -feet of saturated, fine silt with common clays
and frequent gravels, fine cobbles, and relict seashells.
If this information proves useful to you, please let me know.
Thanks,
Kent S. Koptiuch, CGWP #449
Principal Geologist
KSKGeoS
164 Osgood Hill
Essex, VT, USA 05452
KSKGeoS@aol.com
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:43:02 +0100
From: Ulrika Rosengren .<.Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@planteco.lu.se.>.
Subject: Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways
Hello Natasa,
Maybe this reference is of interest to you:
Majdi, H. and Persson, H. 1989. Effects of road-traffic pollutants=20
(Lead and cadmium) on tree fine-roots along a motor road. Plant and=20
Soil 119,1-5.
Good luck!
__________________________________________________
Ulrika Rosengren-Brinck,PhD
Forest Ecology, Dept. of Ecology
Lund University, Ecology Building
S-223 62 Lund, Sweden
Tel: +46 46 222 9561
Fax: +46 46 222 4423
E-mail: Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@Planteco.lu.se
=20
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:09:11 -0300 (GMT-0300)
From: esuarez@sylt.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Eduardo A. Suarez)
Subject: terravest
Hi,
anyone has used Terravest and/or Stokosorb? Where can I find information
on the net?
Thanks,
Eduardo.
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************
Contents: Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways (llhastings@ucdavis.edu (Lauren L. Hastings)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 08:15:43 -0800 From: llhastings@ucdavis.edu (Lauren L. Hastings) Subject: Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways Natasa: Here's a reference that may be helpful: Munch, D. 1993. Concentration profiles of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, vanadium and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in forest soil beside an urban road. Science of the Total Environment 138:47-55. Lauren Hastings <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: Refs. on soil health request (Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>.) (PADMANABHAN@sask.usask.ca) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:05:09 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>. Subject: Re: Refs. on soil health request Some interesting thoughts from Dr. Elaine Ingham. I am forwarding it to the soils list for your information. A few comments. I agree that soil fertility, soil quality, and soil health should be terms with specific meanings and should not be interchangeably used. Seems to me most people would agree that: soil health > (higher level) soil quality > soil fertility. Soil quality is too easily to be paralleled with air quality and water quality, where air and water are much simpler systems (you may argue on this). Both Elaine and Marino Perelli mentioned the differences in soil quality evaluation when comes to different purposes (what is best for corn is not best for cedar). This does make the soil quality question more complicated. But some soils may be good for both corn and cedar. And in Marino's case, a stony soil good for grape production may have the inherent problem of being prone to erosion, of having poor properties for cultivation, etc, vs the soil good for corn production may not have those problems. I wonder if the ecological equivalence concept could be of inspiration here. The ecological equivalence concept says that sites with the same or equivalent physical properties have the same vegetation potential. Can we use soil quality equivalence here? Scott Chang ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott - Thanks for thinking of me when it comes to this question! I CC'd to Tom and, and you could copy my reply to the soils list if you think it would be useful. Is there a difference between soil quality and soil health? First, there aren't any good definitions of either concept, although there are many attempts in various publications. I like John Doran's definition of soil quality in his soon to be published paper, and I have a book chapter in press on the topic of soil health/ecosystem health. My point of view is that you can't have a healthy ecosystem without a healthy soil. I believe there is a difference between soil quality and soil health. It may just be a semantics thing, but that's what the cutting edge is all about. We have to work out what we mean by these different terms, and see which one will be most useful. It's not clear yet to me whether we need two terms to describe different aspects of whether a soil is good for growing what we want to know. I expect it will be useful to have a bullpen of terms that mean very specific things, so we don't get bogged down in terminology meaning different things to different researchers, as has happened in ecology, for example. My opinion is that soil quality should be definable as a certain specific set of characteristics that would apply to each plant that you might want to grow. So, the question might be stated whether that soil has the "quality" needed to grow that plant. In order to make that decision, someone would need to know the important parameters in determining whether a plant grows someplace - this is almost the Hans Jenny equation - such as whether parent material (and all the chemical/mineral aspects that go along with that), climate (and alla the temp,rainfall, humidity things that go with that), hydrology (soil structure to water table), and whether the organisms that perform the nutrient cycling processes are present and functioning in order for that plant to grow. This is a bit different from trying to define a single set of characteristics to define "the best" soil, because that begs the question of "from whose point of view do you mean best?". What is best for corn is not best for cedar. Should there might be a general set of parameters that define a quality agricultural soil, and another set of characteristics that would define a quality forest soil? Approached this way, yes. Or maybe the definitions need to be more narrow than that. But we first need to agree that this would be a good approach for this definition. I take a different tack to define soil health. While it may use similar measures as used in defining soil quality, there needs to be an understanding of what we view as the healthiest situation in soil, or an ecosystem. As I explain more fully in the Jackson/Mooney book chapter, a human paradigm of health might be useful. You can't use a negative definition of health - the absence of disease - to define health. Even as human beings, we don't say that because you aren't sick, you must be healthy. We have certain criteria that a healthy person has to meet - you can walk a mile without breathing too hard, your color (whatever color that happens to be based on genetic background) is good (define good!), your white blood cell count is normal, your temperature is normal, blood pressure is normal, etc. Defining "normal" is a joy too, because, for example, my blood pressure is usually in the 90 over 60 range, which would put most people in the sick category, but my doctors know that's normal for me. So, how do we apply this paradigm of health to soil? What are the criteria you use to define a healthy soil? One example - a healthy soil shouldn't be too leaky of its nutrients. But consider an early successional stage healthy soil - it's pretty leaky of it's nutrients, certainly as compared to a mature forest successional stage, or an old growth successional stage. You have to be careful here to measure leakiness appropriately - putting nitrate fertilizer on an old growth forest soil and expecting it to be used by the soil organisms is not too realistic. Measuring "retentiveness" by dumping on fertilizer in a system that never sees fertilizer isn't bright. So, we might have to define soil health relative to a set of "best" characteristics of what we want out of the soil. Just like people, a soil can be relatively more healthy than some less-healthy condition, while still not being in the healthiest condition. Just like at mid-forty I'm not as physically healthy as I was at 21, you wouldn't call me unhealthy just because I have a few health "low points" right now. There are still lots of things I will contribute to humanity in general, I hope, so my usefulness to others may be getting higher, even though in a sense my physical health is decreasing. Let's agree right now that our defintion will be based solely a physical human health paradigm, not a mental health approach. Interesting idea though - soil mental health. That's for arthropods whose favortie foods have been wiped out by pesticides and they're forced to subsist on fungi that taste like their version of broccoli and lima beans. So, like human health, we need to become clear about what characteristics define the most healthy soil condition. In my book chapter I suggest a list of 5 or 6 criteria for a healthy soil, such as the ability to retain soil nutrients (C, N, P etc), ability to retain soil, to provide all the needed late-succesional ecosystem functions, a complex soil foodweb, a minimum of energy input to maintain that complex system. The list is only a set of suggested criteria. We need to test those to make sure they are the right set of criteria. Just like the medical profession is still trying to decide what set of criteria to use to define human health, so too does the set of characteristics we might use to define soil health need to go through a period of trial and error. Hopefully, though, we don't need to take 5,000 years to do it...... Clearly, I regard soil organisms as a major criteria in determining soil health. Without the organisms present and functioning, the processes don't occur. I know many soil physical folk think that all the organisms needed to do things will magically always be there, but this is absolutely not true. Pesticides have done a great job of wiping out the organisms needed to compete with pathogens in the soil, for example. Chemical fertilizers select for only portions of the soil foodweb, and many organisms are selected against. Does this mean we shouldn't use chemicals anymore ever? Get real. But we should know what we're losing when we use them, so the soil can be "remediated" if you will. We can impoverish the soil and lose these important players. The question becomes how best to assess these losses? Do we have to look at species composition of the bacterial community? The fungal community? The protozoan community? The nematode and soil arthropod community? What is the best indicator of the loss of some important function that is needed in a soil? What functions have to occur in all healthy soil? Do all functions have to occur in a healthy soil? It depends on what level you define function. All soils need N, but does it always have to come from N-fixation? Couldn't N come from erosion, like flooding along the Nile? So, how do you want to exactly define that characterisitc so it covers all situations? Or do you define the characteristic by great soil groups? Or by vegetation? Or climate? This is beginning to sound like the way I define soil quality. So, I've rambled long enough. Let's start a conversation and work out the definitions. What are your favorite defintions of these terms? Elaine Ingham inghame@bcc.orst.edu <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 16:19:17 -0600 (CST) From: PADMANABHAN@sask.usask.ca Subject: Unsubscribe <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents:
Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways ("Kevin R. Wineinger" .<.phpkrw@gsusgi2.gsu.edu.>.)
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 09:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kevin R. Wineinger" .<.phpkrw@gsusgi2.gsu.edu.>.
Subject: Re: Concentrations of Pb in soils along roadways
Can some one tell me how to get off this list please
Thank you
Kevin
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************
Contents:
Re: Refs. on soil health request ("DANIEL POWELL" .<.BAG93DP@wye.ac.uk.>.)
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:29:15 GMT
From: "DANIEL POWELL" .<.BAG93DP@wye.ac.uk.>.
Subject: Re: Refs. on soil health request
Hello list,
I am relatively new to this list but I am extremely interested in the
recent discussion on soil health and soil quality. This is an area
that needs more airing given the current awareness of sustainable
soil use, whether it be for agriculture, amenity or utility.
My personal interest at present is the beneficial effects that
compost may have on soil health/quality. One of the problems is
arriving at objective parameters for measuring such effects.
I would appreciate any references on this area.
Meawhile here is some information that may be of use regarding the
discussion on soil quality, relating to agriculture.
Thanks,
DAN POWELL
BAG93DP@wye.ac.uk
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:23:08 GMT
From: Geraldo_Deffune .<.pah_gd@wye.ac.uk.>.
To: BAG93DP@wye.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Refs. on soil health request
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Dear Sustainable Friends,
I have a variety of alternative farming technology "how-to-do" educational
Videos IN PORTUGUESE (some in Spanish) produced by AGRODATA (which holds the
copyrights) in Southern Brazil, with my technical advice.
These include 3 BD/Organic/Sustainable Agriculture courses that can be copied
for non-profit organizations, just for the charge of tape/copying costs:
- Horticultura sem Agrotoxicos - Part 1 (1992) - 60 minutes
- Horticultura sem Agrotoxicos - Part 2 - 70 minutes.
- Producao de Adubo de Residuos Organicos pela Compostagem (In-farm
composting, 1993) - 30 minutes.
Private orders and an illustrated list of publications can be also provided
from my address below.
Cheers - Abra@os,
Geraldo DEFFUNE
Wye College - University of London
Sustainable Agriculture Research Group
Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, Inglaterra, U.K.
Tel.:(01233)812401 Ext. 271
Fax: (01233)812855
E-mail: G.Deffune@wye.ac.uk
or pah_gd%microlab1@wye.ac.uk
or pah_gd@microlab1 (College-internal)
Home address:
The Bungalow, Amage Rd.
Wye Ashford Kent TN25 5DF
Tel: 01233 813260
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************
Contents: Fertilizer Info. (Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 09:39:00 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. Subject: Fertilizer Info. Does anyone know of any publication listing manufacturers of fertilizers in the UK/Europe and which provides data such as production volume and sites of manufacture. Failing that, does anyone have a contact name/address for The Fertilizer Society (UK). Thanks. <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: Fertilizer Info. (SkyGrass@aol.com) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:34:48 -0500 From: SkyGrass@aol.com Subject: Re: Fertilizer Info. "World Markets", published by Pike & Fischer Inc, 4600 East-West Highway, Bethesda MD 20814 USA. phone 301 654 6262. fax 301 654 6297 This is the best guide to world fertilizer producers/sellers. <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents:
("Jerzy Weber - AU Wroclaw" .<.weber@OZI.AR.WROC.PL.>.)
separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil (Sverker Forsberg .<.Sverker.Forsberg@radek.slu.se.>.)
("HEATHER BURNHAM" .<.BURNHAM@cfr.cfr.ncsu.edu.>.)
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 22:31:20 +0000
From: "Jerzy Weber - AU Wroclaw" .<.weber@OZI.AR.WROC.PL.>.
Subject:
Dear Colleagues,
You are cordially invited to attend the 8th Meeting of the
International Humic Substances Society
THE ROLE OF HUMIC SUBSTANCES IN THE ECOSYSTEM
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
to be held in Wroclaw,
Poland, September 9-14, 1996.
The Conference is organized under the auspices of the Soil Chemistry
Commission of the International Soil Science Society.
Main topics:
1. Chemistry and Structure of Humic Substances,
2. Turnover of Humic Substances in Terrestrial Ecosystems,
3. Humic Substances in Aquatic and Sedimentary Systems,
4. Interaction of Humic Substances with Xenobiotics and
Heavy Metals,
5. Recycling and Utilization of Organic Municipal and
Agricultural Wastes,
6. Effect of Humic Substances on Biological Activity,
7. Role of Humic Substances in the Remediation of Degraded
Environments.
Information on the Conference are available from:
ihss@ozi.ar.wroc.pl
Best regards
Jerzy Weber
_____________________________________________________
Dr Jerzy Weber
Associate Professor
Agricultural University of Wroclaw,
Institute of Soil Science and
Agricultural Environment Protection,
Grunwaldzka 53, 50-357 Wroclaw, Poland
Fax:+48-71-224849 tel:+48-71-205631, +48-71-205632
weber@ozi.ar.wroc.pl
* * * * * * * * * * * *
<------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:53:36 +0100
From: Sverker Forsberg .<.Sverker.Forsberg@radek.slu.se.>.
Subject: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil
Hello all.
I wonder if anyone knows sources on how I would proceed to non-destructively
separate the organic fraction and the mineral fraction in a soil from each
other, in order to determine extractability of a metal (caesium and
strontium) in the different fractions?
Articles or people working with these matters would be most welcome, if
needed I can explain more about what it is I want.
Yours,
Sveker Forsberg
___________________________________
Sverker Forsberg, postgraduate student
Dept.of Radioecology
Swedish University of Agricultural University
email: Sverker.Forsberg@radek.slu.se Finger:Sverker@glader.radek.slu.se
(for public PGP key)
URL: http://www.radek.slu.se/
tel:+ 18-67 28 85
fax: + 18-67 28 86
Adress:P.O. Box 7031, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
___________________________________
<------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:51:22 EST5EDT
From: "HEATHER BURNHAM" .<.BURNHAM@cfr.cfr.ncsu.edu.>.
Subject:
Hello!
I am looking for information concerning minerals released from parent materials
present in the southeastern US and the rates of weathering of those minerals.
This information will be used to diagnose plant nutrient deficiencies
or excesses (eg., B, Cu, K) for Loblolly, Slash, and Longleaf pines
and to correct these problems for the attainment of maximum tree growth.
Thank you,
Heather M. Burnham
**********************************
HEATHER M. BURNHAM
RESEARCH ASSISTANT
NC STATE UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH ASSISTANT
FOREST NUTRITION COOPERATIVE
BOX 8008, RALEIGH, NC 27695
PHONE: (919) 515-3500
E-MAIL: BURNHAM@CFR.CFR.NCSU.EDU
FAX: (919) 515-6193
**********************************
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************
Contents: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil (pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au (Philip Clarke)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:50:29 +1030 (CST) From: pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au (Philip Clarke) Subject: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil Dear Sveker, (et al) > > I wonder if anyone knows sources on how I would proceed to non-destructively > separate the organic fraction and the mineral fraction in a soil from each > other, in order to determine extractability of a metal (caesium and > strontium) in the different fractions? > > Articles or people working with these matters would be most welcome, if > needed I can explain more about what it is I want. > One method I would suggest is perhaps, density separation in conjunction with ultrasonic agitation. Sic our papers on these (esp the first and fourth) Golchin et al 1994a Study of free and occuluded particulate orgainic matter in soil by solid-state 13C CPMAS NMR spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy, Australian Journal of Soil Science, 32, 285 - 309. Golchin et al 1994b Soil Structure and carbon cycling, AJSR, 32, 1043-1068 Golchin et al 1995a Structural and dynamic properties of soil organic matter as reflected by ... , AJSR, 33, 59-76. Golchin et al 1995b The effect of cultivation on the composition of organic matter and structural stability of soils. If you have any questions please dont hesitate on replying by email... Philip -- Dr. Philip Clarke, Soil Science, Waite Solid-State NMR Facility University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia, 5064 Ans/Fax 61(0)8 303 7399, Ph 303 7385 pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au URL http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/~pclarke <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil (jaartz@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (Joe Artz)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:52:59 -0600 From: jaartz@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (Joe Artz) Subject: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil Dr. Philip Clarke wrote >Golchin et al 1995b The effect of cultivation on the composition of >organic matter and structural stability of soils. > Could you provide place of publication, etc. for this reference? Thanks! <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil (pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au (Philip Clarke)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:43:00 +1030 (CST) From: pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au (Philip Clarke) Subject: Re: separating the organic an mineral fractions of soil > > Dr. Philip Clarke wrote > >Golchin et al 1995b The effect of cultivation on the composition of > >organic matter and structural stability of soils. > > > Could you provide place of publication, etc. for this reference? Thanks! > Oops sorry about that.... It was 42.5oC the day I wrote that, so I hope you can excuse me from being a bit fuzzy on that day? The paper above by Golchin et al. is in Aust. J. Soil Res. 1995, 33, p975-993. In the same journal as the other three papers. I hope you find them useful. Regards, Philip -- Dr. Philip Clarke, Soil Science, Waite Solid-State NMR Facility University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia, 5064 Ans/Fax 61(0)8 303 7399, Ph 303 7385 pclarke@waite.adelaide.edu.au URL http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/~pclarke <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: unsubscribe (Jeffrey Miller .<.jmiller@cce.cornell.edu.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:10:24 -0500 (EST) From: Jeffrey Miller .<.jmiller@cce.cornell.edu.>. Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe soils-l exit <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: unsubscribe (MANO869@aol.com) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 00:16:21 -0500 From: MANO869@aol.com Subject: Re: unsubscribe UNSUSCRIBE SOILS-L EXIT <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE (KITE@wvugeo.wvnet.edu) Re: UNSUBSCRIBE (Pilgrampl@aol.com) UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L (SteveK19@aol.com) Looking for collaborators (revisited) (Max Turner .<.M.Turner@massey.ac.nz.>.) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:53:19 -0500 (EST) From: KITE@wvugeo.wvnet.edu Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L EXIT <------------------------------>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:15:30 -0500 From: Pilgrampl@aol.com Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE I would like to talk with people that have started their own bioremedation companies... Thanks for your time Peter Lawrence <------------------------------>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:52:54 -0500 From: SteveK19@aol.com Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L <------------------------------>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 13:28:18 +1300 From: Max Turner .<.M.Turner@massey.ac.nz.>. Subject: Looking for collaborators (revisited) Dear Listers Last month I posted the message below to the list and received a very good response. To everyone who responded, I hope that you have received an acknowledgement from me. If you have not heard back please re-send your original message. Due to complications with our computer over the holiday period I believe I have lost one reply from a Professor in one of the mid-western Universities (possibly Michigan State) in which case I would be most grateful if he would be kind enough to email me again so that I can get back in contact with him. The offer still stands and I expect to have the project underway in the next month or so. So if you know of anyone else who would be interested I would welcome hearing from them. The original message is included below. >I am looking to identify a small group of Soil Science lecturers (especially in the >soil fertility/fertilisers/land use areas) from a number of different, english- >speaking countries. Probably some of the people I need to know are not even current >subscribers to this list, in which case you may be able to assist me by mentioning >this note to the appropriate person(s). >What I am looking to do is to offer these potential collaborators an opportunity to >participate in an exciting international educational opportunity (details of which I >am happy to elaborate upon once an expression of interest has been received). >I hope to make contact with a global group of soils lecturers who are as enamoured as >I am with the use of the computer as an educational tool. If you are of like mind then >please contact me and acquaint me with your interest in participating, together with >your skills and special area of expertise in Soil Science. For those with an interest >in cooperation, but who possess limited computer skills, I am prepared to do much of >the development work if your area of special interest is appropriate to the project; >so lack of computing skills need be no deterrent. >All told I hope to identify at least 10-12 enthusiastic lecturers, teaching students >at around the 300-400 level soils (ie students with at least some basic understanding >of how soils work) or at the post-graduate level, from a number of different countries >and climates. If this sounds interesting to you please take the time to contact me at >Massey University (in New Zealand). >I look forward to hearing from you if you wish to be involved. Sincerely Max Turner (Senior Lecturer in Soil Science) Please reply by email to: M.Turner@massey.ac.nz <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents: UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L (cedare@ritsec1.com.eg (cedare@ritsec1.com.eg)) <---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:06:08 +0200 From: cedare@ritsec1.com.eg (cedare@ritsec1.com.eg) Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L UNSUBSCRIBE SOILS-L > <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
Contents:
Soils of Bornholm (DK) (Alexander Ikinger .<.ikinger@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de.>.)
Re: unsubscribe ("Warren E. Clark" .<.ag-pr@agpr.com.>.)
Is this group serious ? (Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.)
Introduction to list (shaavig@ptialaska.net)
Re: Is this group serious ? (Kerryn Robinson .<.ROBINSONK@salty.agvic.gov.au.>.)
Re: Is this group serious ? (bwilson@waite.adelaide.edu.au)
Re: Is this group serious ? (Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.)
UNSUSCRIBE (fcolozza@julian.uwo.ca (Frank C. Colozza))
Are you serious - Rob? (ALMONDP@tui.lincoln.ac.nz)
Re: Is this group serious ? ("RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.)
Peter Almond (Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.)
speaking in tongues (Tony Hartshorn .<.ashartshorn@ucdavis.edu.>.)
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 11:40:01 CST
From: Alexander Ikinger .<.ikinger@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de.>.
Subject: Soils of Bornholm (DK)
Hallo soil specialists
I prepare an student-excursion to Bornholm (DK), so I need some
literature about the soils of Bornholm. Could anyone please give me
some information which literature exists.
Thanks for helping!
Dr. Alexander Ikinger
Dep. Geology
Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet
Duesseldorf
Universitaetsstrasse 1
D-40225 Duesseldorf Email: ikinger@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:05:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Warren E. Clark" .<.ag-pr@agpr.com.>.
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
At 11:26 PM 1/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>UNSUSCRIBE SOILS-L
To unsubscribe from soils-l send an e-mail message to:
listserv@unl.edu
In the message text type:
unsubscribe soils-l
Hope this helps.
Instructions on how to subscribe and unsubscribe to soils-l and more than 50
other ag-related mailing lists may be found on our web site. The address is
listed below in my signature block.
Best wishes...
Warren E. Clark, President
Clark Consulting International, Inc.
14N921 Lac Du Beatrice
West Dundee, IL 60118-3115, USA
Tel: +1-847-836-5100, Fax: +1-847-836-5140, E-mail: ag-pr@agpr.com
"The Gateway to AgInfo on the Internet" web site:
http://www.agpr.com/consulting/
**Providing worldwide agricultural public relations and marketing services
consulting**
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 09:38:54 EST
From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
Subject: Is this group serious ?
Hello Fellow Soil Scientists !
I subscribed to this list server last week. Since then I have received
several messages from the server, of which (with only two exceptions) all
have been unsubscribe messages from others. This raises two questions:
1. Why are people finding thlist so unsatisfactory ?; and
2. Why do the unsubscribe messages get sent to rest of us ? - presumably a
fault in the way the server has been set up.
Surely this server is designed to generate a bit of soil-debate ? For the
hell of being contentious, lets start the ball rolling:
People engaged in soil classification would have us believe that their
particular area of expertise aids communication. International journals have
been hood-winked by this contention since one is required to give a USDA (or
some other classification) definition of whatever soil one has been working
with, when submitting papers. But who, other than the soil classifiers and
pedologists, understand this jargon ? More top the point, who uses it
routinely ? For example, how many soil chemists can truthfully tell me what
the characteristics of a typic fragiaqualf are ? How many soil scientists
believe that the P sorption characteristics of all typic fragiaqualfs are
the same ? How many fertilizer advisors believe that the S requirements of
pastures grown on all typic fragiaqualfs will be the same ? I contend that
most people will do what I do and "turn to Table 1" to find out the salient
features of the soil being described in a paper, and I'll bet that most also
find providing the USDA name for their pet soil a considerable hindrance
when publishing their work - after all, there aren't many people around who
can tell them what the "correct" name should be.
But hang on ! Who are we doing this work for ? Who are our clients ? Do
farmers care what the name of their soil is ? Certainly not ! They want to
know what its properties are and how they could optimally manage it - and in
that, they want to know about the soil on their farm, not some generalised
descriptor that might be roughly applicable to the soils covering several
tens of thousands of hectares. And even if they did want a name for thier
soil, would they use words like "typic fragiaqualf" ?
Come on pedologists, lift your game !
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
---------------------------
Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax: 077-538650
Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:24:31 -0900
From: shaavig@ptialaska.net
Subject: Introduction to list
I am Steven Haavig, Environmental Consultant with 20 years of experience in
environmental control in southeast Alaska. I am working with Smith, Bayliss and
LeResche, an environmental engineering firm in Juneau AK. More information can
be found on the world wide web at http://www.ptialaska.net/~rbayliss
I work with UST site assessments and closures as well as contaminated sites not
regulated by UST. I design and direct the construction of bioremediation cells
for treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons.
New UST regulations adopted by the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
require the use of a FID or PID to field screen the excavtion. These
instruments are not very reliable in the cool damp climate found here. We also
have a problem flying flammable/compressed gas for calibration to remote sites.
Does anyone have any knowledge of any other methods to field screen contaminated
soils at clean up sites? We are trying to find something that will work for
diesel as well as gasoline. I wondering if a visual examination under a
microscope has ever been successful. The clean up matrix ranges from 50-1,000
ppm GRO, to 100-2,000 ppm DRO. We take confirmatory samples for laboratory
analysis at the sites.
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 11:43:32 +0000
From: Kerryn Robinson .<.ROBINSONK@salty.agvic.gov.au.>.
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
Hello Dr Bramley
I appreciate your point about the classification systems. As an
undergraduate, I was expected to know and be conversant in the two
Australian classification systems as well as the USDA soil
classification systems. I don't routinely use any of them, but
another locally applicable one.
However, how do soil scientists overcome this problem?
Each has classification system has its own merits and demerits.
And from what I've seen, Australian soils don't seem to easily
fit into those from OS. I presume, soils from other countries
have similar problems.
Any suggestions?
One I have is that soils journals should stop being so parochial, and
require a more formal description of the soil/s being studied. Long
winded I know, but of perhaps more benefit in the international
exchange of information.
Any one else?
Kerryn Robinson
Department of Agriculture, Victoria Australia.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:38:27 -0600
From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
Subject: Is this group serious ?
To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>.
Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu
Hello Fellow Soil Scientists !
I subscribed to this list server last week. Since then I have received
several messages from the server, of which (with only two exceptions) all
have been unsubscribe messages from others. This raises two questions:
1. Why are people finding thlist so unsatisfactory ?; and
2. Why do the unsubscribe messages get sent to rest of us ? - presumably a
fault in the way the server has been set up.
Surely this server is designed to generate a bit of soil-debate ? For the
hell of being contentious, lets start the ball rolling:
People engaged in soil classification would have us believe that their
particular area of expertise aids communication. International journals have
been hood-winked by this contention since one is required to give a USDA (or
some other classification) definition of whatever soil one has been working
with, when submitting papers. But who, other than the soil classifiers and
pedologists, understand this jargon ? More top the point, who uses it
routinely ? For example, how many soil chemists can truthfully tell me what
the characteristics of a typic fragiaqualf are ? How many soil scientists
believe that the P sorption characteristics of all typic fragiaqualfs are
the same ? How many fertilizer advisors believe that the S requirements of
pastures grown on all typic fragiaqualfs will be the same ? I contend that
most people will do what I do and "turn to Table 1" to find out the salient
features of the soil being described in a paper, and I'll bet that most also
find providing the USDA name for their pet soil a considerable hindrance
when publishing their work - after all, there aren't many people around who
can tell them what the "correct" name should be.
But hang on ! Who are we doing this work for ? Who are our clients ? Do
farmers care what the name of their soil is ? Certainly not ! They want to
know what its properties are and how they could optimally manage it - and in
that, they want to know about the soil on their farm, not some generalised
descriptor that might be roughly applicable to the soils covering several
tens of thousands of hectares. And even if they did want a name for thier
soil, would they use words like "typic fragiaqualf" ?
Come on pedologists, lift your game !
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
---------------------------
Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax: 077-538650
Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:01:47 -1400
From: bwilson@waite.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
As far as I'm concerned it is impossible to classify into groups something
which does not occur in discrete segments. Soils form as a continuum from
one soil forming region to another, they are not like life species where it
is (usually always) clear which group one animal/plant belongs to. When I
must describe a soil to colleague/farmer/student I describe the relevent
soil properties. This may take longer but it is always understood. The only
use I have for classification systems is to teach undergraduates about soil
properties and soil description, and to show how difficult it is to apply
hard and fast names to an extremely complex and dynamic natural system.
Please don't "flame" me but give your view to the group
Benjamin Wilson
Dept of Soil Science
University of Adelaide
PMB1 Glen Osmond
South Australia 5064
Australia
ph +61 8 3036518
fax +61 8 3036511
>
>Hello Fellow Soil Scientists !
>
>I subscribed to this list server last week. Since then I have received
>several messages from the server, of which (with only two exceptions) all
>have been unsubscribe messages from others. This raises two questions:
>
>1. Why are people finding thlist so unsatisfactory ?; and
>
>2. Why do the unsubscribe messages get sent to rest of us ? - presumably a
>fault in the way the server has been set up.
>
>Surely this server is designed to generate a bit of soil-debate ? For the
>hell of being contentious, lets start the ball rolling:
>
>People engaged in soil classification would have us believe that their
>particular area of expertise aids communication. International journals have
>been hood-winked by this contention since one is required to give a USDA (or
>some other classification) definition of whatever soil one has been working
>with, when submitting papers. But who, other than the soil classifiers and
>pedologists, understand this jargon ? More top the point, who uses it
>routinely ? For example, how many soil chemists can truthfully tell me what
>the characteristics of a typic fragiaqualf are ? How many soil scientists
>believe that the P sorption characteristics of all typic fragiaqualfs are
>the same ? How many fertilizer advisors believe that the S requirements of
>pastures grown on all typic fragiaqualfs will be the same ? I contend that
>most people will do what I do and "turn to Table 1" to find out the salient
>features of the soil being described in a paper, and I'll bet that most also
>find providing the USDA name for their pet soil a considerable hindrance
>when publishing their work - after all, there aren't many people around who
>can tell them what the "correct" name should be.
>
>But hang on ! Who are we doing this work for ? Who are our clients ? Do
>farmers care what the name of their soil is ? Certainly not ! They want to
>know what its properties are and how they could optimally manage it - and in
>that, they want to know about the soil on their farm, not some generalised
>descriptor that might be roughly applicable to the soils covering several
>tens of thousands of hectares. And even if they did want a name for thier
>soil, would they use words like "typic fragiaqualf" ?
>
>Come on pedologists, lift your game !
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------
>Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
>CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
>
>Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax:
077-538650
>
>Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------
>
>
>
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 11:47:26 EST
From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
Benjamin Wilson is spot on !
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
---------------------------
Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax: 077-538650
Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:52:51 -0500 (EST)
From: fcolozza@julian.uwo.ca (Frank C. Colozza)
Subject: UNSUSCRIBE
UNSUSCRIBE Soils-l
Frank C. Colozza
____________________________
e-mail: fcolozza@julian.uwo.ca
Telephone: (519) 858-0242
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:10:35 +1300
From: ALMONDP@tui.lincoln.ac.nz
Subject: Are you serious - Rob?
After being forwarded Rob Bramley's recent contribution to this group I
felt compelled to join up and respond. My name is Peter Almond from the
Department of Soil Science at Lincoln University, New Zealand. My area
of expertise is in soil-landform relationships, soil geomorphology and
Quaternary geology.
Dear Rob
So what is the applicability of your work on the P sorption of the soil
in Table 1? You denigrate the attempts of people who try to draw
together soils with similarities they have seen from very wide national
or international experience of soils and yet are you willing to repeat
the same experiments on soil 2 in the next paddock or next valley? No
you will have moved on to another interesting chemistry problem on your
pet soil. The
problem lies not in pedologists and their funny languages but with
chemists with "Soil" in front of their title who are unwilling to invest
a small amount of time in learning the basics of a classification
system. The detail is laid out in a book called "Key to Soil Taxonomy"
in the case of the USDA system.
Were you in the biological field and were unwilling to learn the
taxonomy of plants or animals and could not cope with Latin names you
would not be given any credence. Be thankful that soil scientists are
more generous.
A point that you fail to realise because you have not taken the time to
learn about soil classification is that most systems are hierarchical
i.e. in the name typic fragiaqualf is embodied classification at the
order (ALFisol), suborder (Alfisol with an AQUic moisture regime), great
group (aqualf with a FRAGipan) and subgroup (a TYPical one). These
classes can be further subdivided into families, series, and phases
depending on the level of subdivision of the soil continuum appropriate
to your purpose or your clients (soil series and phases have user
friendly names eg Lismore silt loam very stony phase).
We, pedologists particularly, are all aware of soil variability ( I
think your PhD dealt with some aspects of this). Its existence is not a
reason to abandon all efforts to recognise similarities and differences
in soils. The challenge is to recognise the sorts of properties which
1. should be used as differentiae for classes
2. can be inferred from classes and with what confidence (accessory
properties
3. are so variable they cannot be included in a morphologically based
soil classification.
To be contentious I suggest that there are other people in our very
broad discipline who need to get their house in order before urging
pedologists to do so.
Peter Almond
Soil Science Dept
P.O. Box 84
Lincoln University
Canterbury
New Zealand
ph 064 3 325 2811 xtn 8209
fax 064 3 325 3607
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:56:10 GMT+1000
From: "RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
Hey,
Is this getting exciting ? Anyway, Ben Wilson, soils are not always a
continuum. There are some extremely discrete soils with albeit fuzzy
edges and some messy complexes which are hard to map but nevertheless
can fall neatly into a "central concept" of a "soil type" provided
the accepted range of properties is broad. I agree that soil classification is
not the only pursuit of pedologists. Soil description and
interpretation of soil morphological features, as carried out in the
field, is a major occupation for a soil scientist as you say. However
we are not only required to communicate with farmers and the language
of classification that has grown and mutated over the last 100 years
is an expression of that endeavour.
Histic placcaquod to the lot of you !
The closest we have come in Australia to bridging the gap
between classification and field property interpretation, is, dare I
say it (?), The Factual Key. What a pity we are now compounding the
polarisation between 'pedologists' and 'other soil scientists' by
introducing a further system into the arena and including overlapping
terminology and definition with USDA soil taxonomy.(sorry Ray, Bernie
and all you other New Australian Classificationists).
Regards
******************************
Richard MacEwan, School of Science
University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, BALLARAT 3353 AUS
Phone: 053 279221 Fax: 053 279240
"If you're smart or rich or lucky, you may beat the laws of man.
But the inner laws of spirit and the outer laws of nature no man can."
(Joni Mitchell - The Wolf that Lives in Lindsay)
##########
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:36:06 EST
From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
Subject: Peter Almond
One of the very sensible things that CSIRO has done recently is to outlaw
offensive or personally directed e-mail messgaes of the sort sent out by
Peter Almond. So I am going to ignore much of what Peter has said; it seems
that I struck a raw nerve however, which will say rather a lot to most
readers ofhis message. However, I'll respond to some points:
>So what is the applicability of your work on the P sorption of the soil
>in Table 1?
The applicability is that if we understand about the rate and magnitude of
the reaction between P and soil, we can make some sensible decisions about
how much P fertilizer to apply in order to use the soil in a sustainable
fashion, without risking large losses downstream (if the soil is readily
erodible). And yes, of course one wants to group soils with similar P
reaction characteristics, but I have yet to see evidence that the
pedologists spade produces a useful surrogate for this. Ergo the need to
measure it.
>You denigrate the attempts of people who try to draw
>together soils with similarities they have seen from very wide national
>or international experience of soils and yet are you willing to repeat
>the same experiments on soil 2 in the next paddock or next valley? No
>you will have moved on to another interesting chemistry problem on your
>pet soil. The
>problem lies not in pedologists and their funny languages but with
>chemists with "Soil" in front of their title who are unwilling to invest
>a small amount of time in learning the basics of a classification
>system. The detail is laid out in a book called "Key to Soil Taxonomy"
>in the case of the USDA system.
I certainly do not denigrate their effort, but do question the outcomes from
that effort - there is a difference ! As to using "Key to Soil Taxonomy",
apparently the USDA system is largely inapplicable in Australia (hence the
new classification refered to by Richard MacEwan) and I had thought that it
was also inapplicable in NZ too - aren't Andosols a problem ?; Hasn't NZ
just adopted a new scheme too ? So what wonderful communicators you
pedologists are - you invent your own systems, thereby preventing anyone
unfamiliar with it from making use of it. This is no doubt one reason why
sugar cane farmers in N Queensland, for example, use terms like "spew", "red
sand" and "grey loam" to describe their soils. They know what such terms
mean, and moreover, can easily explain them to others.
>Were you in the biological field and were unwilling to learn the
>taxonomy of plants or animals and could not cope with Latin names you
>would not be given any credence. Be thankful that soil scientists are
>more generous.
But are they ? They clearly are not very good at talking to each other.
Note also that biological classification only has one system, rather than
the myriad confronting soil scientists.
Interesting that Peter ignored my question about clients ? Who are you
classifying this soil for ? Wouldn't it be wise to think about that before
berating people who have not learned your particular system. That the
majority of soil scientists do not use classification systems routinely
speaks volumes does it not ?
I stand by my earlier remarks.
By the way, Peter, long time, no see - how's it going ?
Rob
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
---------------------------
Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax: 077-538650
Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------
<------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:39:51 -0800
From: Tony Hartshorn .<.ashartshorn@ucdavis.edu.>.
Subject: speaking in tongues
Hi folks:
I think soils journals could actually improve the ability of third parties
to use published data for cross-site comparisons by defining a standard
soils dataset form. I am in the process of assembling soils data
associated with root datasets; our team is mining the literature and our
task would be *considerably* simplified if soils-related investigators
adopted a standard format for not only presenting essential "Table 1" data
(e.g., not only a single pH, but the method used, the depth from which the
sample was taken) but also adopted a standard means of archiving the data so
that data requests down the road wouldn't fall on deaf ears. (It's 3 years
later... do you know where your data are?)
>... soils journals should stop being so parochial, and
>require a more formal description of the soil/s being studied. Long
>winded I know, but of perhaps more benefit in the international
>exchange of information.
As far as the classification debate goes, my hope is still that I'll be able
to pull average physical and chemical parameter values from just the
'jargony' soil series. This would serve as a first approximation until we
track down soils data linked to the same hole or a hole closer to where the
root data came from.
>People engaged in soil classification would have us believe that their
>particular area of expertise aids communication. International journals have
>been hood-winked by this contention since one is required to give a USDA (or
>some other classification) definition of whatever soil one has been working
>with, when submitting papers. But who, other than the soil classifiers and
>pedologists, understand this jargon ? More to the point, who uses it
>routinely ?
snip
>Do
>farmers care what the name of their soil is ? Certainly not ! They want to
>know what its properties are and how they could optimally manage it - and in
>that, they want to know about the soil on their farm, not some generalised
>descriptor that might be roughly applicable to the soils covering several
>tens of thousands of hectares. And even if they did want a name for thier
>soil, would they use words like "typic fragiaqualf" ?
I'm not a farmer... but this comes across as slightly patronizing. If these
jargony terms intimidate, doesn't that reflect poorly on the soil scientists
responsible for explaining the code? The fact is, there are a lot of people
learning new things about soils all the time and unless there's a common
language to share this information, much of this knowledge would never move
beyond a particular soils classification's jurisdiction.
............................................................................
Tony Hartshorn ashartshorn@ucdavis.edu
3347 Chesapeake Bay 916.750.3484 h
Davis CA 95616-2607 916.752.4131 lab
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************
Contents:
Soil classification (Jon Cox .<.pdn@odi.org.uk.>.)
Re: Introduction to list (KSKgeos@aol.com)
Re[2]: Is this group serious ? (.<.Pat_Coyle@csgcalchem.ccmail.compuserve.com.>.)
introduction (Edward Weiss .<.eweiss@cnu.edu.>.)
Re: the great pedological debate (Dean Stewart .<.STEWARTD@tui.lincoln.ac.nz.>.)
Re: Is this group serious ? (John Tatarko .<.jt@weru.ksu.edu.>.)
Re: Soil classification ("RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.)
Re: the great pedological debate (Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.)
<---------------------------------------------------------------------->
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:12:34 +0000
From: Jon Cox .<.pdn@odi.org.uk.>.
Subject: Soil classification
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
I agree fully with the thrust of this debate. Pedologists have
created an 'exclusive' club of people who know the right terms.
All well and good if the terms are worth knowing, but in the case
of soil taxonomy they are not. The point worth reiterating is that
any sensible application of taxonomical soil classifications in the
real world is a non-starter - the prime reason being the inappropr-
-ateness of most qualitative classification systems to quantitative
interpretation.
A couple of years ago I was doing a PhD on soil erosion in semi-arid
Botswana. Part of the work involved predicting soil erodibility using
only secondary data sources. In the case of soil maps, this involves
attempting to 'quantify the legend' by ascribing actual soil properties
(in my case clay percentage) to soil classes. This I did by comparing
the soil classification at individual points to analytical data in the
Botswanan soil survey database. Based on 375 profiles, my predictable
conclusion was that soil texture could not be predicted in any reliable
manner from mapping unit codes. Much of this seemed to be explained by
the taxonomical reliance on soil genesis - rather than specific soil
properties. Diagnostic horizons may be good for taxonomists, but they
are a bit of a red herring for anyone else. Take the case of two
calcic luvisols - one overlying basic rock with a surface clay content of
around 35%, the other over acid rocks with a clay content of 8%.
Whoever made the point about the parochial nature of soil journals is
spot on. I have been reliably informed that a rigorous, scientific paper on
these issues will not be particularly welcome in any of the mainstream
organs.
__________________________________________________________
Dr Jonathan Cox
Overseas Development Institute
Regent's College, Inner Circle, Regent's Park
London NW1 4NS, UK.
Fax +44 171 487 7590, Tel +44 171 487 7413
e-mail pdn@odi.org.uk, j.cox@lshtm.ac.uk
_________________________________________________________
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:37:31 -0500
From: KSKgeos@aol.com
Subject: Re: Introduction to list
Steven;
I have specialized in groundwater and soil investigation and remediation here
in Vermont for the past 13 years, with a particular emphasis on petroleum
hydrocarbon impact from UST and AST releases. Having lived in a number of
different Alaskan locales for several years - 1977 - 1980 - I find that the
climate here in Vermont is not unlike that in central Alaska.
We routinely employ both PIDs and FIDs for field screening of gasoline, fuel
oil #2, and diesel fuel impacted soils with very good results. Threshholds
for soil segregation and treatment in Vermont have been lowered for fuel oil
#2 and for diesel due to the lower VOC constituent base in the products as
compared to gasoline; i.e. - 20 ppm for gasoline, and 10 ppm for fuel oil #2
and diesel are the limits. Concentrations above these limits mandate soil
segregation and treatment.
I can understand where transport of calibration gases by air could pose a
problem due to the relative lack of a roadway infrastructure and the vast
country you have up there. I don't have any suggestions in that regard, nor
do I know of a more satisfactory field-screening method, although the field
microscope method you mentioned sounds like it may have merit. I know that I
have always become much more frustrated with FIDs than with PIDs in high
moisture situations.
How about Millipore's immunoassay kits? I haven't used them, because of their
higher cost, relative to a fixed assett PID, and because they are not
required in Vermont, but it sounds like they may be applicable to your
situation. I know that they can be set up specifically for BTEX constituents
I don't know how well the results will correlate with laboratory analyses,
but PID and FID screening rarely yields a satisfactory correlation with most
lab analyses, so you do your best with the tools at hand.
One problem we have come across is the inconsistency in regards to results
when screening the same soils with different PIDs. We did a comparison of
different instruments and came up with some correlative formulae. Also, the
Maine DEP did some testing and assigned threshhold levels specific to
different PID manufacturers. If your interested, check the following
articles:
Hoffer, J.P., K.S. Koptiuch, & R.L. Parker, "Field & Bench Scale Comparisons
of Photoionization Detectors," Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Eastern
Regional Groundwater Issues," Burlington, Vermont, October 3-5, 1994, NGWA,
Dublin, Ohio.
Wallace, B., R. Peale, & F. Lavallee, "Establishing Calibration Set Points
for Selected Photoionization Detectors (PIDs) for Use at Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Sites," Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of
Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Control.Proceedings, "Remediation of
Petroleum-Contaminated Sites in Maine, 1994 Conference," Augusta, Maine,
April 28, 1994.
I can provide you with copies if you have no other way of securing them.
Also, I would be very interested in securing a copy of Alaska's new UST
regulations if you could point me in the right direction.
Let me know what direction you choose to follow in addressing this problem.
Sincerely,
Kent Koptiuch, CGWP #449
Principal Geologist
KENT S. KOPTIUCH, Inc. Geo-Environmental Services
164 Osgood Hill
Essex, VT 05452
802-878-1620
KSKGeoS@aol.com
<------------------------------>
Date: 30 Jan 96 09:49:22 EST
From: .<.Pat_Coyle@csgcalchem.ccmail.compuserve.com.>.
Subject: Re[2]: Is this group serious ?
I'm sorry, but as an outsider I can't help but put my two cents worth
in. I have been doing literature searches in various soil journals for the last
couple of months for a project I am working on. I am an organic chemist with a
chemical manufacturer, so I know nothing about the taxonomy of soils. I had
assumed that references to a soil type in the articles that I was reading had
some sort of relationship to a description that, if not universally accepted,
was at least readily understood by people working in the discipline.
Organic chemistry has been beset with this 'naming' problem for most of
its history; we have common names, IUPAC names, as well as product names. It
seems to me that even with this plethora of names, one can read a paper in an
organic journal and understand what the compounds being discussed are. When
there is ambiguity, it is resolved by presenting the chemical formula in an
appropriate format.
When we talk about a chemical we normally refer to it by a single name,
even though we seldom deal with absolutely pure chemicals. When a contaminant is
important to the reaction process it is identified. When we don't know what
types of contaminants might be important we refer to the method or source of the
material used in our experiments.
It seems to me that the more information provided in a piece of
scientific literature, the more meaningful to others that piece becomes. If a
simplified description of a general soil type is adequate to the discussion,
great. If the differences between two soil samples is important; than an in
depth discussion of those differences is an absolute requirement.
Please, as an outsider who is having to use the information that you
publish, let us keep in mind that communication of results is the reason for
journal articles. The author has a responsibility to insure that he is
communicating the relevant details in a manner accessible to the audience.
Patrick Coyle
Research Chemist
Custom Specialty Chemicals Group
Callaway Chemical Company
All thoughts expressed are my fault.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
Author: INTERNET:RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au at CSERVE
Date: 1/30/96 12:11 AM
Sender: root@crcnis1.unl.edu
Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu (crcnis1.unl.edu [129.93.1.19]) by
dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id AAA28189; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:07:29 -0500
Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA01126
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pat_coyle@csgcalchem.ccmail.compuserve.com); Mon, 29
Jan 1996 22:57:51 -0600
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:57:51 -0600
Message-Id: .<.1E81A51A7F@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.
Originator: soils-l@unl.edu
Errors-To: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu
Reply-To: .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>.
Sender: soils-l@unl.edu
Version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas
From: "RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.
To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>.
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
Hey,
Is this getting exciting ? Anyway, Ben Wilson, soils are not always a
continuum. There are some extremely discrete soils with albeit fuzzy
edges and some messy complexes which are hard to map but nevertheless
can fall neatly into a "central concept" of a "soil type" provided
the accepted range of properties is broad. I agree that soil classification
is
not the only pursuit of pedologists. Soil description and
interpretation of soil morphological features, as carried out in the
field, is a major occupation for a soil scientist as you say. However
we are not only required to communicate with farmers and the language
of classification that has grown and mutated over the last 100 years
is an expression of that endeavour.
Histic placcaquod to the lot of you !
The closest we have come in Australia to bridging the gap
between classification and field property interpretation, is, dare I
say it (?), The Factual Key. What a pity we are now compounding the
polarisation between 'pedologists' and 'other soil scientists' by
introducing a further system into the arena and including overlapping
terminology and definition with USDA soil taxonomy.(sorry Ray, Bernie
and all you other New Australian Classificationists).
Regards
******************************
Richard MacEwan, School of Science
University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, BALLARAT 3353 AUS
Phone: 053 279221 Fax: 053 279240
"If you're smart or rich or lucky, you may beat the laws of man.
But the inner laws of spirit and the outer laws of nature no man can."
(Joni Mitchell - The Wolf that Lives in Lindsay)
##########
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:46:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Edward Weiss .<.eweiss@cnu.edu.>.
Subject: introduction
Greetings!
I'm Edward Weiss. I am an associate professor of biology at Christopher
Newport University in Newport News, VA. I teach a general soils course
that is taken by students interested in ornamental horticulture and
environmental science. This course tries to cover the basic topics so
that students come away with an understanding and appreciation of the
complexity, diversity, and dynamism of soils. I look forward to the
group's discussions on all soil topics, especiall those related to the
teaching of these ideas.
Thanks.
<------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:18:15 +1300
From: Dean Stewart .<.STEWARTD@tui.lincoln.ac.nz.>.
Subject: Re: the great pedological debate
I'm surprised at Rob Bramley's response to Peter Almonds email. If I
recall correctly, Rob was trying to stimulate some debate by his original
message. Now it seems Rob is only interested in 'debate' that agrees
with his opinion. Peter Almonds response, while disagreeing with
Rob, was neither personal nor offensive. Now lets stop mud slinging
and get back to the great pedological debate.....
Dean Stewart
AgResearch
Lincoln
New Zealand
<------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:19:55 -0600 (CST)
From: John Tatarko .<.jt@weru.ksu.edu.>.
Subject: Re: Is this group serious ?
> From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
> For example, how many soil chemists can truthfully tell me what
> the characteristics of a typic fragiaqualf are ?
I am a soil scientist working in the area of wind erosion, not a
pedologist. But I did learn the basics of soil classification back in
college. So, having taken the time to learn the system, I have a
much better idea of the characteristics of a typic fragiaqualf, than
referring to it as a "whatits" silt loam.
> How many soil scientists
> believe that the P sorption characteristics of all typic fragiaqualfs are
> the same ? How many fertilizer advisors believe that the S requirements of
> pastures grown on all typic fragiaqualfs will be the same ?
I would say NONE believe that who understand the classification
system. A calssification system is just that, a system to group
similar "objects" together. It is not intended to completely
characterize or quantify all the properties of a soil.
> I contend that
> most people will do what I do and "turn to Table 1" to find out the salient
> features of the soil being described in a paper,
Yes, Table 1 will provide more information, but Table 1 is not usually
found in the abstract. I can look in an abstract and quickly find out
if the soil in the journal article is similar or not to the one I might
be working with and proceed accordingly.
> and I'll bet that most also
> find providing the USDA name for their pet soil a considerable hindrance
> when publishing their work - after all, there aren't many people around who
> can tell them what the "correct" name should be.
Not for those who have taken time to learn a little about the system.
If I can't classify a soil, I know where to go, to get it classified.
> But hang on ! Who are we doing this work for ? Who are our clients ?
For scientific journals, it is other scientists.
> Do farmers care what the name of their soil is ? Certainly not !
Some of them do! Some of them have even taken time to understand
the soil classification system as it applies to their soils. But most
just let the scientists interpret the scientific journals and tell them
how to manage it through more popular articles and bulletins.
> They want to
> know what its properties are and how they could optimally manage it - and in
> that, they want to know about the soil on their farm,
Yes, this is what they want, but how do they get it? Are you prepared
to propose a system to completely describe all properties, for each soil,
on each farm? :)
> not some generalised
> descriptor that might be roughly applicable to the soils covering several
> tens of thousands of hectares.
Like a "whatits" silt loam ;)
> And even if they did want a name for thier
> soil, would they use words like "typic fragiaqualf" ?
A soil by any other name would smell as sweet.
>
> Come on pedologists, lift your game !
Game??
Thanks,
John
John Tatarko | jt@weru.ksu.edu
USDA-ARS Wind Erosion Research Unit | WWW URL: http://www.weru.ksu.edu
Throckmorton Hall, KSU | phone: (913) 532-6720
Manhattan, KS 66506 | fax: (913) 532-6528
<------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:27:17 GMT+1000
From: "RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.RJM@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.
Subject: Re: Soil classification
Jon has just provided a very good case for Northcote's factual key
(extended). The relevant section of his message is included below.
From: Jon Cox .<.pdn@odi.org.uk.>.
To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>.
Subject: Soil classification
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
A couple of years ago I was doing a PhD on soil erosion in semi-arid
Botswana. Part of the work involved predicting soil erodibility using
only secondary data sources. In the case of soil maps, this involves
attempting to 'quantify the legend' by ascribing actual soil properties
(in my case clay percentage) to soil classes. This I did by comparing
the soil classification at individual points to analytical data in the
Botswanan soil survey database. Based on 375 profiles, my predictable
conclusion was that soil texture could not be predicted in any reliable
manner from mapping unit codes.
******************************
Richard MacEwan, School of Science
University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, BALLARAT 3353 AUS
Phone: 053 279221 Fax: 053 279240
"If you're smart or rich or lucky, you may beat the laws of man.
But the inner laws of spirit and the outer laws of nature no man can."
(Joni Mitchell - The Wolf that Lives in Lindsay)
##########
<------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 08:34:53 EST
From: Rob Bramley .<.Rob.Bramley@tvl.tcp.csiro.au.>.
Subject: Re: the great pedological debate
Dean Stewart
:
>I'm surprised at Rob Bramley's response to Peter Almonds email. If I
>recall correctly, Rob was trying to stimulate some debate by his original
>message.
Correct
>Now it seems Rob is only interested in 'debate' that agrees
>with his opinion.
Not correct
>Now lets stop mud slinging and get back to the great pedological debate.....
Good idea ! At least we are having a debate rather than a string of
"unsubscribe" messages. How about someone else floating a few ideas for
discussion ?
Rob Bramley
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
---------------------------
Dr Rob Bramley, Senior Research Scientist - Soil and Environmental Chemistry.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Davies Laboratory, Townsville.
Post: PMB Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia. Tel: 077-538591 Fax: 077-538650
Email: Rob.Bramley@tvl.soils.csiro.au
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------
<------------------------------>
End of Digest
************************