1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 11

May 2000

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv).

Click on NCSS and then on the desired

issue number of the NCSS Newsletter.

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.

Soil Moisture/Soil

Temperature Pilot Project

Nears Completion

By R.F. Paetzold, Research Soil Scientist,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Soil water status and soil temperature are critical

parameters for many applications,

including continental-scale climate

models, soil classification, and drought

assessment. The Soil Moisture/Soil

Temperature (SM/ST) Pilot Project was

proposed in 1990 to test the feasibility

of establishing a national soil-climate

monitoring program that meets the

growing demands of the global climate

change community, modelers, resource

managers, soil scientists, ecologists,

and others. The project, a cooperative

effort by the Resource Inventory

Division and the Soil Survey Division

of the Natural Resources Conservation

Service, was to examine network

communications, sensors, data

collection electronics, station

maintenance, data management, system

interfaces, and management of a large

national program.

Installation of 21 stations (in 19

states) began in 1991 and was

completed the following year. Air

temperature, relative humidity,

precipitation, solar radiation,

windspeed, soil temperature, and soil

moisture were measured at 6-hour

intervals initially, then hourly toward

the end of the project. Soil temperature

and soil moisture were measured at

depths of 2, 4, 8, 20, 40, and 80 inches.

Later, the 80-inch soil moisture

measurement was dropped. Many

changes were made to the original

design, in response to lessons learned

during the course of the project. The

original soil-moisture sensors were

replaced with sensors of a completely

different design. A more robust and

versatile datalogger was selected to

replace the initial data-collection

electronics. Every aspect of the

measurement system was evaluated

critically and improved where practical.

Data from each site were transferred

to master stations daily by the meteorburst communications technology

proven in the SNOTEL program. From

master stations, data were transmitted

via telephone to the central computer

facility at the National Water and

Climate Center (NWCC) in Portland,

Oregon. After the processing of raw

sensor output to useful units, the data

were evaluated to ensure that all station

sensors and electronics were

Soil Moisture/Soil Temperature Pilot

Project Nears Completion .............. 1

One View of the Future ....................... 3

Soil Survey in the Twenty-First

Century........................................... 5

Language Matters ............................... 9

Announcement: West Regional

NCSS Conference .......................... 9
2

NCSS Newsletter

functioning within reasonable limits.

Algorithms to process and evaluate the

data were designed, and computer

coding was developed to accommodate

the algorithms. Much of the quality

control is still performed by hand,

although progress continues to be made

on development of software to

accomplish this tedious task.

Much of the effort during the 10-

year project revolved around evaluating

and modifying instrumentation and

field methods. Initially, the focus was

on developing an operational plan, site

selection, and instrument (sensors,

communications, data collection

systems, etc.) selection. The next tasks

were site and soil characterization and

station installation. During the early and

middle years of the project, emphasis

was on system performance. Many

difficulties involving operational

aspects of individual stations were

addressed. Problems with soil moisture

sensors were observed at all stations.

What initially was considered a sensor

calibration problem turned out to be an

interface problem involving

compatibility between the soil moisture

sensors and the data collection

electronics. At one time or another, all

stations experienced failure of the

precipitation sensors. The problem, a

culmination of many small effects, was

difficult to solve.

As problems with field hardware

performance and efficiencies were

identified, requests were made to

instrument manufacturers to make

major product changes. Campbell

Scientific, Inc., and Meteor

Communications Corporation worked

together to make their dataloggers and

meteor-burst telemetry compatible.

Vitel, Inc., introduced a new model

soil-moisture sensor designed to our

specifications. They also changed their

data-processing software in response to

our needs. The Soil Temperature and

Moisture Team continues to work with

manufacturers on ways to make their

products compatible with our needs.

The mid and later stages of the Pilot

Project saw increasing emphasis on

data management. Processing of

incoming data is needed to convert the

raw sensor outputs to relevant climatic

information. Accomplishment of this

conversion required the development

calibration curves and associated

computer algorithms for each sensor.

Data-processing programs had to be

written. After the processing was

complete, both raw and processed data

were stored on the computer.

Examination of the processed data

provided quality control and identified

malfunctioning system components.

Initially, user requests required NWCC

to send data directly to individuals.

Beginning in 1998, data were made

available via the Internet through the

NRCS NWCC home page.

Demand for Pilot Project data has

been strong from the beginning. Users

were told repeatedly that this was a

pilot project designed to explore the

feasibility of establishing a large-scale

climate monitoring program, not a data

collection effort per se and that the data

collected were primarily for evaluation

of the project, not for general use, and

should be considered unreliable. Still,

users DEMANDED that the data be

released, even though we considered it

to be of questionable quality. This

project was one of very few sources of

this type of data and the only nationalscale monitoring effort in place. Toward

the end of the project, this became the

most extensive “long-term” data set

available. Data downloads from the

Internet have steadily and dramatically

increased from the first. News of the

availability has spread only through

word-of-mouth and Internet searches by

users. Uses of the data are many and

varied, ranging from continental-scale

climate models to snake hibernation

studies, from satellite-platform remotesensor calibration to soil classification.

The list goes on and on. Users include

research scientists, NRCS field

personnel, private industry, and

consultants. One request for data came

from an energy (oil) company. They

indicated that they thought the next

crucial commodity would be clean

water and they intended to prepare for

the demand. It is anticipated that when

enough data become available

(adequate spatial coverage and

sufficient length of record) to define

“normal” years, the data will be

extremely valuable for defining drought

and monitoring the extent and severity

of drought events. We constantly

receive requests for more data, data

from additional locations, and

additional soil properties. We have

received money from other government

agencies and universities to install

additional soil climate stations as part

of SCAN (Soil Climate Analysis

Network), a continuous climate

monitoring program that is an

outgrowth of the SM/ST Pilot Project.

The enormous worldwide demand for

soil-climate data of the type produced

by the project suggests a definite and

immediate need for a national network

of monitoring stations. The STM Team

now manages more than 100

cooperative soil-climate stations. More

than 50 have been installed in direct

response to NRCS requests. The project

resulted in the accumulation of a great

deal of experience in instrumentation,
3

NCSS Newsletter

large-scale project management, and

data management. Thus, there has been

a strong demand for this expertise from

others interested in establishing

monitoring programs of all sizes.

The Pilot Project successfully

demonstrated the feasibility of a

national NRCS data-collection program

for gathering needed soil-climate data.

Technical challenges associated with

sensors, interfaces, data transmission,

and data management have been

solved. The Soil Temperature and

Moisture Team hopes that the SCAN

program will be funded and that the

Pilot Project stations will be upgraded

and converted to SCAN stations. SCAN

would be a highly visible program

enhancing the prestige of NRCS and

providing a much-needed service to a

wide range of users. 

One View of the Future

By Thomas E. Calhoun, Program Manager,

Soil Survey Division, Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

What is our vision for theNational Cooperative Soil

Survey program?

The initial soil survey of private

lands in the U.S. is almost complete,

and we continue updating out-dated

surveys. In these updates we are

looking at soils to greater depths than

we used to, and we are updating

surveys on the basis of MLRA’s rather

than counties. Our objective now is to

keep surveys current rather than

redoing them after 25 years. These

mechanics are important, but are we

really doing anything very different

from what we have done in the past? It

is time for us to shift our focus to the

future and help people get the

maximum use from all the information

we have collected over the past 100

years. Rather than merely adjusting the

way we go about our business, we need

to guide the soil survey program in

directions that will keep it viable and

valuable to the American public. One of

my favorite statements is, “Destination

is not a finite place. Rather it is a

compass by which you judge how far

you’ve come.” Now, after 100 years,

we need to adjust our compass and

move toward a new destination.

We are now at a starting point where

we have the basic resource data

necessary to begin to help the U.S. do

some strategic resource planning.

Having gathered this information, we

have an obligation to explain to our

citizens that soils are strategic, limited

resources that we must sustain and use

wisely if we are to meet domestic and

international needs. We must help the

American public to better appreciate

the value of soil resources and must

make NRCS an advocate and steward

of the world’s soil resources, not just an

erosion-control agency. For us to do

that, however, we must change the way

we think.

Controlling erosion became the

focus of our agency with the 1930’s

Dust Bowl. In this new millennium we

are still dealing with this legacy. Our

programs remain focused on controlling

erosion. We may give this program

emphasis new names, such as “water

quality,” “air quality,” “watershed

planning,” and “Environmental Quality

Incentives Program,” but the emphasis

is still on erosion control. We have

developed the technology to deal with

these problems, so now what?

Look at the NRCS Strategic Plan.

Eight strategic objectives are listed.

Though they are all worthy objectives,

they miss the point. There are many

agencies having objectives and

expertise that deal with land use. Our

expertise is soil resource management

and sustainability. There is no strategic

objective in the plan for being stewards

of the Nation’s soil resources. Instead,

the agency is an advocate for wetlands,

grazing lands, wildlife habitat,

watersheds, and cropland. The agency

has chosen to develop its strategic

objectives around land use issues rather

than around our technological expertise

for dealing with resource sustainability,

management, inventories, and other

technical concerns. We claim that soil

information is our fundamental resource

information, but we do not highlight its

importance by identifying healthy,

productive soils as our number one

strategic objective.

NRCS, by design, is closely tied to

our private-sector partners, who are

concerned with land use issues, but I

doubt that we both need to have the

same agenda. Partnerships should

benefit from the strengths that each

partner brings to the table. NRCS

brings science and technological

expertise, and our private-sector

partners bring land management and

land use issues that are more political in

nature. Those two agendas in

combination can and should be very

powerful in addressing worldwide

strategic resource issues. Two examples

of emerging world issues, one

concerning food consumption in China

and the other concerning tropical fruit

production in the U.S, illustrate the

potential benefits of this synergy.

As worldwide economies grow, the

demands on U.S. agriculture are

building. Although current commodity

prices hardly support the theory of

increasing demand, most forecasters

still claim that significant increases in

the demand for commodities are

imminent.

Lester Brown, in a book called Who

Will Feed China? Wake-up Call for a

Small Planet (published by W.W.

Norton & Company, New York and

London, 1995), argues that China’s

improving economy (56 percent

expansion between 1992 and 1995)

enables her citizens to diversify their

diets and consume more meat, eggs,

and milk (the products of grain-fed
4

NCSS Newsletter

livestock). This diversification in a

nation of 1.2 billion people could

overwhelm the export capacity of the

major grain-producing countries.

According to Brown, the cropland

base in China is shrinking because of

water shortages and the encroachment

of infrastructure growth on farmland.

He projects that China will lose about

half of its grain-producing land by the

year 2030. The resulting shortfall in

grain production will be filled by

imports. This development could

change the world grain market from a

buyer’s market to a seller’s market,

resulting in worldwide inflationary rises

in food prices.

Brown identifies not only a need to

stabilize the world population but also a

need to protect the agricultural resource

base of soil, water, and climate systems.

He calls for an international plan to

stabilize soils at “T,” or to farm soils

sustainably and thus reduce the impact

of the demand for increased grain

production.

This book has caused considerable

debate, including debate among the

Chinese themselves on its accuracy.

The strong demand for commodity

crops has not occurred as rapidly as

was anticipated because there was an

unpredicted global financial crisis in the

mid-1990’s. As a result, many believe

Brown to be an alarmist. Yet, the trends

he identifies and the case he makes for

wise resource management still appear

to be valid.

U.S. farmers are prepared to

increase productivity and thus help

meet increasing demands, but in doing

so, do they know how to sustainably

manage the more fragile margins of our

soil resources, such as highly erodible

lands? Is it not important to our Nation,

before the impact is felt, to help people

understand how they can continue to

use their soils without degrading them?

Yes, we need to help people understand

the concept of resource sustainability

and how to maintain soil quality. How

intensively can soils be used before

they pass the threshold of degradation?

What must we do to get degraded soils

back to a state of sustainability, and

how much more would it take to

reclaim them? This should be the forte

of NRCS. We should develop these

concepts, train resource managers in

them, and help to develop conservation

plans that use the concepts to conserve

and sustain our resources and sustain

the productivity of our soils.

In a report on the State of the World

2000, a Worldwatch Institute Report on

Progress Toward a Sustainable Society,

Brown addresses global ecological

challenges in this manner:

Although the contrast between

our civilization and that of our

hunter-gatherer ancestors could

scarcely be greater, we do have

one thing in common—we, too,

depend entirely on Earth’s

natural systems and resources to

sustain us. Unfortunately, the

expanding global economy that

is driving the Dow Jones to new

highs is, as currently structured,

outgrowing those ecosystems.

Evidence of this can be seen in

shrinking forests, eroding soils,

falling water tables, collapsing

fisheries, rising temperatures,

dying coral reefs, melting

glaciers, and disappearing plant

and animal species.

Brown may be an alarmist, but he

cites many symptoms of declining

ecosystem health that resource

scientists in soil survey deal with on a

daily basis.

Another scenario is in the political

arena of land use. Production of

tropical fruit (e.g., citrus and avocados)

is endangered in the U.S. It is limited

primarily to southern California,

southern Arizona, south Texas, and

south Florida. As southern California,

southern Arizona, and south Florida

become urbanized, tropical fruit

production is being squeezed out, if you

will. In southern Arizona the shortage

of water is accelerating the loss. Many

areas in south Florida are no longer

used for tropical fruit production

because of the need to prevent pollution

of the Florida aquifer and to restore the

Florida Everglades. South Texas

remains the center of least change, but

intensification of the regulation of labor
5

NCSS Newsletter

Soil Survey in the TwentyFirst Century

By Horace Smith, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Soil Survey Division,

Washington, D.C., and Berman D. Hudson,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

From its conception, the soilsurvey program in the U.S. has

been oriented towards specific

applications. A major objective of the

earliest surveys was to identify lands

that were suitable for the introduction

of specific crops, such as tobacco

(Gardner, 1998). Later, after the

droughts of the 1930’s caused great

ecological damage and severe human

suffering, soil surveys were increasingly

used to plan conservation and erosioncontrol systems (Dumanski, 1993).

More recently, soil surveys have been

used to provide information for use in

protecting wetlands, reducing pollution

of waterways and ground water,

controlling storm-water runoff, and

many other environmental objectives.

Changing uses of soil surveys

reflect—and often require—changes in

our knowledge, concepts, and models

of soil. Dumanski (1993) recently

presented five models or conceptions of

soil that originally were articulated to

him by R.T. Meurisse. Each of these

models presents a different framework

or viewpoint for use in organizing

knowledge about a soil system. The

five models or viewpoints include soil

as (1) a natural body, (2) a medium for

plant growth, (3) a structural material,

(4) a water-transmitting mantle, and (5)

an ecosystem component. All of these

models have had and will continue to

have a place in the soil survey program

in the U.S. Three of these models—soil

as a natural body, as a medium for plant

growth, and as a structural mantle—

have been used for many years. The

other two models—soil as a watertransmitting medium and as an

ecosystem component—were

recognized more recently and still are

evolving rapidly as concepts. A strategy

to guide the soil survey program in the

21st century must reflect each of these

models. Accordingly, the ensuing

discussion will address the potential

role of each.

Soil as a Natural Body

The concept of soil as a natural body

has its origin in the soil factor equation

outlined by Dokuchaeiv (Glinka, 1927)

is driving many producers in the area to

grow crops that are less labor intensive.

If these are important products for

the U.S. consumers, where will they be

produced? They will be imported. Is it

not therefore important for this country

to identify areas of the world with

appropriate soil resources for these

crops and to protect, improve, and

sustain those resources? The technical

expertise of our NRCS scientists can

help to identify those areas for the

politicians, who can deal with the land

use issues.

The issues of food consumption in

China and tropical fruit production in

the U.S. both show that soil is a

strategically important, limited,

international natural resource that can

be critical when wise land use decisions

are needed.

Rather than standing on the sidelines

and using our same old erosion-control

know-how to repair the damage after

the fact, NRCS should get ahead of the

curve and develop the technology and

information to help people learn to

manage their more fragile resources in a

sustainable manner. If we are truly to be

advocates for the soil resource, we must

shift the focus of our soil survey

program and:

• Modernize soil surveys in ways that

support a proactive application of

information;

• Develop a totally digitized soil layer

for the U.S. (at a minimum) as a tool

for evaluation and extrapolation of

ideas;

• Apply the concepts of soil quality;

• Develop indicators of sustainability;

• Establish threshold values for

managing soils;

• Develop GIS tools to analyze for the

most sustainable soil use alternatives;

• Establish a long-term program for

monitoring soil health;

• Understand the dynamics of our land

resources;

• Develop educational programs for the

public;

• Develop cause-and-effect scenarios to

help land managers predict the impact

of management plans;

• Be prepared to tell people what they

can do with their soil and other natural

resources, not what they cannot do;

• Provide soil-function interpretations,

such as soil as a water filter, soil as a

degradation medium, and soil as

structural support;

• Develop tools to assist farmers,

communities, and watersheds in the

development of a balance of soil

functions most appropriate for their

particular conditions;

• Be proactive in protecting strategic,

limited soil resources; and

• By providing critical information,

promote wise land use decisions that

help to sustain the resource.

These items differ markedly from

what we are doing now. We must help

people understand soil. We must

develop a dynamic soil survey program

responsible to customers, consisting of

internationally recognized soil scientists

and support staff who understand and

promote wise use of soil resources,

provide global standards, and are of

service to science and our Nation. 
6

NCSS Newsletter

and Hilgard (Jenny, 1961). This wellknown equation characterizes soil as a

function of parent material, climate,

organisms, relief, and time. It has

served as a powerful and highly useful

model. It led early pedologists to reason

correctly that, by looking for changes in

one or more of these factors as the

landscape was traversed, one could

accurately plot the boundaries

separating different kinds of soil

anywhere in the world.

The promise inherent in the original

soil factor equation was given a more

precise focus by Milne’s (1936)

introduction of the catena concept—the

idea that soils are predictably related to

landscape position. As a result of many

years of soil survey experience, the soil

factor equation and the catena concept

evolved into a more applied and refined

conceptualization—the soil-landscape

model (Hudson, 1992). This model now

serves as the primary medium for soilbased technology transfer. It also serves

as the foundation for the other models

to be discussed.

Mapping Surface Shape

The soil-landscape model is the

scientific underpinning of the soil

survey program. Therefore, improving

the way we apply it can have immense

benefits to soil science. There are

several promising areas for future

improvement in the next century. Hall

and Olson (1991, p. 21), in a very

insightful article, presented this

disturbing but, we believe, accurate

criticism of many current soil maps:

Much effort has been expended

on taxonomic classification of

soils during the last few years

but the importance of proper

representation of landscape

relations within and between

soil mapping units has been

virtually ignored. The same

mapping unit is often delineated

on convex, concave and linear

slopes. This mapping results in

the inclusion of areas of

moisture accumulation,

moisture depletion and uniform

moisture flow within a given

mapping unit.

These authors make an important

point. Convexity and concavity of

slopes are important determinants of

water movement across the landscape

and the relative availability of water to

enhance soil formation and plant

growth. The relative convexity or

concavity of the land surface often

affects plant growth more than the

degree of slope. Many existing soil

maps, however, do not adequately

reflect the shape of the land surface.

This defect is a result of an almost

exclusive reliance on air photo

interpretation to delineate landforms

and slopes. With practice, one can do a

reasonable job of identifying degree of

slope. Even with a stereoscope,

however, it is virtually impossible to

determine land surface shape from an

air photo. Fortunately, very recent

technology will enable us to delineate

areas differing in convexity and

concavity very accurately and with

great precision. For example, digital

elevation models (DEM’s) now

available will yield a number of useful

derivative maps, including slope

percent, rate of slope change, aspect,

and diurnal variation of sun energy on a

slope. Wider use of DEM’s and the

recognition and delineation of soil map

units based on surface shape—in

addition to degree of slope—will result

in more useful soil maps in the 21st

century.

Characterizing Soil Boundaries

Soil scientists have long known

that some soil boundaries are very

“sharp,” while others are very gradual

or “fuzzy.” In the past, it has not been

possible to show different kinds of

boundaries on soil maps. With modern

geographic information system (GIS)

technology, however, it is feasible to
7

NCSS Newsletter

differentiate very distinct soil breaks

on the landscape from those that occur

more gradually. In the 21st century,

the nature of the boundaries between

soil areas on the landscape will be

determined and stored as an attribute

in GIS-based soil information systems.

Expert Knowledge Systems and

“Fuzzy Logic”

Hudson (1992) argued that

application of the soil-landscape model

suffers from a reliance on tacit

knowledge. In the course of their work,

soil scientists acquire much detailed

knowledge about the soils and their

distribution on the landscape. However,

most of this knowledge is used only to

prepare soil maps; very little of it is

written down. A large body of scientific

information now exists only on soil

maps (not discernible to most people)

and in the minds of astute soil mappers.

As a result, each generation of soil

scientists must relearn much of what

previous generations have already

discovered. A way must be found to

avoid this problem. One possible

solution is the application of expert

knowledge systems using “fuzzy logic.”

The concept of fuzzy logic expands

the exact if/then rationale of Boolean

logic to conditions of continuous

variation in which classes may overlap

(Burrough, 1993). This concept is

applicable to soil survey. The proposed

application method consists of a soilland inference model combining the

knowledge of local soil scientists (a

knowledge base) with layers of

information in a GIS (a physical data

base). A computer program is written to

link the local knowledge base with the

physical data base in order to predict

soil properties at any selected point.

The application of expert knowledge

systems to the mapping of soils holds

great promise. It can improve the

accuracy and precision of maps. In

addition, building local knowledge

bases will force us to write down all of

the information and concepts used by

local soil scientists to make decisions

while mapping soils. This requirement

will reduce reliance on tacit knowledge.

As a result, the efficiency of knowledge

transfer among individuals and between

generations will be enhanced. Research

and development into the use of expert

knowledge systems to apply the soillandscape model more effectively must

be a priority in the 21st century

Soil as a Medium for Plant

Growth

This model has been used to predict

the potential and limitations of land

areas for plant growth, principally those

used for food or fiber. Properties that

can be used to predict suitability of soil

as a medium for root growth have been

emphasized. Examples are texture,

available nutrients, available water, and

soil density. This traditional model has

been applied with such overall success

that overproduction of food and

inadequate markets are primary

concerns in many developed countries.

This bounty has not been without its

costs. Soil erosion on farmland has long

been recognized as a problem.

Recently, agricultural runoff has been

recognized as a source of phosphorus,

nitrogen, pesticides, microbial

organisms, and other constituents that

can degrade the quality of aquatic

systems. In the future, the focus of this

model increasingly will shift from

maximizing crop production to

emphasizing an environmentally benign

agriculture, which will require that

fertilizer and other inputs be optimized

to meet but not greatly exceed crop

needs. If such trends continue,

developing soil (and landscape)

threshold levels for nitrogen,

phosphorus, and other agricultural

inputs will be a major task for soil

survey in the next century.

Precision Agriculture

Precision agriculture is growing

rapidly in the U.S. This development

was made possible by the convergence

of several technologies, including yield

monitors on harvesters, precise global

position systems (GPS), and computers

capable of storing large amounts of

digital data. Adapting to the needs of

precision agriculture will be a major

challenge for the soil survey program in

the U.S. For example, we must develop

procedures and quality-control criteria

for preparing very detailed soil maps.

Precision agriculture includes temporal

as well as spatial precision. Therefore,

it will be necessary to gain a better

understanding of temporal soil

properties in the 21st century.

Soil as a Structural Mantle

This model relates to the use of soils

for the infrastructure necessary to
8

NCSS Newsletter

modern societies. It has direct

application to such diverse activities as

urban and suburban development;

construction of dams, highways, and

airports; and onsite waste disposal. The

model relies heavily on estimations of

soil strength and plasticity as well as

the soil’s ability to transmit heat, water,

and energy. The soil survey of the 21st

century will require enhancements to

the way this model is applied. Burrough

(1993) stated that, compared with other

resource-monitoring sciences, soil

survey is notable because most of the

information collected and presented to

users remains qualitative in nature. That

criticism is especially applicable to

information used to support the model

of soil as a structural mantle. Therefore,

it is important that we identify the kinds

of quantitative data needed to support

this model and begin collecting it.

It also is important that the soil and

the underlying material be

characterized to a greater depth. The

needs of the 21st century will no longer

allow us to restrict our zone of

investigation to the top two meters of

the earth’s surface. Such artificial

boundaries, whether in our minds or on

the landscape, can no longer be

tolerated. The soil survey of the 21st

century will require a concerted effort

to study and characterize the soil and

underlying material to whatever depth

is needed to meet our scientific needs.

All appropriate technology, including

ground-penetrating radar and

geomagnetic studies, will be employed.

Soil as a Water-Transmitting

Mantle

Soil is recognized as a major

component of the hydrologic cycle. It is

a complex, highly organized, porous

medium permeable to both atmospheric

gases and water. Soil plays a vital role

in the partitioning of water on the

landscape. This model has major

implications for public health,

watershed management, and

environmental quality. The soil survey

historically has provided measures or

estimates of physical soil properties to

be used in various models dealing with

water movement. Pedotransfer

functions commonly are used to derive

input values for models. There is at

least one major problem with this

process. The soils information provided

to modelers typically is limited to

pedon data—measurements or

estimates made at a single point on the

landscape. This kind of limited

information will not suffice in the

future. A research program focused on

understanding water-soil interactions

at the landscape level must be an

integral part of soil survey in the 21st

century.

Soil as an Ecosystem

Component

This is an emerging model of soil

and a promising one for the future of

the soil survey program in the U.S. It

views soil as a dynamic, living mantle

or membrane in constant interaction

with the atmosphere, biosphere, and

geosphere. This model postulates that

the pedosphere is an essential part of all

land-based life-support systems on

earth.

References

Burrough, P.A. 1993. The technological

paradox in soil survey: New methods

and techniques of data capture and

handling. In J.A. Zinck (ed.) Soil

survey: Perspectives and strategies for

the 21st century, pp. 15-22. ITC Publ.

21, International Institute for Aerospace

Survey and Earth Sciences, Enschede,

Netherlands.

Dumanski, J. 1993. Strategies and

opportunities for soil survey

information and research. In J.A.

Zinck (ed.) Soil survey: Perspectives

and strategies for the 21st century,

pp. 36-41. ITC Publ. 21, International

Institute for Aerospace Survey and

Earth Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.

Gardner, D.R. 1998. The national

cooperative soil survey of the United

States. USDA-NRCS Historical Notes

7.

Glinka, K.D. 1927. The great soil

groups of the world and their

development. (Transl. from German by

C.F. Marbut.) Edwards Bros., Ann

Arbor, MI.

Hall, G.F., and C.G. Olson. 1991.

Predicting variability of soils from

landscape models. In M.J. Mausbach

and L.P. Wilding (eds.) Spatial

variabilities of soils and landforms, pp.

9-24. Proc. Symposium SSSA and

ISSS, Las Vegas, NV. 17 Oct. 1989.

Spec. Publ. No. 28. SSSA, Madison,

WI.
9

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.

NCSS Newsletter

Announcement: West

Regional NCSS

Conference

By Chris Smith, State Soil Scientist, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu,

Hawaii.

The west regional NCSSconference will be held at the

King Kamehameha Hotel in Kailua

Kona, Big Island, from June 26 through

30. The theme of this conference will

be”Understanding Today’s Critical Soil

Resource Issues and Formulating the

Best Strategies for Data Acquisition

and Information Delivery.”

Language Matters

By Stanley P. Anderson, Editor, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bob Ahrens, Director of theNational Soil Survey Center,

sent me the following note, which is

entitled “I or Me”:

Knowing the case of a pronoun

is imperative to proper

grammar. Many people seem

confused by pronouns, and one

frequently hears “I’s” that

should be “me’s.” For example,

the subject of the sentence

“Elvis and I are going to

Memphis next week” is “Elvis

and I.” “I” is the correct

pronoun. The subject of the

sentence “Are you going with

Elvis and me?” is “you.” “Elvis

and me” are objects of the

preposition “with.” The correct

pronoun is “me,” not “I.”

All I can add is that I am amazed

when people who would never say

“Me ate the sandwich” will say such

things as “Elvis and me ate all the

grilled peanut butter and banana

sandwiches.” I am amazed not only

by the poor grammar but also by the

facts. I thought that Elvis died back

in the 70’s. 

Hudson, B.D. 1992. The soil survey as

paradigm-based science. Soil Sci. Soc.

Am. J. 56(3): 836-841.

Jenny, H. 1961. E.W. Hilgard and the

birth of modern soil science. Farallo

Publ., Berkeley, CA.

Milne, G. 1936. A provisional soil map

of East Africa. Amani Memoirs No. 28.

Eastern African Agric. Res. Stn.,

Tanganyika Territory. 

A midweek field tour conducted

by Dr. Oliver Chadwick, University

of California at Santa Barbara, will

focus on the evolution of volcanic

ash soils along a climatic gradient,

how their properties are affected, and

how selected interpretations for use

change.

A preconference tour of the soils

and geology of Volcanoes National

Park will be conducted on Sunday,

June 25.

A postconference tour on Saturday,

July 1, on Oahu will depict the

landscape and soil evolution of the

Oxisols and Ultisols on the Wahiawa

Plateau.