Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
66
MARCHAPRIL 2002
No. 2
In the 1870s, agricultural geologists (pioneer pedologists) in Germany, Denmark, and Russia conceived of the soil profile. In more
than a century since, pedologists have generally agreed on the reasons
and purpose for using symbols such as A-B-C for the designations,
but not on the definitions themselves or the assigned significance of the
designations. In this paper, we submit that two seemingly conflicting
classes of profile concepts evolved in the USA from European roots.
The conflict stems historically from arbitrarily defined thin and thick
profile concepts, often referred to as the soil or geologic weathering
profiles, respectively. The pedologic or thin profile concept is depthrestricted when compared with the geologic thick weathering profile.
The geologic profile concept was developed as a homologue of the
pedologic profile and is considered to be the full or complete profile
of weathering. Throughout the 20th century many variations of the
concept of profile appeared, and all seem to have pedogeo conflicts,
exemplified by the myriad C horizon definitions by soil scientists.
Recent concepts, such as the pedoweathering profile, have integrated
the terminology used by pedologists and geologists into a functional
and useful classification for all horizons of complete profiles. Full 21st
century understanding of soils beyond the historic 20th century needs
of agriculture, increasingly requires a knowledge of soil properties to
greater depth than merely the historic solum and upper C horizon,
and makes understanding subsolum properties more critical than
ever before.
s pedology and Pleistocene (or Quaternary) geology, have sprung from similar scientific roots, it is
not surprising that they have developed homologous
335
336
(zaleganiya chernozem stratification of the chernozem). The structure or stratification of the chernozem consisted ideally of an individual A, B, and C
(ghorizont horizon, meaning layer or
tinct layers in forest soils: the true or upper soil (including the forest mould), and the false or under soil (also
called the subsoil). This appears to be the first soil profile scheme promulgated by an agricultural geologist in
the USA. By the date of publication, Shaler (1890, 1891)
takes precedence over Eugene W. Hilgard, who did not
publish his profile concept until 1906 (Hilgard, 1906;
Jenny, 1961).
George Coffey (1912, p. 8) considered the soil an
independent, natural body, a bio-geological formation,
consisting of a surface soil and a subsoil. The author
of the U.S. Bureau of Soils (1914) Instructions to Field
Parties (who Simonson [1987] believes was Curtis F.
Marbut, Coffeys successor as head of the U.S. soil survey program) defined the soil section, composed of soil
material, as including the topsoil, subsoil, and substratum layers.
Marbut (1927) discovered the soil profile while
translating Glinkas (1914) work during a 3-yr period
(19141917). Marbut wrote in his personal papers that
advancement of the Russian work was a politically sensitive issue because of the anti-Russian sentiment in the
U.S. Bureau of Soils. He stated, I had to work in secret.
I was called a Russian worshipper by my own men.
Whitney had a reputation for getting rid of those who
did not agree with him [e.g., Coffey]. I told him [Whitney] that I would follow his orders, but would think for
myself (Lankford et al., 1985, p. 39, Folders 141144).
Marbut had completed and prepared a limited number
of carbon copies of the Glinka translation for circulation
to a few selected persons by 1920 (Lankford et al., 1985,
vol. 5, p. 40). However, it appears that he waited to
have the translation published until the U.S. Bureau of
Soils head Whitney was too ill to oppose it. The translation was finally published (albeit in mimeograph
form) in conjunction with the First International Congress of Soil Science in 1927 (Marbut, 1927).
337
Brown clearly represented a faction of ASSA members willing to evaluate and accept new ideas regardless
of origin. His statement reflects an emphasis on the
use of the profile as a concept for studying soils as
independent entities, paving the way for the development in the USA of what is now known as pedology.
Bridges (1997, p. 52) relates a personal communication from Simonson who stated that during 1924 a
circular was issued which contained instruction on the
use of the A-B-C designations; its anonymous author
was Marbut. This explains how a symposium Profile
Studies of Four Major Soil Groups could be organized
at the 1924 ASSA meeting in Chicago. The presented
papers, published later, used the A-B-C designations in
a generally consistent way: J.C. Russell and E.G. Engle
(1925) on the central prairies, H.H. Krusekopf (1925)
on brown soils of the north central states, Earl Fowler
(1925) on coastal plain soils, and Veatch (1925) on
northern podsol soils. Charles F. Shaw (1925; see cover)
also used the A-B-C designation in his report on Australian soils. Veatch (1925, p. 27) refers to the A-B-C profile
as the Glinka scheme. This was 2 yr before the mimeographed Marbut (1927) translation of Glinka was available in the USA; carbon copies of the translation were
circulating within the professional community.
A symposium on Soil Profile Studies was held at
the 1925 ASSA meeting. All of the presentations and
subsequent publications featured the A-B-C system:
Thomas D. Rice (1926) on prairie soils, Mark Baldwin
(1926) on northern timbered soils, William Hearn (1926)
on southern soils, and Macy H. Lapham (1926) on western soils.
338
Soil layer
Surface soil
Subsurface
Subsoil
Substratum
339
C1
C1
C2
C2
C3
C3
C4
CC
Cn, Cn
Cox
Cr
Cu
Dr
E
G
M
OU
P
R
Placement (subsolum
unless otherwise
indicated)
Definition or description
Subsoil
S
U
UU
Unaltered
W
Zone 4
Zone 5
Below oxidized,
leached
Below oxidized,
unleached
Reference
Dokuchaev (1879, 1883, 1900), Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev (1893)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Shaw (1927, 1928a, 1928b)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951, 1960, 1962,
1975, 1981, 1993), FAO (1973, 1977)
Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994)
Marbut (1924)
Fowler (1925)
Veatch (1925)
Norton and Smith (1928), Shaw (1929)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Follmer (1979)
Marbut (1924), Shaw (1929)
Fowler (1925)
Veatch (1925)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Follmer (1979)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Follmer (1979)
Follmer (1979)
Frye et al. (1960, 1962), Willman et al. (1963, 1966)
Shaw (1929), Birkeland (1974)
Birkeland (1974)
FAO (1973, 1974, 1977)
Soil Survey Staff (1981, 1993)
Birkeland (1984)
Dokuchaev (1900)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994)
Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Glinka (1914)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Brinkman and Pons (1973), Dent (1986, 1993)
Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Hallberg et al. (1978)
Pittman (1932)
Whiteside (1959)
Soil Survey Staff (1962, 1975, 1981, 1993); FAO (1973, 1974,
1977)
Nye (1954)
Whiteside (1959)
Hallberg et al. (1978)
Frye et al. (1960, 1962); Willman et al. (1963, 1966)
Watson (1961)
Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962)
Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962)
Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham
(1942)
Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham
(1942)
340
the FAO (1973, 1977) and later Soil Survey Staff (1981,
1993) systems.
E.A. Fitzpatrick (1967, 1980, 1988) also broke with
tradition and formulated an alternative approach to the
A-B-C-horizon designation. His system categorized all
major horizons into 77 types based on their own characteristics and diagnostic properties. Such a large system
adds precision and important distinction, but is difficult
to remember and apply in the field.
The study and classification systems of soils around
the world were largely developed independently from
one region to another. The systems were largely built
on regional experiences. Nevertheless, in recent decades
the A-B-C concept of soil profile has been used to denote the master horizons of most soils of the world.
The A-B-C notation is most easily applied in youthful
landscapes, particularly in those regions glaciated during
the Pleistocene. Its application in areas outside of glaciated regions has been more problematic.
341
Leverett and Alexander Winchell, were also active researchers in what became known as Pleistocene or
Quaternary geology (Tandarich, 1998). The interest in
soils among Quaternary geologists has expanded to include the subdisciplines of paleopedology and soil stratigraphy.
In the 20th century study of Pleistocene geology, the
concepts of the geologic weathering profile (Tandarich
et al., 1988), and soil stratigraphy (Morrison, 1967, 1978)
evolved to form a geological basis for understanding
soils. Initially this evolution took place in schools and
governmental agencies within the mid-continental USA
where glaciated landscapes were prevalent. These institutions included the Universities of Chicago, Illinois,
and Iowa, and the geological surveys of midwestern
states.
Colleagues of Shaler and Hilgard, Chamberlin, and
Rollin Salisbury at the University of Chicago, trained
George F. Kay (see cover). Kay was the originator of
the term gumbotil (Kay, 1916) and geologic weathering
profile (Kay and Pearce, 1920) concepts. Kay (1916, p.
637) characterized gumbo(til) as a grayish, tenacious,
thoroughly leached, and nonlaminated joint clay. According to Kay (1916, p. 637), gumbotil is chiefly the
result of weathering of till, but he never referred to it
as soil. He gave a paper before the ASSA in 1929 (a
reworking of portions of Kay and Apfel, 1928) entitled
Gumbotil, its characteristics, origin and significance
(Kay, 1930). Kay described stages of the alteration processes of the gumbotil and weathering profile:
solution, hydrolysis, the formation of colloids and crystalloids, precipitation and leaching, the gradual passage downward of all the transportable elements of the till, including
the iron, the silica, the colloidal clays, and similar colloidal
silicates. The resultant residuum of the chemical leaching
process is a practically insoluble stratumthe gumbotil. In
addition, such physical factors as wind action, freezing and
thawing, and burrowing of ground animals may have played
some part (Kay and Apfel, 1928, p. 111112; Kay, 1930,
p. 134135).
However, Kay stopped short of declaring the processes listed above to be soil-forming processes and the
weathering profile, including the gumbotil, to be coequal to a soil profile. Yet he (Kay and Graham, 1942)
equates the gumbotil and weathering profile zones as
defined by Morris M. Leighton and Paul MacClintock
(1930; see below) to soil profile horizons. Kays weathering profile zones are unnumbered or otherwise symbolically designated: gumbotil, oxidized and leached till,
oxidized and unleached till, and unoxidized and unleached till (Kay and Apfel, 1928; Kay and Graham,
1942).
We suspect that Kay was influenced by the work of
Stevenson and J.F. Barker (1911) at Iowa State University on gumbo soils of Iowa. As Kays archival papers
on the weathering profile are missing and presumed
lost, we may never know if he corresponded with soil
scientists as he formulated his ideas. Kay collected publications on soils, particularly soil survey reports, and
corresponded with soil scientists Bushnell, Conrey, Norton, Rice and Smith in the 1920s and 1930s (Kay, n.d.).
342
of landscape evolution, soil stratigraphy and soil geomorphology that he promulgated in later works (Ruhe,
1956, 1959, 1969a, 1969b; Ruhe and Fenton, 1969). In
particular, the work done by Ruhe in the Greenfield
Quadrangle (Ruhe et al., 1967) and colleagues elsewhere in southwestern Iowa (Daniels and Jordan, 1966)
help set modern standards for integrating geological
and pedological methods to obtain better results for
understanding the modern landscape, and why soils and
paleosols are where they are. In 1958, Ruhe and colleague Raymond B. Daniels proposed revisions to the
horizon designation system of the Soil Survey Staff
(1951) that accommodated paleosol horizons (Ruhe and
Daniels, 1958).
Peter W. Birkeland, a Quaternary geologist influenced by pedologist Hans Jenny when at the University
of California, Berkeley, has published on the interrelationships of pedology, Quaternary geology, and geomorphology (Birkeland, 1974, 1984, 1999). Birkeland modified the soil horizon designation system of the Soil
Survey Staff (1951) by adding a Cox for an oxidized C
horizon, and a Cn for unoxidized C (Birkeland, 1974).
The latter was changed to Cu in 1981 in response to
the horizon designation changes of the Soil Survey Staff
that year (Birkeland, 1984).
In 1978, Quaternary geologist George R. Hallberg of
the Iowa Geological Survey, and Iowa State University
pedologists Thomas E. Fenton and George R. Miller
developed a hybrid profile descriptive system that incorporated notations from both the pedological and geological profiles. Letter clusters represent observed conditions below the pedological solum in loess and till: e.g.,
OL oxidized, leached; OU oxidized, unleached;
and UU unoxidized, unleached (Hallberg et al., 1978).
Independent of the Iowa effort, pedologist and Quaternary geologist Leon R. Follmer of the Illinois Geological Survey, influenced more by Leightons profile ideas
than Fryes, developed a fourfold division of the C horizon (Follmer, 1979, 1984) that subdivided the region
below the solum and included the unweathered portion
of the profile (Table 2). More recently, Follmer et al.
(1985) and Tandarich et al. (1994) introduced the pedoweathering profile concept, which contained pedogenic
C and geogenic D horizons (Table 2), and integrated
the functional parts of the pedological and geological
profiles.
343
REFERENCES
Baize, D. 1993. Place of horizons in the new French Referentiel
Pedologique. Catena 20:383394.
Baldwin, M. 1926. Some characteristic soil profiles in the north central
states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:122132.
Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson (ed.) 1987. Glossary of geology. 3rd ed.
American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Becker, G.F. 1895. Reconnaissance of the gold fields of the southern
Appalachians. p. 251331. In Sixteenth annual report of the United
State Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior 189495,
Part IIIMineral resources of the United States, 1894 metallic
products. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, weathering, and geomorphological
research. Oxford University Press, New York.
344
345
Norton, E.A., and R.S. Smith. 1928. Horizon designations. Am. Soil
Surv. Assoc. Bull. 9:8399.
Nye, P.H. 1954. Some soil-forming processes in the humid tropics.
1. A field study of a catena in the West African forest. J. Soil
Sci. 5:721.
OBrien, E.L., and S.W. Buol. 1984. Physical transformations in a
vertical soil-saprolite sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:354357.
Ojanuga, A.G. 1973. Weathering of biotite in soils of a humid tropical
climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:644646.
ONeal, A.M. 1923. Minutes of the business meeting of the American
Association of Soil Survey Workers held in Urbana, Illinois, November 17 & 18, 1922. Am. Assoc. Soil Surv. Workers Bull. 4:173
176.
Orth, A. 1873. Das geologische Bodenprofile nach seiner Bedautung
fur den Bodenwert und die Landeskultur. In German. Berlin.
Orth, A. 1875. Die geognostisch-agronomische Kartirung. In German.
Verlag von Ernst & Korn, Berlin.
Ospovat, A.M. (trans.) 1971. Short classification and description of
the various rocks by Abraham Gottlob Werner. Hafner Publishing
Company, New York.
Pavich, M.J. 1986. Processes and rates of saprolite production and
erosion on a foliated granitic rock of the Virginia Piedmont. p.
551590. In S.M. Colman and D.P. Dethier (ed.) Rates of chemical
weathering of rocks and minerals. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Pavich, M.J. 1989a. Appalachian Piedmont regolith: relations of saprolite and residual soils to rock-type. p. 111. In G. Matheson (ed.)
Design with residual materials. Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 63. Am.
Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Pavich, M.J. 1989b. Regolith residence time and the concept of surface
age of the Piedmont peneplain. Geomorphology 2:181196.
Pittman, D.W. 1932. A proposed descriptive symbolism for soil horizons. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 24:931934.
Ramann, E. 1911. Bodenkunde. 3rd ed. Verlag von Julius Springer,
Berlin.
Rebertus, R.A., and S.W. Buol. 1985. Iron distribution in a developmental sequence of soils from mica gneiss and schist. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 49:713720.
Rice, T.D. 1926. Profile studies of representative soils in the northern
prairie states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:114A.
Rice, T.J., Jr., S.W. Buol, and S.B. Weed. 1985. Soil-saprolite profiles
derived from mafic rocks in the North Carolina Piedmont: I. Chemical, morphological, and mineralogical characteristics and transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:171178.
Robertson, S.M. 1968. Soil survey of Clarke and Oconee Counties,
Georgia. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington.
Ruhe, R.V. 1948. Some notes on the Pleistocene geology of Shelby
County, Iowa. Proc. Iowa. Acad. Sci. 55:281286.
Ruhe, R.V. 1954. Pleistocene soils along the Rock Island relocation
in southwestern Iowa. Am. Railway Eng. Assoc. Bull. 514:639.645.
Ruhe, R.V. 1956. Geomorphic surfaces and the nature of soils. Soil
Sci. 82:441455.
Ruhe, R.V. 1959. Stone lines in soils. Soil Sci. 87:223231.
Ruhe, R.V. 1969a. Quaternary landscapes in Iowa. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Ruhe, R.V. 1969b. Application of pedology to Quaternary research.
p. 123. In S. Pawluk (ed). Pedology and Quaternary research.
National Research Council of Canada.
Ruhe, R.V., and R.B. Daniels. 1958. Soils, paleosols and soil-horizon
nomenclature. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 22:6669.
Ruhe, R.V., and T. E. Fenton. 1969. Paleosols and soil stratigraphy.
p. 335340. In Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde. 8th Congress of Inqua. Paris: Union Internationale pour Letude du Quaternaire. (In French.)
Ruhe, R.V., R.B. Daniels, and J.G. Cady. 1967. Landscape evolution
and soil formation in southwestern Iowa. USDA Tech. Bull. 1349.
Russell, J.C., and E.G. Engle. 1925. Soil horizons in the central prairies.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:118.
Schoeneberger, P.J., A. Amoozegar, and S.W. Buol. 1995. Physical
property variation of a soil and saprolite continuum at three geomorphic positions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:13891397.
Shaler, N.S. 1890. Aspects of the earth. Charles Scribners Sons,
New York.
Shaler, N.S. 1891. The origin and nature of soils. p. 219345. In J.W.
Powell (ed.) Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 189091. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
346