1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 22

February 2003

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(http://soils.usda.gov/). Click on NCSS,

then on Activities & Newsletters, and

then on the desired issue number.

You are invited to submit stories for

future issues of this newsletter to

Stanley Anderson, National Soil Survey

Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Phone—

402-437-5357; FAX—402-437-5336;

email—

stan.anderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Ground-penetrating radar trace pattern identifying a subsurface water table. Units of measure

are in feet. The depth scale is exaggerated.

The Suitability of U.S.

Soils for GroundPenetrating Radar

Applications

By Sharon W. Waltman, Soil Scientist,

NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln,

Nebraska.

A map developed by National Soil Survey Center (NSSC)

staff identifies areas of the

conterminous United States where

ground-penetrating radar (GPR)

applications involving the upper meter

of the soil are likely to be successful.

The map provides field investigators

with a broad overview of the dominant

soil properties that affect radar signal

attenuation and depth of penetration

and shows the relative effectiveness of

GPR applications within broadly

defined areas. The NSSC staff

developed a poster that includes this

map, an explanation of how the map

was made, and an example of a more

detailed county map based on USDANRCS soil geographic databases

(STATSGO and SSURGO).

James Doolittle, Research Soil

Scientist, presented the poster and gave

a keynote presentation on this work at

the Ninth International Conference on

Ground Penetrating Radar held in Santa

Barbara, California, April 29 to May 2,

2002. The audience responded to this

presentation in an overwhelmingly

positive manner. Many academics,

geophysicists, geophysical consultants,

and engineers expressed interest in the

map of the United States. After close

scrutiny of the map, many expressed

satisfaction and noted that the map was

true to their experiences. Geophysical

scientists from the USGS were

impressed and inquired if the Soil

The Suitability of U.S. Soils for

Ground-Penetrating Radar

Applications ................................... 1

Taking Soil Survey Pictures

Using Digital Cameras ................... 3

Cold Soil Data Available on CD ......... 4

Soil Data Can Contribute to Golf

Course Design, Construction,

and Maintenance ............................ 4

USDA NRCS Soil Survey

Laboratory Data Quality ................ 5

Review of The Skeptical

Environmentalist ............................ 7

A Note on “40-Odd Sonatas”.............. 7

Soil Taxonomy Forum ........................ 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

Onsite measurement by means of ground-penetrating radar.

Survey Division could develop a map

for the upper 2 meters of the soil.

Specialists from the FBI expressed

interest in forensic applications, and

specialists from the Department of

Defense expressed interest in

applications related to unexploded

ordnance.

Based on recommendations from

this meeting, additional work was

added for detailed mapping and a

second poster was developed for

presentation at the 2002 International

ESRI (Environmental Systems

Research Institute) User Conference

held in San Diego, California, July 8-

12, 2002. Fred Minzenmayer and

Sharon Waltman, NRCS Soil Scientists,

entered the poster in the “Map Gallery,”

in the category “Best Cartographic

Design for a Single Map Product.” The

poster was awarded a blue ribbon by

the panel of judges. It will be published

in the 2003 ESRI Map Book. Ellis

Benham, Research Soil Scientist, and

Tammy (Nepple) Umholtz, Visual

Information Specialist, made significant

contributions to the posters and to a

paper describing this project. The final

version of the paper has been submitted

for publication in a special issue of

Journal of Environmental and

Engineering Geophysics. For additional

information, contact Sharon Waltman

(sharon.waltman@usda.gov).

The posters can be viewed on the

Soils Web site (http://soils.usda.gov/

research/results/posters/gpr_soil.pdf)

and on the 2002 ESRI Map Library

Web site (http://gallery.dcse.com/

map_library/). At the ESRI site, search

for map ID 20075.

The abstract for the paper is given

below.

Abstract

The performance of groundpenetrating radar (GPR) is dependent

upon the electrical conductivity of soils.

Soils having high electrical

conductivity rapidly attenuate radar

energy, restrict penetration depths, and

severely limit the effectiveness of GPR.

Factors influencing the electrical

conductivity of soils include the amount

and type of salts in solution and the clay

content. Data on the clay and soluble

salt contents of soils were used to

develop thematic maps showing at

different scales the relative suitability

of soils for GPR applications. The

United States Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS),

bases these maps on field experience

and soil attribute data contained in the

State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) and

the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)

databases. Attribute data used to

determine the suitability of soils include

clay content, electrical conductivity,

sodium adsorption ratio, and calcium

carbonate content. Each soil attribute

was rated and assigned a value ranging

from 1 to 10. These attribute values

were summed, and the most limiting

(maximum) layer indices within depths

of 1.0 or 1.25 m were selected to

represent soil components. The

dominant component value was

selected as the GPR suitability index

for each map unit. The GPR indices are

displayed in graduated color maps. The

STATSGO database was used to

produce the “Ground-Penetrating Radar

Soil Suitability Map of the

Conterminous United States.” This map

can be used to assess the relative

appropriateness of GPR for soil

investigations within comparatively

large areas of the conterminous

United States. The SSURGO database,

which contains the most detailed level

of soil mapping and information

provided by the USDA-NRCS, can be

used to produce larger scale maps

showing more varied and intricate soil

patterns that influence the effectiveness

of GPR within selected soil survey

areas. 
3

NCSS Newsletter

Taking Soil Survey

Pictures Using Digital

Cameras

By John Kelley, Soil Data Quality Specialist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Raleigh, North Carolina; written for MO 14 soil

survey project leaders.

Many of you now have access to digital cameras. Before you

take to the field and begin shooting all

those great pictures, there are a few

basic concepts that you must

understand to get the image you want in

a format suitable for publication in the

soil survey report.

As with any photography technique,

you must be knowledgeable of the

camera, its accessories, its strong

points, and its limitations. You must

understand what the camera can do to

meet your needs.

Your needs.—Digital photographs

used in printed soil survey reports must

be of high quality. To be used in USDA

publications, these photographs are

required to have an image resolution of

300 ppi (pixels per linear inch) at the

image size to be printed. A higher

resolution exceeds the capacity of most

offset printers. Any less resolution

results in a degradation of image

quality.

A soil survey color cover picture is

typically 7.0 inches wide x 6.5 inches

deep. At 300 ppi, the image would

contain about 4 million pixels: [(7.0 x

300) x (6.5 x 300] = 4,095,000 pixels.

Table 1 gives the resolution

requirements and average file sizes for

various types of images.

Limitations.—Digital images

submitted for printing in soil survey

reports cannot be in a compressed

format. TIFF is the noncompressed file

format used by most digital cameras

and is the format preferred by the

Government Printing Office. Images

stored or recorded in a JPEG file

format are compressed. These files do

not retain all the digital data recorded

by the camera’s sensor. JPEG files,

however, do work well if the image is to

be posted on the Web or used in a

PowerPoint presentation. When other

formats are converted to a JPEG

format, the amount of compression can

be scaled by standard image-editing

software. What this means is that all

digital photos used in published soil

surveys must be recorded in the TIFF

format or must be recorded in another

noncompressed file format, such as

Windows bitmap (BMP), and then

converted to a TIFF file.

Your equipment.—Many of you

now have access to the Olympus

Camedia C-4000 digital camera. This

camera provides you with a new and

interesting way to produce quality

images. It has a still-image capture

resolution of 2,288 x 1,712 pixels (3.92

megapixels). Images are stored in a

JPEG or TIFF format. These images are

suitable for posting on the Web; for use

in software applications, such as

PowerPoint presentations; and for

printing in soil survey reports.

The camera utilizes a SmartMedia

memory card. You will quickly learn

that the 16-megabyte card that comes

with the camera does not provide

adequate storage capacity for soil

survey images. You will be able to

shoot only about five images at the

highest resolution setting (2,288 x

1,712 for a TIFF format). Additional

cards will be required. The largest

storage capacity for the SmartMedia

format is a 128-megabyte card that

costs about $50 to $75. This card will

allow you to shoot up to about 40

images at the highest resolution before

downloading to the computer or

changing cards. Such items as a lens

adapter for use with a circular polarizer

or UV filter, a battery charger, and a

carrying case are nice additions. They

can be purchased at most camera shops.

Editing digital images.—Once you

have taken the picture, you may be

Print Average Average Average

 Image type resolution publication Pixel TIFF JPEG

requirements dimensions requirements file size file size*

Cover (color) 300 ppi 7.0 x 6.0 in 3.8 mp 11+ mb 500+ kb

Cover (color) 300 ppi 7.0 x 6.5 in 4.1 mp 11+ mb 500+ kb

Color profiles (2/page) 300 ppi 3.3 x 6.0 in 1.8 mp 5+ mb 200+ kb

Color profiles (1/page) 300 ppi 5.75 x 8.0 in 4.1 mp 12+ mb 350+ kb

Landscapes (b&w) 150 ppi 7.0 x 6.0 in 0.9 mp 1+ mb 200+ kb

Landscapes (color) 300 ppi 7.0 x 6.0 in 3.8 mp 11+ mb 300+ kb

* Medium compression.

Table 1.—Resolution requirements and average file sizes for various image types
4

NCSS Newsletter

tempted to use an image-editing

software to edit color, contrast,

saturation, etc., or to delete unwanted

features or add new features. Editing

the image has the potential not only for

improvement but also for disaster.

Remember, your monitor’s settings for

color, contrast, or brightness most

likely will not match those of the editor

or ultimately the printer. Editing images

can be a creative and fun process.

Caution should be taken, however, to

ensure that you retain the concept the

image was meant to portray.

Before you consider any editing,

SAVE the image as originally captured

by the camera. Most of the time, a great

deal of work has gone into preparing

the soil profile or selecting the right

time to shoot a scene. If you get too far

down the editing road, it may not be

possible to recover the original image

and reshooting the image may not be a

practical alternative.

Storing and submitting digital

images.—Digital images will require

significant disk space for storage.

Writing files to a CD is a good way to

maintain a library of images without

tying up your computer’s hard drive.

Images used for printed soil surveys

must be in a TIFF format. Do not

submit images that were recorded in a

JPEG format and converted to a TIFF

format. When taken, these images,

were compressed. When files are

compressed, image data are

irretrievably lost. These files can be

resampled to a set resolution, but image

quality will not be sufficient for the

printed soil survey report. (In other

words—you can’t make a silk purse out

of a sow’s ear!)

Do not submit images that were

initially shot in a TIFF format, stored as

a JPEG file, and converted back to

TIFF. When a file has been compressed

and then uncompressed, the software

deletes pixels and then adds or creates

new pixels. The file size will increase to

its original size, but image quality is not

the same. Every time a file is

resampled, image quality diminishes.

(In other words—you can’t put spilled

milk back into the bottle!)

References.—You will want to build

a reference library or bookmark helpful

Web sites. “Digital Photography for

Dummies” is a good place to start. It

has very helpful information,

references, and software goodies. It is

especially helpful when you are using

Adobe PhotoDeluxe or Photoshop.

Please contact the MO if you would

like additional training or have

questions about procedures, techniques,

or the operation of your camera. 

Cold Soil Data Available

on CD

From “NRCS Technology News,” December

2002.

The impact of fuel spills on the cold soils in Antarctica has

been under study by the National Soil

Survey Center (NSSC) and the National

Water and Climate Center (NWCC) in

collaboration with scientists in New

Zealand. The study, initiated in 1999,

uses soil climate stations in three areas:

one site is on Ross Island, near Scott

Base; one is on the Antarctic coast; and

the third is in a dry valley (an area kept

free of snow by high winds). Each site

has two stations, one in a spill area and

one in a nearby nonspill area for

comparison. Hourly averages of soil

water content, soil temperature, and

atmospheric variables are recorded on

dataloggers and retrieved annually.

This study also provides baseline

data for global climate change research.

Permafrost-affected areas are believed

to be the most sensitive to global

climate change. The soil climate station

data provide valuable information to

calibrate and verify models used to

predict climate change and its effects.

The immediate use of the project

information will be for Antarctica

managers to decide whether to

ameliorate oil-contaminated soils or let

nature repair itself. NRCS will use the

information collected to improve soil

taxonomy, to classify soils for the

proposed Southern Hemisphere

Circumpolar Soils Map, and to better

understand the behavior of cold soils.

Data are available on CD from the

NSSC. Plans are to make the data

available on the NWCC Web site and in

various publications, including a Soil

Survey Investigations Report.

For more information, contact:

Ron Paetzold

National Soil Survey Center

(402) 437-4133

ron.paetzold@usda.gov 

Soil Data Can Contribute

to Golf Course Design,

Construction, and

Maintenance

From “NRCS Technology News,” December

2002.

The National Soil Survey Center, in cooperation with the

University of Nebraska, studied ways

that soil data can be applied to support

golf course design, construction, and

maintenance practices. The study

provided an initial assessment of the

soil resources, using interpretive maps

complemented with Geographic

Information System (GIS) analytical

tools to show areas with soil

characteristics that may be beneficial or

disadvantageous to golf course design,

construction, and management. A set of

thematic maps depicting considerations
5

NCSS Newsletter

and concerns was developed using

NRCS Soil Data Viewer GIS analytical

tools. The initial draft considered

erosion during construction and

establishment, irrigation design and

efficiency, pesticide management,

location of source material (such as

topsoil and sand), and identification of

suitable landscaping forbs, shrubs, and

trees.

For the developer, this information

aids the search for sites that can be

economically developed as opposed to

those that require additional resources

to overcome natural constraints and

limitations. Architects and builders can

use NRCS soil information to take

advantage of the site’s soil

characteristics and create a golfing

facility that is economical to build and

maintain and yet in harmony with its

surrounding environment. Soil data can

be used to design and install irrigation

and surface and subsurface drainage

systems that maximize irrigation and

drainage efficacy and do not create an

environmental risk to surface and

ground water. The builder can locate

areas where soil limitations may pose

special construction concerns or areas

that are potential sources of borrow

materials, such as topsoil or sand. For

the superintendent, soil data are

essential to developing a golf course

management plan that not only

maximizes the soil’s potential to

support play, but also enhances the

course’s contribution to the surrounding

environment. As such, soil information

is a basic component of any

environmentally sound fertility, weed,

or pest management system.

Because this was a preliminary

proof-of-concept study, the analyses

reflect only a relatively small sampling

of the system’s analytical capabilities. A

more complete assessment will be

possible once the golf course

requirements of the developer,

architect, and superintendent are fully

understood and developed.

Areas of flooding on a proposed site for a golf

course.

1234

1234Frequent Occasional

123

123

Possible sources of sand for use during

construction and for bunkering on a

proposed site for a golf course.

12345 12345

12345 Fair source of sand

For more information, contact:

Bob Nielsen

National Soil Survey Center

(402) 437-4149

bob.nielsen@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov 

USDA NRCS Soil Survey

Laboratory Data Quality

By Rebecca Burt, Research Soil Scientist,

Soil Survey Laboratory, National Soil Survey

Center, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The quality and credibility of data are critical to any measurement

program that collects analytical data

over a long period of time for

comparative purposes. The NRCS Soil

Survey Laboratory is working and

cooperating with other national and

international agencies to confirm and

sometimes achieve greater quality of

laboratory data. Some of the qualitycontrol activities are described in the

following paragraphs.

Around the world there are many

laboratories which analyze soil samples

for content of carbon, nitrogen,

phosphorus, metals, CEC, and many

other elements and parameters. The

results of these analyses are essential in

the domains of agriculture (fertilization

and soil management), nutrition, health,

environmental management, etc. In

order to evaluate the accuracy and

precision of the analytical procedures

used, an International Soil-Analytical

Exchange (ISE) was established by

Wageningen Agricultural University,

The Netherlands, involving over 300

laboratories in many countries,

including the NRCS Soil Survey

Laboratory. As the ISE indicates in its

quarterly reports:

The ISE has proven useful to

many laboratories just

beginning work in the analyses

of soil samples. On the other

hand, laboratories with a long-
6

NCSS Newsletter

standing experience in this field

have an instrument to check

their methods and analytical

results continuously.

 In the near future, accreditation

bodies will oblige laboratories to

participate in such programs. The Soil

Survey Laboratory has no such

obligation, but voluntary activity

indicates an interest in and involvement

with international groups that are

working to improve the quality of

laboratory data. The Soil Survey

Laboratory provides comparative data

on a quarterly basis for such analyses as

CEC, NH4OAc extractable bases,

CaCO3, pH (water, CaCl2, KCl),

phosphorus (Mehlich III, Olsen P, Bray

P-1), and particle-size analysis.

The NRCS has provided assistance

in obtaining bulk samples for the North

American Proficiency Testing Program

(NAPT), an activity of the Soil Science

Society of America with over 200

participating laboratories, and the Soil

and Plant Analysis Council. The Soil

Survey Laboratory coordinated these

efforts. The NRCS uses both field data

(e.g., transects and pedon descriptions)

and laboratory data to define map units

and their component soils. The NRCS

staff used this information and aerial

photographs to select sampling sites for

soil series suggested by NAPT and the

Soil and Plant Analysis Council. Bulk

samples were taken only after an onsite

examination by NRCS soil scientists to

ensure that the properties of the

particular soil were within the range

designated by the benchmark soil

characteristics. NRCS has provided

bulk samples for 20 benchmark soils

from 20 states. NRCS soil scientists

used the sample collection procedures

described in Soil Survey Investigations

Report (SSIR) No. 42, Laboratory

Methods Manual. The soil survey

sample collection procedures for

laboratory analysis are an important

part of the U.S. National Cooperative

Soil Survey. The coordination of these

procedures with mapping and site

selection contributes to the quality

assurance process for the laboratory

characterization and for the overall U.S.

National Cooperative Soil Survey.

These bulk samples helped to maintain

the programs of the Soil and Plant

Analysis Council and NAPT for several

years. Bulk samples of selected

benchmark soils have also been

collected for a collaborative effort

between NRCS and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) to provide soil

standards for total elemental analyses.

In addition to providing direct

assistance to these testing and exchange

programs, the Soil Survey Laboratory

has actively participated in some of

these programs by purchasing soil

standards of “known values” and

analyzing soils by our methods for

purposes of providing comparative

data. This participation has provided

the Soil Survey Laboratory an

opportunity to statistically compare our

data with the data of many other

laboratories for a number of important

chemical and physical analyses. We

have also cooperated with a number of

individual private, university, and

Federal laboratories (e.g., U.S. Salinity

Laboratory) to exchange soil samples

for purposes of providing comparative

data of some less commonly

determined analyses, such as gypsum

and selective dissolutions (e.g., acid

oxalate Fe, Al, Fe, Si, and P).

The Soil Survey Laboratory has

participated in the method studies of the

Association of Official Analytical

Chemists (AOAC) International as

“referees” and as “collaborators.” The

laboratory participated as a collaborator

in the method study of Bray P-1. Unlike

ISE, the AOAC program does not study

laboratory proficiency but rather

evaluates the methods themselves.

Participation is voluntary. Our

involvement in such programs will

provide useful information to an

international standards group about the

consistency and reproducibility of

methods.

The Soil Survey Laboratory is an

active voting member of the American

Society of Testing and Materials

(ASTM) International. ASTM was

founded in 1898 as a scientific and

technical organization formed for the

development of standards. It is the

world’s largest source of voluntary

consensus standards with membership

encompassing such diverse groups as

government agencies, universities, and

the private sector. The Soil Survey

Laboratory has submitted some of our

methods (e.g., particle-size analysis by

sieve and pipette) for consideration as

new ASTM methods.

Our participation in these national

and international programs is in

addition to the internal measures of

quality control (QC) integral to each

Soil Survey Laboratory standard

operating procedure (SOP),

documented in the SSIR No. 42. Some

of these internal QC measures include

the use of laboratory soil standards for

each batch of analyzed samples, use of

Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)

and high-quality reagents, and the

establishment of criteria for instrument

and method calibration, data validation,

and data reporting. The use of SSIR

No. 42 as a reference by many

laboratories, both nationally and

internationally, has established the

NRCS Soil Survey Laboratory as a

leader in the development of standards.

Current activities by laboratory

personnel in this effort include the

development of new methods, updating

of current methods, and publication of

an updated version of SSIR No. 42.

Unlike the use of methods associated

with accreditation bodies or voluntary

consensus standards groups, the use of

the Soil Survey Laboratory methods by

other laboratories is primarily based on

a scientific, field-related tradition.

The Soil Survey Laboratory quality-
7

NCSS Newsletter

control efforts have improved data

quality over time. Personnel at the Soil

Survey Laboratory will continue to

improve methodology and quality

control of each procedure. Changes in

procedures and development of new

methodology are integral to the

performance of the Soil Survey

Laboratory as it answers the demands

of agency scientists, conservationists,

and other cooperators. 

Review of The Skeptical

Environmentalist

By Russ Kelsea, National Leader, Soil Survey

Technical Services, National Soil Survey Center,

NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

When I was first introduced to Bjørn Lomborg’s book, The

Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring

the Real State of the World, published

by Cambridge University Press in 2001

(ISBN 0 521 01068 3; paperback, 515

pages), I was a bit (ahem) skeptical. I

had recently read another tome which

took a contrarian view and found the

logic unconvincing. Nevertheless, I was

determined to keep an open mind about

Lomborg’s book because challenges to

conventional wisdom are often rejected

by the established scientific community,

at least initially, even when the

challenges ultimately prove correct

(Kuhn, 1970).

Lomborg challenges the commonly

accepted view that humans, by their

policies and technology, have a

detrimental impact on the environment.

Lomborg calls the rhetoric associated

with this point of view the “litany” and

cites Worldwatch Institute, World Wide

Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, and many

others as purveyors of the litany. By

way of challenge, Lomborg asserts that

although problems exist, the state of the

world is good; in fact, it is better than it

has ever been and is likely to get even

better. In a series of examples ranging

from natural resources and global

warming to energy and medicine,

Lomborg attacks the statistical

techniques used to perpetuate the

litany. In so doing, he reinterprets many

of the same statistical sources to

demonstrate improvement instead of

degradation.

I found from reading selected topics,

including soil erosion, acid rain, forest

decline, and a few others, that in some

cases Lomborg makes a compelling

argument. In other cases, however, he

seems to commit the same sins of

narrow data selection and overgeneralization that he accuses others of

making. I left the book with the

impression that statistics alone do not

imply an understanding of natural

systems and that Lomborg’s criticism

directed at purveyors of the litany for

predicting environmental catastrophes

that failed to materialize is misplaced

because the litany may have prompted

humankind to take corrective action in

time to avert the catastrophes.

This book is quite clearly

controversial and has generated

considerable debate. Scientists from

many disciplines reject Lomborg’s

statistical approach and disagree with

his conclusions. Scientific American,

Nature, and The Economist each

published some of the scientific debate,

and Lomborg provides links to several

of the articles on his Web site at http://

www.lomborg.com. Of particular

interest are the actions taken by the

Danish Committees on Scientific

Dishonesty (2003). Acting on

complaints filed with the DCSD, the

Committees first had to decide whether

Lomborg’s book even qualified as a

scientific publication or was merely a

provocative discussion-generating

publication. In its final ruling, the

DCSD treats Lomborg’s book as a

scientific publication and finds that by

its systematically biased representation,

the book is contrary to standards of

good scientific practice and under

Danish definition falls within the

concept of scientific dishonesty.

Whether you agree with Lomborg or

his critics, one thing is certain—the

book has caused many scientists to look

more closely at their science. We are

challenged once again to gather facts,

analyze the evidence, and think

critically for ourselves. Not a bad

challenge in my opinion.

References

Anonymous. 2002. The litany and

the heretic. The Economist 362 (8258):

75-76.

Danish Committees on Scientific

Dishonesty. 2003. Decision regarding

complaints against Bjørn Lomborg.

Avaialble at http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/

nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The

structure of scientific revolutions.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

Illinois.

Pimm, S., and J. Harvey. 2001. No

need to worry about the future. Nature

414 (6860) 149-150.

Rennie, J., et al. 2002. Misleading

math about the Earth. Scientific

American 286 (1): 61-71. 

A Note on “40-Odd

Sonatas”

By Stanley P. Anderson, Editor, National Soil

Survey Center, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

When I started working as a soil survey editor in 1974, soil

scientists in the Soil Survey Division let

the editorial staff know that they were

confused about how we hyphenated

terms for drainage classes. We

hyphenated “well-drained soil” but did

not hyphenate the other drainage terms

because they include ly adjectives (as in

“poorly drained soil”). Also, we did not

hyphenate “well drained” when it

occurred as a predicate adjective (as in
8

NCSS Newsletter

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities

who require alternative means for communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

“The soil is well drained”). We were

following the rules of style manuals,

including the GPO Style Manual, which

specifies the following (page 78):

6.18. Print without a hyphen

a compound predicate adjective

the second element of which is a

past participle. Omit the hyphen

in a predicate modifier of

comparative or superlative

degree.

The manual includes the

following among the examples of

rule 6.18: “The paper is fine

grained.”

The other relevant GPO rule is as

follows (page 78):

6.20. Do not use a hyphen in

a two-word unit modifier the

first element of which is an

adverb ending in ly, nor use

hyphens in a three-word unit

modifier the first two elements

of which are adverbs.

This rule applies to the ly

drainage terms, such as “very poorly

drained” and “poorly drained.” The

editors decided to banish the

hyphens in “well-drained soil” and

in color terms, such as “yellowishbrown,” which were also perplexing

to soil scientists (and to editors). I

had no strong attachment to the

hyphen in “well-drained soil” and

rejoiced at the banishment of

hyphens in color terms. Bill

Hamilton, the head of the Soil

Survey Editorial Staff in Hyattsville,

Maryland, informed the Department

of Agriculture that we were sending

these hyphens into exile.

Having removed the hyphen in

“well-drained soil,” the editors were

obliged to, uh, dehyphenate similar

terms, such as “fine-textured soil”

and “fine-grained soil.” We thought

that we needed a new rule for editors

to follow. Noting that I was a

budding Ph.D. type, Bill Hamilton

asked me to write the rule. My

notion was that we should hyphenate

a unit modifier if one of the elements

is a noun, as in “land-use planning”

and “organic-matter content.”

Hamilton passed around my new

rule, which was promptly ignored

by most of the editors on the staff.

These editors included Phil Chavez,

who was editing the prewritten

material, in which I noted numerous

instances of “organic matter content”

and “land use planning.” So much

for my new rule.

I did not wish to reedit the

prewritten material, so even I gave

up on my clever little rule, deciding

that the only time a hyphen must be

used is when the meaning is

affected, as in “40-odd sonatas” and

“40 odd sonatas.”

When I edited the 2002 Soil

Planner, I followed the lax “40-oddsonata” rule and thus did not

hyphenate “well drained soil.” At

the last minute, the planner was

reviewed by an editor in the

Department of Agriculture, who

added hyphens not only in

references to “well drained soils” but

also in the sentence “Antigo soils are

well drained.” I did not object to the

hyphen in “well-drained soils,” but I

asked that the hyphen added to the

sentence about Antigo soils be

deleted because it violates GPO rule

6.18. When the planner was

published, I turned to the pages for

December and looked for the

description of drainage, which reads

as follows: “Antigo soils are welldrained.” The offending hyphen

speared me in the eye. 

Soil Taxonomy Forum

By Bob Engel, Soil Scientist, National Soil

Survey Center, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Soil Taxonomy forum is back. We were unable to

continue the topical question and

answer forums on the National Soil

Survey Center Web site at its new

location (http://soils.usda.gov). Dr.

John Galbraith of Virginia Tech.

University in Blacksburg, Virginia, is

now hosting the Soil Taxonomy forum.

The address of the forum is: http://

clic.cses.vt.edu/soiltax/soilt.html. The

forum can also be accessed from the

“Classification” section of the National

Soil Survey Center Web site.

This forum is for questions,

discussions, and issues on topics

concerning classification of soils using

Soil Taxonomy. Anyone may post a

question or join in the discussions. Bob

Engel, Soil Scientist at the National

Soil Survey Center, will continue as

moderator for this forum.