1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 8

October 1999

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.

Aspects of a UseDependent Data Base

By Robert B. Grossman and Jim R. Fortner,

Soil Scientists, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Soil Survey

Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Introduction

The traditional soil survey database does not change with the

use of the soil. Rather, it is intended to

be applicable to the dominant land use

of that soil in the survey area. The same

data apply, whether a given area of the

soil is used as cropland, rangeland, or

forestland, whether the forestland is

recently clearcut or an old stand,

whether the rangeland is in excellent

or poor condition, and whether the

cropland is tilled by conventional

or no-till systems. Differences in

soil properties and hence in behavior

may be large. These significant

differences argue for a use-dependent

data base.

Illustrative Data

Table 1 shows measured values and

values from the soil survey data base

for the near surface of Aksarben and

Monona soils, which occur in the

western Corn Belt. Cultivated and grass

sites are compared. Figure 1 shows the

sites for the Aksarben soils. Based on

the nomograph method, erosion factor

K is higher for the cultivated sites.

Both soils are assigned hydrologic

group B. The cultivated sites may be C

or D. Differences in both hydrologic

group and erosion factor K affect the

method of screening for pesticide loss

used by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

Implementation

Soil mapping.—No change would be

needed.

Use groupings.—Grouping of soil

uses is needed to make the number of

alternatives manageable. Decisions

would need to be made as to which

land uses have values for selected soil

properties that are sufficiently different

to justify separation. The extent to

which modeling could be used to

predict use-dependent properties from

use-invariant data is not clear.

Differences resulting from various

tillage practices might be modeled

successfully. The difference between

rangeland and cropland might not be

subject to modeling.

Soil data records.—The records

used for soil behavior would be a

combination of use-dependent and useinvariant data. Identification of the usedependent properties and determination

of the depth to which use-dependence

extends would be required.

NASIS.—The Natural Resources

Conservation Service stores and

manages data associated with the

National Cooperative Soil Survey in

the National Soil Information System

(NASIS). The NASIS computer

software is designed to be flexible and

dynamic, so that, as new ways of

describing and documenting soils are

identified, the data base can be

modified as needed.

NASIS currently accommodates the

separation of soils into seven primary

earth cover groups, such as crop cover,

grass/herbaceous cover, and tree cover,

Aspects of a Use-Dependent Data

Base................................................ 1

ISCO Symposium and Tour ............... 4

Soil Quality Thunderbook .................. 5

Soil Taxonomy, Second Edition ......... 6

Language Matters ............................... 7

Live Outcrop....................................... 8

Punitive Justice ................................... 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

Grassland Cropland

Aksarben:

Aggregate stability (pct) 2 .................... 95 10 N/A

Bulk density (g cm-3) 3 ......................... 1.20 1.35 1.35-1.55

Organic matter (pct) 4 ........................... 6 3 2-4

Ksat (in hr-1) 5 ...................................... 0.3 0.02 0.6-2

Infiltration (in hr-1) 6 ............................ 0.3 0.03 N/A

Structure 7 ............................................ Moderate or strong Weak coarse blocky N/A

fine subangular

Derivative quantities:

Hydrologic group 8 .......................... B D B

K factor 9 .......................................... 0.32 0.44 0.32

Potential pesticide loss: 10

Through leaching ............................. Low Very low Intermediate

In runoff ........................................... Intermediate High Intermediate

Monona:

Aggregate stability (pct) 2 .................... 85 25 N/A

Bulk density (g cm-3) 3 ......................... 1.11 1.44 1.25-1.30

Organic matter (pct) 4 ........................... 3.6 2.9 2-4

Ksat (in hr-1) 5 ...................................... 0.13 0.07 0.6-2

Infiltration (in hr-1) 6 ............................ 1.3 0.10 N/A

Structure 7 ............................................ Moderate fine and Weak coarse blocky N/A

medium subangular

blocky

Derivative quantities:

Hydrologic group 8 .......................... B C B

K factor 9 .......................................... 0.27 0.43 0.32

Potential pesticide loss:10

Through leaching ............................. Low Intermediate Low

In runoff ........................................... Intermediate High Intermediate

1 Aksarben: Typic Argiudolls, fine, smectic, mesic; 35-40% clay in Ap; 2-5% slope; low erosion; comparison of 25 or more years smooth bromegrass

meadow and a short-term soybean-grain sorghum rotation under a no-till system; no surface-connected macropores.

 Monona: Typic Hapludolls, fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic; 25% clay in Ap; 2-5% slope; low erosion; comparison of 10 years smooth

bromegrass in the Conservation Reserve Program and a recent corn-soybean rotation under a no-till system; no surface-connected macropores. 2 Method 4G1, Soil Surv. Invest. Rep. 42.

3 Maximim 0-20 cm.

4 0-20 cm.

5 Amoozemeter—constant level borehole device. Water column 10-25 cm.

6 Steady ponded. Small double ring device. Wetted previous day.

7 Weakest 0-20 cm.

8 Based on Ksat of the near surface if it is lower than that in the subsoil. 9 Nomograph method using texture, organic matter, structure, and permeability.

10 Goss and Wauchope. 1990. Proc. 3rd Nat. Res. Conf. on Pesticides.

Table 1.—Comparison of near-surface properties between grassland and cropland for Aksarben and Monona soils1

Property Current data base Measurements
3

NCSS Newsletter

as a means of making use-dependent

separations; however, very little use of

this capability has been made to date.

Secondary categories, such as row

crops, close-grown crops, and

hardwoods, also are available.

Additional categories can be added to

these separations, and other levels of

separation can be added as needed.

Changes in the data model can be made

if a new manner of displaying the data

becomes necessary.

Advantages

1. The accuracy of interpretations

would be increased.

2. Users would be empowered to

select the most applicable soil property

dataset.

3. Implementation would of

necessity bring technical soil services

and soil mapping activities closer

together.

4. Plant scientists and agronomists

would become more involved in the

soil survey program.

5. Field experimental studies

generally are use-specific. The results

of these studies would be more directly

applicable to use-dependent data bases

than to use-invariant data bases.

6. Use-dependent data can be

classified for evaluation of soil quality.

7. A use-dependent data base

would provide a large body of

information about the state of

America’s land.

Summary

A use-dependent data base should

be feasible. It would give customers the

latitude to select the dataset most

applicable to their soils instead of the

present obligatory data base. Further, it

would facilitate the evaluation of soil

quality. Establishment of an operative

use-dependent data base would require

much work and would be a complex,

multifaceted undertaking.

Figure 1.—Aksarben soils, southeast Nebraska. Grassland is on the left; cropland, on the right. The ruler case in the lower photos is 5x5x2 cm.
4

NCSS Newsletter

ISCO Symposium and

Tour

By Henry Mount, Soil Scientist, USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

A National Soil SurveyCentennial Symposium was

held at the Lied Center in Nebraska

City, Nebraska, on May 19, 1999. This

symposium was the start of an

International Soil Conservation

Organization (ISCO) tour. In addition

to scientists from the United States, 22

conservation leaders from Europe,

Africa, and Asia attended the

symposium.

Headlining the list of 10 speakers

for the symposium, Maury Mausbach,

NRCS Deputy Chief for Soils and

Resource Assessment in Washington,

D.C., gave the keynote address. Other

speakers included—

• Robert Manley, former professor at

the University of Nebraska, who gave

an outstanding presentation entitled

“The Settlement of the West: The Role

of Soils.”

• Douglas Helms, NRCS Historian at

Washington D.C., who presented

“History of the National Soil Survey.”

• Dave Lewis, Soils Professor and

Chair of the Horticulture Department at

the University of Nebraska, who

presented “The Science of the National

Soil Survey.”

• Bob Ahrens, National Leader for Soil

Classification and Standards at the

National Soil Survey Center in Lincoln,

Nebraska, who gave a presentation

entitled “Current Techniques in Soil

Survey.”

• Chuck Gordon, MLRA Leader in

Bozeman, Montana, who presented

“Current Applications and

Interpretations.”

• Dave Anderson, from the

Information Technology Center at Fort

Collins, Colorado, who presented “Soil

Survey Information, Data Delivery and

Modeling.”

• Dayle Williamson, Director of the

Nebraska Natural Resources

Commission in Lincoln, who presented

“Future Challenges: Geographic

Information Systems.”

• John Doran, Research Soil Scientist

for the Agricultural Research Service

in Lincoln, Nebraska, who presented

“The Role of Soils in Sequestering

Carbon.”

• Paul Johnson, former chief of the

Natural Resources Conservation

Service, who gave an inspiring talk

entitled “The Case for a National Soil

Quality Policy.”

A tour followed the one-day

symposium. A bus carried the

participants from Nebraska City to

Independence, Columbia, and St.

Louis, Missouri, on May 20 and 21,

then to Cahokia Mounds (fig.1),

Lexington, and Champaign, Illinois, on

May 22. On May 23, the participants

were bussed to Purdue University for

the start of the ISCO meetings.

Combinations of historical, cultural,

and agronomic research stops were

integrated into the tour. The first stop,

on May 20 at the Truman Library in

Independence, Missouri, provided the

participants the opportunity to examine

the significant collected works of

President Harry S. Truman. Dennis

Potter, NRCS Soil Scientist in

Missouri, provided leadership during

the next stop, which was at Le

Bourgeois Vineyards outside

Columbia. Dennis displayed a monolith

of Menfro soils, which was well

received.

Stops at the University of Missouri

on May 21 included two long-term

erosion research areas—the MillerDuley plots and Sanborn Field. Next,

the participants were shown the Marbut

soil map of Missouri—an awesome

construction made of plaster of Paris.

Figure 1.—At Cahokia Mounds in Illinois, the participants scaled Monk’s Mound, the tallest

and largest earthen mound in the world.
5

NCSS Newsletter

This huge map (25 by 25 feet) is

priceless in its significance to the

history of the Soil Survey Division.

The participants viewed additional

erosion plots at Kingdom City,

Missouri. Dr. Gene Alberts, Research

Soil Scientist for the Agricultural

Research Service in Columbia,

provided leadership for the stops on

May 21. Bill Pauls, NRCS Soil

Scientist in Missouri, explained the

soils and landscapes between

Kingdom City and St. Louis. He also

showed an excellent video on the Dust

Bowl for the foreign scientists before

we arrived at our hotel near the

Gateway Arch.

On May 22, Dr. Renita Dalan,

Archaeologist for Southern Illinois

University, presented her research at

the Cahokia Mounds Visitor’s Center

before the group climbed Monk’s

Mound. She explained how her

research integrates into the soil survey

activities of Sam Indorante, NRCS Soil

Scientist at Carbondale, Illinois. Bob

McLeese, NRCS State Soil Scientist for

Illinois, explained the soils and

landscapes between Cahokia Mounds

and Champaign, Illinois. At a stop near

Lexington, Illinois, Mike Kelley gave

details on the world-class no-till

operation on the Jim Kinsella farm. He

noted that more than 60,000 people

have visited the farm since it became

open to the public. The ISCO tour stops

concluded at Champaign, where the

Morrow Plots and soil pits at the

University of Illinois South Farms were

examined (fig. 2). Dr. Bob Darmondy

provided leadership in the discussion at

the stops in Champaign.

Any extended tour involving foreign

scientists requires concerted planning

and, at best, is a difficult process.

Planning and execution of the ISCO

symposium and tour was made easier

by Earl Lockridge, Jim Fortner, Rick

Bigler, and Gary Muckel from the

National Soil Survey Center; Dr. John

Gilley from the Agricultural Research

Service in Lincoln, Nebraska; and Max

Schneff, SWCS Director at Ankeny,

Iowa.

Figure 2.—At a stop in Champaign, Illinois, Dr. Loit Reintam creates a painting of the

Drummer series, the Illinois state soil.

Soil Quality Thunderbook

By Craig A. Ditzler, Director, Soil Quality

Institute, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Ames, Iowa

The Soil Quality Institute inAmes, Iowa, has distributed

copies of “Soil Quality Thunderbook”

to NRCS state offices for distribution to

NRCS field offices. Copies also have

been sent to Regional Offices, MLRA

Offices, Institutes, the National Soil

Survey Center, and NACD and RC&D

leadership. The institute created the

thunderbook to help field office

personnel to identify soil quality

information for their region and to

organize the materials into a handy

reference tool. Many of the institute’s

customers have suggested that a

system is needed for organizing and

filing soil quality information. The

thunderbook can be used by field, state,

and district personnel to customize a

soil quality reference book that meets

local needs.

Thunderbooks are a traditional

agency marketing and educational tool.

They have been customized and used

by conservationists since the early

years of the Soil Conservation Service

(now called the Natural Resources

Conservation Service). The “Soil

Quality Thunderbook” has tabs and

suggested topics for easy organization

of soil quality material now and in the

future and has references to sources of

additional information and educational

materials.

Copies of the contents of the

thunderbook can be downloaded from

the Soil Quality Institute web site—

http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/

SQI/sqihome.shtml. For more

information about acquiring or using

the thunderbook, contact Cathy

Seybold at seyboldc@ucs.orst.edu or

541-737-1786 or Ann Lewandowski at

alewand@soils.umn.edu or 612-624-

6765.
6

NCSS Newsletter

Soil Taxonomy, Second

Edition

By Robert J. Ahrens, National Leader, Soil

Classification and Standards, USDA, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The second edition of SoilTaxonomy was published

through the U.S. Government Printing

Office in the summer of this year. A

printed copy of this publication can

be obtained from the following

source:

Superintendent of Documents

Phone: 202-512-1800

FAX: 202-512-2250

Web site: http://www.gpo.gov

Price: $84

Stock number: 001-000-04663-2

An electronic copy of the

publication is available in PDF format

on the World Wide Web under the

Standards for Soil Survey link from the

National Soil Survey Center home

page, which can be accessed from the

Soil Survey Division home page (http://

www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soiltax/

tax.pdf). The PDF format consists of a

text file, which is about 9,900 KB, and

a map file, which is about 15,500 KB.

Hyperlinks have been established

between the text file and the map file;

between the text and other publications,

such as the Soil Survey Manual and the

Keys to Soil Taxonomy; within and

between chapters in the text; from the

index to the text; and from photographs

(fig. 1) and diagrams to the text.

Acrobat Reader 3.0 or 4.0 is needed for

access to the electronic version of the

publication. The PDF files can be saved

to a hard drive or server.

The National Production Services

Staff, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Fort Worth, Texas, is

duplicating a CD-ROM containing the

electronic version of the publication as

well as Acrobat Reader 4.0, which can

be downloaded from the disk. Copies

of this CD-ROM will be available for

distribution in the near future.

Figure 1.—A photo from Soil Taxonomy

showing a petrogypsic horizon

beginning at a depth of about 50 cm in a

Petrogypsid from New Mexico. A

petrogypsic horizon is a cemented

or indurated accumulation of

secondary gypsum.
7

NCSS Newsletter

Language Matters

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln,

Nebraska.

Dangling Constructions

Most dangling constructions are participial phrases at the beginning of sentences:

“Walking to the store, a car nearly hit me at an intersection.”

Edited: “As I was walking to the store, a car nearly hit me at an intersection.”

Some dangling constructions are at the end of sentences:

“Onsite investigation is needed when planning the use and management of specific sites.”

The only noun that the words when planning the use and management of specific sites

can modify is Onsite investigation. Edited: “Onsite investigation is needed when the use

and management of specific sites are planned.”

Another kind of dangling construction is a dangling infinitive:

“In some areas the spoil material has been regraded to eliminate the highwall.”

The infinitive to eliminate is dangling. No noun in the sentence can perform the action

indicated by the verb. Edited: “In some areas regrading the spoil material has eliminated

the highwall.”

Another kind of dangling construction is a dangling elliptical clause:

“If drained, equipment can be used.”

The elliptical clause If drained illogically modifies equipment. Edited: “If the soil is

drained, equipment can be used.”

“If cultivated, erosion is a hazard.”

The elliptical clause If cultivated illogically modifies erosion. Edited: “If the soil is

cultivated, erosion is a hazard.”

“Reaction is very strongly acid to slightly acid, unless limed.”

The only noun that the clause unless drained can modify is Reaction. Edited: “Reaction

is very strongly acid to slightly acid unless the soils are limed.”

“Most large stones are removed when converted to cropland.”

The clause when converted to cropland illogically modifies large stones. Edited: “ Most

large stones are removed when an area is converted to cropland.”

Note the dangling constructions in the following sentence:

“When used for recreational development, such as playgrounds, picnic areas, and paths

or trails, sandy surfaces may be stabilized to prevent erosion and improve trafficability

using placement of suitable topsoil or resurfacing.”

I count three dangling constructions: the initial “when” clause, the infinitive to prevent,

and the words using placement of suitable topsoil or resurfacing. To identify the other

errors in this sentence, compare the unedited and edited versions. Edited: “When the soil

is used for recreational purposes, such as playgrounds, picnic areas, and paths or trials,

adding suitable topsoil or resurfacing can stabilize the sandy surface layer and thus

prevent excessive erosion and improve trafficability.”
8

NCSS Newsletter

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and 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, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

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

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Live Outcrop

By Chad McGrath, State Soil Scientist/

MLRA Office Leader, USDA, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Portland,

Oregon. From “Stories, Tales, and Bald-Faced

Lies,” edited by Henry Mount, Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln,

Nebraska.

During the 1970’s in Idaho, soilscientists frequently requested

geomorphology assistance from Dr.

Roger Parsons, who was at the West

National Technical Center in Portland.

Dr. Parsons was considered by some to

be the finest geomorphologist in the

United States.

We had a soils/geomorphology stop

in a valley. The question of the

surrounding lithology was raised, and

Dr. Parsons was quick to state it was a

limestone valley.

“Why?” I asked.

“Because there is a limestone rock

outcrop on that hillslope over there,”

Dr. Parsons beamed.

Several of us looked toward the

hillslope where Dr. Parsons was

pointing.

One more time I asked, “Where is

that rock outcrop?”

“It’s over there. Surely you can see

that whitish line of limestone rock

outcrop.”

“Roger, you had better take a better

look through these binoculars,” I

requested.

Dr. Parsons realized his error

instantly while viewing through the

binoculars. The whitish limestone

rock outcrop was really a band of

sheep grazing in single file on a

trail.

Punitive Justice

By Tim Gerber, Ohio Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water

Conservation. From “Stories, Tales, and BaldFaced Lies,” edited by Henry Mount.

The Lawrence County, Ohio,Final Field Review was held in

June 1988. After the review team spent

a day in the field, the rest of the review

was held at the courthouse in Ironton.

Henry Mount represented the QA staff

in Lincoln, and Larry Tornes was the

correlator in Ohio assigned to prepare

the final correlation document.

As the review team was arguing over

the Party Leader’s manuscript, a

policeman came up to our makeshift

conference room with a young suspect

in handcuffs. The policeman apologized

for interrupting us, then placed the

suspect behind bars, which were only

10 feet away from our conference table.

At first, we felt a little uncomfortable

continuing the technical discussions,

but soon we were back into the thick of

a discussion over hues, values,

chromas, classifications, and

interpretations. I’m quite sure that one

hour later, the young suspect felt he

was given enough punishment for one

day.