Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Geoderma 144 (2008) 140 – 157

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Review
Quantitative models for pedogenesis — A review
Budiman Minasny a,⁎, Alex. B. McBratney a , Sébastien Salvador-Blanes b
a
Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
b
Laboratoire de Géologie des Environnements Aquatiques Continentaux, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université François Rabelais de Tours,
Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France

Available online 8 February 2008

Abstract

Pedogenesis models should give us answers to: how does soil form, how does it evolve, where does it come from and how long does it take to
reach this state? This paper reviews quantitative models that describe pedogenesis ab initio and the processes that directly lead to development or
evolution of soil. We review factorial, energy, and mass-balance models. An early conceptual model comes from James Hutton. The factorial
model of Jenny provides the first definition of soil system and quantitative approach in pedology. Much works in pedology were devoted to
proposing variations of the factorial model in a qualitative way, such as the pathways, and energy models. The energy model of Volubuyev
attempts to calculate the energy of soil formation at a macro-scale and the entropy of soil at the profile scale. The energy model is used mainly as
description of the state of a soil. From conceptual, empirical models, a move towards mechanistic models of soil formation followed at a slower
pace. The landscape model from geomorphology has made lots of progress in quantifying and modelling soil weathering and distribution in the
landscape. These models usually consider physical weathering and treat the soil as a single layer of regolith. Meanwhile mechanistic pedology
models consider weathering in a profile scale at a nearly level landscape. Approach to combine these two approaches has recently been proposed.
We demonstrate that a rudimentary mass-balance model can simulate soil thickness and organic carbon content variation in the landscape. A soil
profile can be created by applying fundamental physical and chemical processes. The mass-balance model provides a valuable platform to model
soil and link pedology to other modern earth science disciplines. We discuss some criteria for pedogenesis models and possible integration of the
factorial, energy, and mass-balance models.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil genesis; Pedological modelling; Soil formation; Landscape evolution; Non-linear dynamic systems

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2. The early days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3. The pedogenesis model triad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4. The energy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.1. Energy of soil formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.2. Thermodynamics and entropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5. Soil mass-balance models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.1. Landscape evolution models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.2. Weathering functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.3. Chemical weathering and mass-balance accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.4. Soil transport models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9351 3214; fax: +61 2 9351 3706.
E-mail address: b.minasny@usyd.edu.au (B. Minasny).

0016-7061/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.12.013
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157 141

5.5. Biological processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.6. A soil landscape model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.7. Profile scale model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.8. A soil profile model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6. Discussions and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

1. Introduction
Soil is a complex system composed of a set of interconnected
physical, chemical and biological factors that function as a
whole. To gain deeper understanding of this complexity, soil
scientists have experimented with the application of modern
mathematical and statistical models to its quantification. There
has been a growing movement in pedology to apply empirical
quantitative techniques to predict soil properties from landscape
attributes at a specific site. However there is still little effort in
mechanistic modelling directed towards improving the science
of soil formation. The idea of mechanistic modelling was
formalised by Jenny (1941). Kline (1973) proposed developing
mathematical models of pedogenesis which attempt to synthe-
size soil data into a more comprehensive quantitative theory of
soil formation. The importance of quantitative modelling of soil
formation is echoed again by Hoosbeek and Bryant (1992),
however only a little research has been devoted to modelling
pedogenesis. Most mechanistic modelling comes from geomor-
phology rather than pedology.
This paper will review and present various models for
pedogenesis. Reviews of pedogenesis models can be found in
Amundson (2004), Hoosbeek et al. (1997), Schaetzl and
Anderson (2005), Olson (2006), and Yaalon (1975). Here we
focus on quantitative models, although initially conceptual
models are essential to put soil into the context of a model.
Moreover we restrict our review to the ones that model
pedogenesis ab initio and the processes that directly lead to
development or evolution of soil.
2. The early days
Perhaps the earliest scientist to put up a model for soil
formation is James Hutton (1726–1796). James Hutton is
regarded as the father of modern geology, and known for his
theory on earth formation and the discovery of earth's deep time.
In 1785 he proposed the theory of earth to account for the
magnitude of geological time of earth formation. Hutton grew
his theory based on what Stephen Jay Gould (1987) called the
“paradox of the soil”. Hutton, as a gentleman farmer, realised
that soil is the substance of life, and must be rich and fertile to
fulfil life on earth. He realised that formation involves weath-
ering of rocks, and erosion of soil materials. Hutton in Volume 1
of his book “Theory of the Earth” (Hutton, 1788) described:
“A solid body of land could not have answered the purpose
of a habitable world; for, a soil is necessary to the growth of
plants; and a soil is nothing but the materials collected from
the destruction of the solid land. Therefore, the surface of
this land, inhabited by man, and covered with plants and
animals, is made by nature to decay, in dissolving from that
hard and, compact state in which it is found below the soil;
and this soil is necessarily washed away, by the continual
circulation of the water, running from the summits of the
mountains towards the general receptacle of that fluid. The
heights of our land are thus levelled with the shores; our
fertile plains are formed from the ruins of the mountains;
and those travelling materials are still pursued by the
moving water, and propelled along the inclined surface of
the earth.”
If only the process of erosion happens continually in a
landscape, then it will result in a barren “smooth” landscape and
soil that sustains life will eventually diminish.
“If the vegetable soil is thus constantly removed from the
surface of the land, and if its place is thus to be supplied
from the dissolution of the solid earth, as here represented,
we may perceive an end to this beautiful machine; an end,
arising from no error in its constitution as a world, but from
that destructibility of its land which is so necessary in the
system of the globe, in the economy of life and vegetation.”
Hutton therefore demanded that soil should never run out,
and new soil is formed through regenerative forces of uplifting
and volcanism. This realisation led him to discover the
enormous magnitudes of time. Two hundred years later it was
still being pursued by Johnson (1985) who wrote a model for
soil thickness evolution:
Soil Thickness ¼ f ðDeepening þ Upbuilding þ RemovalsÞ:
3. The pedogenesis model triad
Schaetzl and Anderson (2005) presented a summary of
pedogenetic models in terms of a triangle. The three vertices
are: factors, processes, and pathways, where all models can fit
within the triangle. The state factor model is well-known in soil
science which defines a set of independent variables that define
or control the state or properties of the soil at any given time.
The state factors are based on empirical field observations, and
originated from Vasilli Dokuchaev:
j ¼ f ð K; O; CÞ ð1Þ
142 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
where Π is soil, K is climate, O is organisms, and Γ is ground
(parent materials). Shaw (1930) devised a formula for soil
formation:
s ¼ mðc þ vÞt þd ð2Þ
which states that soil (s) is formed from parent material (m)
by the work of climatic factors (c) and vegetation (v) through
a period of time (t), and modification by erosion and
deposition (d). Shaw who also worked on the physics of soil
water defined the factors as a formula, however it is not for
quantitative prediction, but as a list of the potent factors in soil
formation.
Jenny (1941) rigorously defined the soil as a system and
formalised the state factors of soil formation. Jenny described
soil s as a function of state factors:
s ¼ f ðcl; o; r; p; t; N Þ ð3Þ
This is also called the “clorpt” model, where cl = climate, o =
organisms, r = relief, p = parent material, t = time, and …
represents unspecified components. “The factors are not
formers, or creators, or forces; they are variables (state factors)
that define the state of a soil system” (Jenny, 1961). The state
factors are not only qualitative but also quantitative, and are
independent of the system, and may vary in space and time
(Amundson and Jenny, 1997). Jenny (1941) suggested that there
are two principal methods to solve this equation, i.e. in a
theoretical manner, and empirically from field observation. And
the solution suggested at that time is empirical and to use it as a
quantitative model a single factor can be defined by keeping the
other factors constant. This led to the development of empirical
models to describe pedogenesis, such as climofunctions,
biofunctions, topofunctions, lithofunctions, and chronofunc-
tions (Yaalon, 1975), and the seeking for field situations with
unusual characteristics, i.e. where one of the state factors varies
and the others remain constant. Huggett (1975) called this the
functional, factorial approach.
Jenny (1961) re-defined his state factor model with a general
form considering an open ecosystem:
l; s; v; a ¼ f ðL0 ; Px ; t Þ ð4Þ
where l is ecosystem properties, s is soil properties, v is
vegetation, and a is animal properties which are related to three
main state factors: L0 the initial state of a system, Px the external
flux potentials, and t the age of the system. In pedogenesis, L0
can be the mineral and organic fraction of soil materials, p in
Jenny's clorpt model, and the configuration of the system r. Px
are external environmental properties, which includes climate
cl, biotic factor o, and others.
The processes model (Simonson, 1959) concentrates on the
processes that have formed soil. Soil is viewed as an open
system with additions and removals of materials to and from the
profile, and translocation, transformation within the profile. The
model is written as:
s ¼ f ðaddition; removals; translocation; transformationÞ: ð5Þ
Although Simonson (1959) presented this as a qualitative
conceptual model, this can be viewed as the first attempt to
model soil mechanistically based on physical laws. Huggett
(1975) called this the systems approach.
The pathways model (Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1987;
Phillips, 1993) viewed soil as evolving along some genetic
pathways that reflect variable internal and external factors.
These pathways ebb and flow not in a single direction towards
an “organized” soil, but the processes can be progressive and
regressive. Dokuchaev (as quoted in Nikiforoff, 1959) said
“soil, like any other plant or animal organism, eternally lives
and changes, now progressively and then regressively”. The
model is written as:
s ¼ f ð P; RÞ ð6Þ
where P is progressive pedogenesis, including processes,
factors and conditions that promote differentiated profiles
leading to physical–chemical stability. This includes; horizoni-
zation, leaching, developmental upbuilding, and soil deepening.
R is regressive pedogenesis, including processes, factors, and
conditions that promote simplified profiles, leading to physi-
cal–chemical instability, such as haploidization/rejuvenation
processes, retardant upbuilding (impedance produced by sur-
face-accreted materials), and surface removals (erosion).
Huggett (1995) stated that in terms of quantitative modelling,
it is unduly complicated to single out processes that are
regressive from those that are progressive, and the designation
of a process to be progressive or regressive is based on human
value judgement and can vary with the scale of a system.
Huggett (1991, 1995) formulated the brash model, which is
based on a general dynamic system equation:
dx
¼ f ð xÞ þ z ð7Þ
dt
where x is a vector of variables describing the system, and f() is
a transformation matrix defining the interactions between the
state variables, and z is a vector of driving variables.
Variable x is represented for terrestrial spheres: biosphere b,
toposphere r, atmosphere a, pedosphere s, and hydrosphere h.
Huggett (1995) argued that this approach re-formulates the
factorial model into mathematically solvable equations, and
models soil properties as a function of processes. Applications
of these system equations can be found in Phillips (1993), where
it was shown in a numerical example that changes in the initial
condition and parameter values can trigger the creation of
chaotic behaviour of soil development.
Huggett (1998) viewed the nature of pedogenetic models
reflected the development of thermodynamics as a subject:
classical thermodynamics (1800s), open system dynamics (mid
twentieth Century), and non-linear dynamic system (1970s).
Classical thermodynamics deals with closed system and
equilibrium conditions. Jenny's (1941) theory is rooted in
classical thermodynamics. Open systems theory, or dynamical
systems theory, was advocated into soil science by Nikiforoff
(1959) and Simonson (1959). This theory saw the soil as an
open system and interpreted soil genesis as a dynamic process
that does not always need to produce older or ‘mature’ soil
(Nikiforoff, 1959). Jenny (1961) re-defined his state equation
considering soil in an open ecosystem. Phillips (1993, 1998)
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
embraced the non-linear dynamic systems approach to model
changes in soil system states. Phillips (1998) argued that
Jenny's reformulation of the state factor model (Jenny, 1961)
implicitly recognised the possibilities of self-organization and
deterministic chaos by assigning a strong role to initial
conditions and historical contingency. It is still arguable
whether the chaotic behaviour of mathematical model is due
to the non-linear dynamic of soil or numerical instability
(Pachepsky, 1998).
Although Jenny (1941) intended the model as the first
approach for quantitative pedology, much argument and
development in pedological modelling is focussed on qualita-
tive, narrative models. On the other hand, quantitative use of
factorial models evolves around deriving empirical relation-
ships between the soil-forming factors and soil attributes
(Birkeland, 1999).
4. The energy model
The most important factor in pedogenesis is the transfer of
matter and energy. Yet the energy of soil formation is rarely
quantified. We believe that the soil formation model triad is
better described by: factors, processes, and energy (Fig. 1).
The well-known and most frequently cited work on an
energy model in pedology is by Runge (1973) who presented
the theory as a conceptual model and as an attempt to blend
Jenny's factorial model with Simonson's process model. Runge
(1973) argued that soil is too complex to be described by
factors, as an alternative he considered energy as the principal
drive for soil formation. The main source is gravity, encoura-
ging water flow on and in the soil. Another source of energy is
from plants that utilise water through transpiration. The model
is written as:
S ¼ f ðo; w; t Þ ð8Þ
where o is organic matter production, w is the amount of water
available for leaching, and t is time. Although there are several
papers (Smeck et al., 1983; Schaetzl and Schwenner, 2006) that
embraced this concept, they are used mainly in a conceptual and
qualitative way. No information is presented on the amount of
energy required for pedogenesis.
4.1. Energy of soil formation
An important piece of work that seems to have been
overlooked by soil scientists is the work of Volobuyev in the
1960s, and his book, “Ecology of Soils” (Volobuyev, 1964). He
presented a novel idea on the calculation of the energy
expended in the formation of soil. Tedrow (1965) wrote that
Volobuyev (sometimes quoted as Volobuyev) does not go into
much detail on soil morphology, nor does he present many data.
Volobuyev does not engage in small talk (soil morphology),
instead he discussed the complexities of the soil system. The
works by Volobuyev are mainly published in Russian, some of
the English works are published in Soviet Soil Science (1974a,
1968, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985) and one in Geoderma
(1974b). This work is generally unknown in the soil science
143
Fig. 1. The pedogenesis model triad.
literature, and the papers have rarely been cited in any non-
Russian journals according to the ISI database (accessed
November 2007).
The energy model of Volubuyev works on a macro-scale, and
can be derived based on the first law of thermodynamics. The
first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of
energy, for a closed system it is written as:
DU ¼ Q  W ð9Þ
The change in internal energy of a system (ΔU) is equal to
the amount of heat added to the system (Q) minus the work done
by the system (W). This can describe laboratory studies of rock
weathering. For an open system the energy (heat) required to
build a soil is (Volobuyev, 1964):
E ¼ w1 þ w2 þ b1 þ b2 þ e1 þ e2 þ g þ v ð10Þ
where
E is the energy involved in soil formation
w1 is the energy of physical rock weathering
w2 is the energy for chemical weathering
b1 is the energy accumulating in soil organic matter
b2 is the energy for soil organic matter transformation
e1 is the energy for evaporation from soil surface
e2 is the energy for transpiration
g is the energy losses in leaching of salts and fine
materials
v is the energy expended by the process of heat exchange
between the soil and atmosphere (usually negligible).
The most significant energy is evapotranspiration (e1 + e2),
which is connected to the soil climate moisture regime. The
energy for evapotranspiration can be calculated as:
e ¼ ET  Lv ð11Þ
where the amount of ET is evapotranspiration expressed in m of
water, and Lv is the latent heat of vaporisation of water
(2260 MJ m− 3). Volobuyev (1964) defined the climate zones as
a function of mean annual temperature (MAT), and precipitation
144 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157

over potential evapotranspiration (P / ETp). The ratio K = P / ETp
is called the moisture index representing the availability of
moisture. The energy of evapotranspiration as a function of
MAT and P / ETp is given in Fig. 2a.
The second energy contributor is the biological component
(b1 + b2), an estimate can be based on biomass production,
biomass can be defined as the mass of organisms per unit area
and is usually expressed in units of energy (J m− 2). The
assumption is 1 g photosynthesis or net primary productivity
(NPP) requires 15.7 kJ of solar energy, this energy can vary
between vegetation types. The amount of energy is approxi-
mated by the net primary production of biomass that is available
for consumption by organisms (Fig. 2b).
The energy for rocks and minerals weathering is difficult to
estimate (w1 + w2). Volobuyev takes an approximate considering
a simple weathering reaction of K-Feldspar:
KAlSi3 O8 þ 8H2 O→AlðOHÞ3 þ KOH þ 3SiðOHÞ4
where the Gibbs free energy of this reaction is − 64 kJ/mol at
25 °C. The energy involved in this reaction is 8 kJ/mol of water,
or 440 J/g of water. The amount of water participating in the
weathering process varies according to climatic conditions.
Based on this figure Volobuyev generated the weathering
energy (Fig. 2c).
The approximate total energy for soil formation is calculated
by summing energy for evapotranspiration, biomass production,
and mineral weathering, as shown in Fig. 2d. Most part of soil-
forming energy is for evapotranspiration (95–99.5% of total
energy). The energy for biological processes is only 0.5–5% of
the total energy. The energy for mineral weathering only 0.01%
of the total energy required for soil formation. Volobuyev
(1964) showed the energy of soil formation is variable for
different sites on the earth. In humid tropical wet areas, the
annual energy is 2000 MJ/m2, tundras 40–100 MJ/m2, and for
forests and steppes 500 to 1000 MJ/m2. Volobuyev then
represented the energy as a simple equation:
Q ¼ Ra ð12Þ
where R is the energy of solar radiation, and a is the available
energy sources. For the climatic zones, he simplified it to:
Q ¼ R exp ð1=mK Þ ð13Þ
where m is a dimensionless factor reflecting biological activity,
and K is the moisture index (K = P / ETp).

Fig. 2. The effect of mean annual temperature (MAT in celsius) and precipitation over potential evapotranspiration (P / ETp) on: (a) energy of evapotranspiration,
(b) energy of biomass production as a function, (c) energy of mineral weathering, and (d) total energy of soil formation.
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157 145

This simple calculation provides an approximation for Table 1

energy at region, continent, and global scale. Although some Energy for various soil properties, assuming a clay soil with bulk density 1.4 g/
cm3 and depth 50 cm, 2% organic matter, and CEC = 300 mmol(+)/kg
might not agree to lump various energies together, this is an
elegant way to represent the climatic factors. This approach for State Energy Energy Energy Energy
variable conversion
quantifying the energy of soil formation is revisited by J/g J/m2
Rasmussen et al. (2005) applying it for predicting clay and Organic matter Heat Calorimetric energy of 400 2.8 × 104
organic matter content in the USA. content OM = 20 kJ/g
Another work on the energy of soil formation that is virtually (Reiners and Reiners,
1970)
unknown came from an ecological study by Regan (1977) who
Cation exchange Energy of Average bond 3 × 105 6.6 × 107
quantified energies in the ecosystem to model their role in the capacity exchange energy = 380 kJ/mole
economic development and urban growth in Florida. Regan bonds
calculated the energy of soil formation by considering Jenny's Field capacity Potential Water potential = 1 × 104 7.0 × 10− 1
factors of soil formation. This work lists the energy of the soil- energy of 10 J/kg
soil water
forming factors. Regan considered the solar energy as the main
Wilting point Potential Water potential = 1.5 × 106 1.1 × 105
energy related to climate, while Volobuyev considered the energy of 1500 J/kg
fraction of solar energy used to drive soil formation. Table 1 soil water
shows an example of calculation of the energy of soil variables. Energy of Energy Energy needed 500 3.5
Using an energy transfer model (Odum, 1971), Regan (1977) was aggregate needed to to rupture
formation disperse soil aggregates = 500 J/g
able to create an energy model for soil formation. He simulated
aggregates (Field and Minasny,
the energy of soil formation in Florida considering mineral and 1999)
organic soils. The model simulated the development of a mineral
soil in Florida that reached steady-state about 300 years with a rate
of 5.6 kJ m− 2 year− 1. This model clearly underestimates the rate
and time of soil formation; however this study is an excellent Smeck et al. (1983) described the concept of soil profile
example of linking soil, ecosystems and human system. With development as an energy consuming process with flow of
proper parametisation, this type of model can be executed with entropy to the external environment in an open system. They
better results and give a link between the amount of energy for soil hypothesized the relative change in entropy of soil order based
formation, vegetation, and population support. on positive (progressive pedogenesis of Johnson and Watson-
Stegner) and negative (regressive) processes. Positive values of
4.2. Thermodynamics and entropy ΔS are assigned to processes that result in the disorder of soil,
such as physical mixing, and mineral weathering. Negative
Thermodynamics is a potent principle which can be used to change in entropy is assigned to processes that sort soil
account for the flow and quality of energy in a system. Several constituents, such as weathering of secondary minerals,
reviews with relevance to soil formation have been given eluviation–illuviation, accumulation of organic materials,
(Smeck et al., 1983; Addiscott, 1995). They are mainly concepts leaching. Based on these simple assumptions, they calculated
trying to relate the thermodynamics to soil genesis. Thermo- the net entropy for the USDA soil taxonomy soil orders.
dynamics can potentially be used to quantify the energy of soil Standard Gibbs free energies G, enthalpy H, and entropy S
formation. Thermodynamics evaluates the change in Gibbs free for minerals have been compiled e.g. Lindsay (1979) and Yatsu
energy ΔG, which can be thought of as the maximum amount of (1988). They are based on calorimetric determination of mineral
work obtainable from a reaction. The energy state of a system formation. Most of them used thermodynamic stability
can be written as: diagrams to predict the stabilities, compositions, and the
direction of mineralogical reactions. Jenny (1980) postulated
DG ¼ DH  T DS: ð14Þ
that quantification of ΔG, ΔH and ΔS of the entire ecosystem is
The heat of reaction ΔH reflects the making and breaking of still far in the future. Volobuyev and Ponomarev (1977) took a
chemical bonds, and TΔS is the heat that the system takes or bold step by upscaling free energies and entropies of minerals to
gives to the environment. As well as quantifying the amount of soil. The free energy of a soil is calculated from:
energy, entropy measures the quality of the energy. This quality
is a measure of disorder in the system, and varies in different X
k
DG ¼ A i ni ð15Þ
kinds of energy and systems. Entropy determines the direction i¼1
of flow of energies. Generally energy always flows in such a
way that entropy increases, which implies that the entropy is where μi = chemical potentials of mineral component i, and ni =
very low initially (Price, 2006). number of moles of mineral component i. This method assumes
Entropy has always been the “holy grail” in science, to be the additivity of the thermodynamic potentials. The calculation of
able to give a state of energy in a soil system. Although Price the free energy and entropy for a soil is based on the mineralogical
(2006) argues the term entropy is inessential, we don't need to composition of the soil. Volobuyev and Ponomarev (1977) and
seek for the notion of entropy to see that there's an imbalance in Volobuyev et al. (1980) calculated Gibbs free energy and entropy
the system. for several soil types and presented it as in Fig. 3.
146 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
Fig. 3. Gibbs free energy (ΔG) and entropy (S) for different soils, rocks, and
minerals. Soils and rocks data are from Volobuyev and Ponomarev (1977) and
Volobuyev et al. (1980). Minerals data are from Yatsu (1988).
Volobuyev and Ponomarev (1977) identified two groups:
(1) decrease in Gibbs' free energy ΔG and increase in entropy
S, (2) a more “reactive” soil, increase in ΔG and a decrease in
entropy. Soils with large quantities of residual minerals and
oxides SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 have low Gibbs free energy and
high entropy. The energy has been “lost” in minerals weath-
ering. This is followed (in the order of higher energy and lower
entropy) by phyllosilicate minerals, carbonates, and soluble
salts. The increase in entropy and decrease in Gibbs free energy
reflects minerals that have higher intensity of leaching and more
resistance to weathering.
Volobuyev et al. (1980) also showed that ΔG is related to
water infiltration capacity, the lower the values of ΔG the higher
the infiltration capacity. Samedov and Nadirov (1989) showed
that the activity of earthworms in the soil decreases ΔG because
of the change in chemical composition and enrichment of the
organic component.
Volobuyev's soil entropy is different from the entropy of
Smeck et al. (1983). Weathering of primary minerals according
to Smeck et al. (1983) increases the entropy, but accompanying
it the internal profile processes of illuviation, accumulation of
organic matter, formation of secondary minerals, and leaching
decreases the entropy. Thus highly weathered soils such as
Oxisols and Ultisols have negative entropy change (ΔS
negative) while Vertisols have a positive entropy change (ΔS
positive). The difference is Smeck's model is based on a profile
and qualitative description of main processes. Meanwhile
Volobuyev's calculation is based on the mineral composition
of a soil layer. It will be useful to calculate Volobuyev's entropy
for each horizon of a soil profile.
Much work on quantitative energy of soil formation has been
made by Volobuyev, however this work is virtually unknown in
soil science literature. At present, the energy model is mainly
used to describe the state of a soil, and is used at most for
empirical correlations between the amount of energy and soil
properties (Rasmussen et al., 2005). However an example by
Regan (1977) showed the possibility on the use of energy to
simulate the formation of soil, this approach has not been
pursued further possibly due to lack of interest and data.
5. Soil mass-balance models
The mass-balance models are based on a mechanistic
approach and are in line with the “processes” approach. It
generally attempts to formulate a continuity equation to account
for the change in soil properties over time. Modelling
pedogenesis as processes can be interpreted in various meanings
by different people. Two broad categories can be identified, the
first is modelling soil formation ab initio, starting from a
bedrock, dealing with processes that can produce a soil with its
properties. The second is modelling changes in soil properties
(or processes) in the soil. For the latter model, soil is already in
place and the model deals with physical, chemical and
biological processes that influence the development of soil.
Kline (1973) recognised the complexity of the soil system
but proposed to translate the conceptual model into a flow
diagram that can be modelled mathematically. He proposed a
model for simulating the origin of chemical stratification in soil
horizons. Kirkby (1977) realised the complexity in modelling
pedogenesis, and strived a balance between simplicity and the
need to representing the important processes. While many
physical, chemical, and biological models are available to
simulate individual soil processes at short (daily to annual) time
scales, models which simulate soil weathering processes at
geological time scales are still lacking. Hoosbeek and Bryant
(1992) attempt to distinguish the multiplicity of soil genesis and
process models based on their spatial scale.
There are two main schools in mechanistic modelling of
pedogenesis: the landscape evolution model and the soil profile
model. The landscape evolution model mainly comes from
geomorphology, where soil is modelled as a single layer of
regolith, where weathering is mostly physical with materials
transport in the landscape is the main process. The soil profile
model from pedology and geochemistry mostly view it
weathering and as vertical transport of materials within the
profile, assuming a level landscape with minimum runoff and
lateral transport. No successful model has been able to link the
two of them.
5.1. Landscape evolution models
In the fields of geology and geomorphology, mechanistic
models describing slope development have been developed
successfully (Ahnert, 1977; Willgoose et al., 1991). Models in
geomorphology usually simulate the evolution of a landscape
by the processes of erosion and deposition. The simplest model
of modelling soil in a landscape is considering the change in
elevation over time is a function of material transport, the
continuity equation is:
∂z
¼ jqs ð16Þ
∂t
where z is elevation [L], t is time [T], andqs is material flux
[L3 T− 1 ], and ∇ is partial derivative vector ∂x∂ þ ∂y∂ . This model
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
forms the bases of landscape evolution models (Ahnert, 1967).
Carson and Kirkby (1972) and later Dietrich et al. (1995)
introduced soil in the continuity equation:
∂h qr ∂e
¼  jqs
∂t qs ∂t
where h is soil thickness [L], e is the boundary between soil
and bedrock (e = z − s) [L] (see Fig. 4). ρs is the density of soil
[M L− 3] and ρr is the density of rock [M L− 3] (Fig. 4). This
equation considers weathering of bedrock into soil materials,
and transport of the materials. The first application in soil
science is probably by Huggett (1975) who considers soil
landscape as a homomorphic model. Dietrich et al. (1995) and
Heimsath et al. (1997) applied this model in a watershed in the
Tennessee valley, California. Minasny and McBratney (1999)
employed this in a rudimentary one-dimensional soil-land-
scape model, and expanded it to two dimensions in Minasny
and McBratney (2001) with chemical weathering. Rosenbloom
et al. (2001) further expanded this model (Eq. (17)) separating
the soil variables (h) into four components: sand, silt, clay and
organic matter.
5.2. Weathering functions
Studies on weathering functions in pedology begin with
investigation of chronofunctions, the rate of soil physical and
chemical weathering over time. Colman (1981) reviewed
various studies of rock weathering, and suggested that the rate
of weathering decreases with time and weathering rate can be
approximated as a logarithmic function of time.
Ahnert (1967) and Heimsath et al. (1997) suggested that the
rate of soil production (∂e / ∂t) can be represented as an
exponential decline with soil thickness:
∂e
¼ P0 exp ðkhÞ
∂t
where P0 [L T− 1] is the potential (or maximum) weathering rate
of bedrock and k [T− 1] is an empirical constant. This equation
mainly describes the physical weathering of bedrock, where the
Fig. 4. A mass-balance model for soil formation in a landscape. Symbol e refers
to the interface between bedrock and soil, h is the thickness of soil layer, z is
elevation, and qs is soil transport.
147
reduction of weathering rate with thickening of soil is related to
the exponential decrease of temperature amplitude with
increasing depth below the soil surface (Ahnert, 1967, 1977),
and also the exponential decrease in average water penetration
ð17Þ (for freely-drained soils). Heimsath et al. (1997) called this the
soil production function, which refers to the conversion of
bedrock to soil, or the lowering of bedrock–soil boundary. Note
that soil production is not strictly equal to weathering rate, soil
production refers to the conversion of bedrock into soil as
distinguished by lacking relict bedrock structure. Most bedrock
is weathered in place before it gets disrupted and incorporated
into the soil materials. Dietrich et al. (1995) argued that the
primary mechanism in many places for this production is
disturbance by biogenic activity. Heimsath et al. (1997, 1999,
2000, 2001) measured the production rate using cosmogenic
nuclides and parameterized the function.
An alternative soil production function is the so called
humped model (Humphreys and Wilkinson, 2007), which
implies the presence of chemical weathering as well as physical
weathering. Initially hypothesized by Grove Karl Gilbert in
1877 (Humphreys and Wilkinson, 2007), the soil production
reaches a maximum under an optimal soil depth. Weathering of
bedrock depends on water, thus decomposition of bedrock is
fastest under an intermediate thickness of soil and slower under
exposed bedrock or under thick mantled soil. This is because
chemical weathering requires the presence of water (Ahnert,
1967). Under thin soil or exposed bedrock water tends to run
off, reducing the chance of the decomposition of bedrock.
Various forms of the function are given by Cox (1980). Furbish
and Fagherazzi (2001) presented a function:
 
∂e 1 þ jh
¼ P0 expðkhÞ: ð19Þ
∂t 1 þ j=k
κ [L− 1] is a coefficient that controls the intercept and rate of
ð18Þ
increasing weathering rate with increasing soil thickness, with
k b κ and when κ = 0, it reduces to the physical weathering
model. The critical soil thickness where maximum weathering
rate occurs at:
1 1
hc ¼  : ð20Þ
k j
As an alternative, Minasny and McBratney (2006) presented
a double exponential model:
∂e
¼ ðP0 ½ exp ðk1 hÞ  exp ðk2 hÞ þ Pa Þ: ð21Þ
∂t
where k1 represents the rate of mechanical breakdown of the
rock materials, and k2 is the rate of chemical weathering, and Pa
is the weathering rate at steady-state condition [m year− 1] with
condition k1 b k2. The critical thickness where weathering is
maximum is given by:
ln ðk2 =k1 Þ
hc ¼ : ð22Þ
k2  k1
148 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
Furbish and Fagherazzi (2001) performed stability analysis
to confirm the qualitative analysis of Carson and Kirkby (1972)
that perturbations of soil thickness in the initial condition will be
dampened when soil thickness is greater than hc, and instability
will be amplified when soil thickness is less than hc. Decreasing
weathering rate with increasing soil thickness reinforces the
stabilising effect of the diffusion process. Meanwhile increasing
weathering rate with soil thickness has a destabilising effect,
most probably due to the thin soil and the need to maintain its
thickness to produce more soil. Dietrich et al. (1995) modelled
both the humped and exponential soil production functions in a
soil development model for a watershed in the Tennessee
Valley, California. Their results showed that using the humped
model resulted in the emergence of bedrock in the convex crests
and pointed out that there can be no soil thickness between bare
bedrock and the peak in the hump (the unstable region).
Meanwhile the exponential function resulted in a soil thickness
pattern that is more consistent with field observations.
Rather than using a single weathering function for a
landscape, Saco et al. (2006) varied the exponential weathering
function spatially according to soil moisture conditions:
∂e  
ð x; y; hÞ ¼ P0 1 þ a ½F ð x; yÞd expðbhÞ: ð23Þ
∂t
The weathering potential parameter k (Eq. (19)) is modified
to include the term F(x,y), a spatial variable of soil moisture
which can be a function of topographic wetness index,
subsurface water depth, with a and d as empirical parameters.
They found that varying the weathering function spatially can
result in well-defined soil spatial patterns. They also showed
that varying the weathering potential as a function of subsurface
water can create a weathering function with a maximum value
that is non-zero soil depth.
5.3. Chemical weathering and mass-balance accounting
Chemical weathering rates at watershed to global scale are
usually studied by analysing the concentrations of solute in the
streams. There are many factors controlling weathering rates,
however many studies at a particular scale have narrowed down
to a simple relationship between weathering rates and a major
controlling factor. At a global scale, a simple linear relationship
between runoff, precipitation and chemical weathering rates (as
measured by chemical element fluxes) is observed using the
watershed dataset from the world (Wakatsuki and Rasyidin,
1992; White and Blum, 1995). Meanwhile weathering fluxes w
(mol m− 2 s− 1) and temperature follow the Arrhenius law:
w ¼ A exp ðEa =RT Þ ð24Þ
where A is potential weathering rate, Ea is the activation energy,
R is a gas constant, and T is temperature. Lasaga et al. (1994)
attempted to present a model to account for various controlling
factors: temperature, pH, and solution composition. They
proposed a model that incorporates ΔG, temperature and
adsorption of H+, OH− , and other ions.
Another chemical weathering model generally used in soil
and geochemistry is the geochemical mass-balance. Nikiforoff
and Drosdoff (1943) presented a model to account for gains and
losses of substances in a volume of soil. Brimhall and Dietrich
(1987) introduced a mass-balance model that quantitatively
links chemical composition to bulk density, mineral density,
volumetric properties, porosity, and amount of volume loss or
strain. It uses elements in rocks and soils as geochemical tracers
indicative of specific physico-chemical transport processes
during weathering. The model is:
qr Ci;r
e¼ 1 ð25Þ
qs Ci;s
where ε is strain, or change in thickness over original
thickness [L L − 1 ], Ci is mass concentration of the immobile
element [M M − 1 ], ρ is bulk density [M L − 3 ], subscripts r and
s represent rock and soil material. This provides a means of
using chemical data to determine the amount of deformation
in residual weathering profiles. Strain is positive for dilation
and negative for collapse of the profile.
The work by Brimhall and Dietrich (1987) is the cornerstone of
the last 20 years of soil formation work by many people, and
quantitatively opened up soil formation from a black to grey box
(Chadwick et al., 1990). However most studies on soil chemical
weathering rates at profile scale are assuming residual weathering
on a nearly level landscape, where soil erosion is minimal and
lateral water flux is at a minimum. On hillslopes, geomorphol-
ogists implicitly assumed that soil production and removal was
an entirely physical process. Chemical weathering at landscape
scale on sloping terrain was just recently measured and modelled
using soil production rate and geochemical composition of
the soil (Riebe et al., 2003, Yoo et al., 2007). Riebe et al. (2003)
considered the soil production rate at a site with steady-state
formation, erosion, and weathering. The soil production rate then
equal to the sum of the rates of chemical weathering and erosion.
Based on the chemical mass-balance (Eq. (25)), the chemical
weathering can be calculated by considering immobile elements
such as Zr. The ratio between Zr concentration in the rock and soil
indicates the soil chemical weathering rate W [L T− 1]:
 
W ¼ D 1  ½Zrr =½Zrs ð26Þ
where D is the soil production rate [L T− 1] obtained from in-situ
produced cosmogenic nuclide concentrations measured in soil
samples. Assuming steady-state conditions in soil production and
transport and chemical weathering, Yoo et al. (2007) combined
the chemical mass-balance (Eqs. (25) and (26)) and the soil mass-
balance model (Eq. (17)) to come up with a model for soil physical
and chemical weathering rate as a function of hillslope position.
Research in the measurement of soil age and weathering rate
is lacking in pedology. Most studies and data come from
geomorphology and geochemistry. Various studies have explored
the influence of climate and erosion on chemical weathering.
West et al. (2005) suggested a model for silicate weathering rates
considering their limiting factors: erosion and reaction kinetics.
At low erosion rates mineral supply limits weathering, and at high
erosion rates there is abundant material but the kinetic and
climatic factors limit weathering. From cosmogenic nuclides
and geochemical measurement, Riebe et al. (2004) found that
chemical weathering rates decrease rapidly with increasing
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
altitude, they argued that the faster the erosion rate, the faster the
chemical weathering. Burke et al. (2007) measured soil
production and the chemical weathering rate in a granitic hillslope
at Point Reyes, California. They showed that chemical weathering
rates decrease with increasing soil thickness and account for 13 to
51% of the soil production rate. They also found that spatial
variation in chemical weathering appears to have a good
correlation with topography: high chemical weathering rates
correspond to gentle slopes, and the rate and intensity decrease
with steeper slopes. Gabet et al. (2006) considered the effect of
hydrology and developed a mathematical model describing that
when weathering is not limited by the supply of parent materials,
the weathering rates are enhanced with decreasing hydraulic
conductivity and longer soil water residence time.
5.4. Soil transport models
The transport of soil materials in the landscape can be
modelled as the following processes:
• The linear diffusion process, formulated as:
qD ¼ DS ð27Þ
where:
qD volume of material that flows across an area per unit
time by diffusive transport [L2 T− 1],
D diffusivity [L2 T− 1],
S slope gradient [L L− 1].
Diffusive transport simulates slow mass movement or creep of
soil materials moving downhill by the force of gravity. This
model which is also called linear transport is the oldest and has
been the most widely used in landscape evolution models.
However it has limited applications, field evidence of Dietrich
et al. (2003) indicates that outside of freeze thaw activity and
clay rich soils, most of the soil ”creep“ is due to biogenic
activity. From field measurements, Heimsath et al. (2005)
calculated sediment fluxes against the product of soil thickness
and hillslope gradient and showed that soil transport is a non-
linear, thickness-dependent process. Their data suggest that the
widely used linear diffusion equation is only appropriate for
shallow gradient, convex regions.
• The overland water erosion process, where the transport is
proportional to local water discharge and slope. It is defined as:
qA ¼ KA Am Sn ð28Þ
where:
qA erosion flux [L2 T− 1],
KA water discharge [L2 T− 1],
A upstream catchment area,
m and n empirical parameters, with 1.0 ≤ m ≤ 1.8 and 0.9 ≤
n ≤ 1.8,with the best single combination of values
being m = n = 1.4 (Prosser and Rustomji, 2000).
149
It is originally developed for fluvial transport. This model
simulates surface wash processes induced by overland flow
(Kirkby, 1985; Willgoose et al., 1991; Dietrich et al., 2003).
• Soil thickness-dependent flow (Braun et al., 2001; Heimsath
et al., 2005)
qH ¼ K H hp Sq ð29Þ
qH erosion flux [L2 T− 1],
KH transport coefficient [L2 T− 1],
h soil thickness [L],
p and q empirical parameters.
Braun et al. (2001) suggested p = 1.67 and q = 0.5 analogous
to Manning's equation for open channel flow. They showed that
this model better captures spatial variations of soil thickness on
hillslopes. An increasing flux with increasing soil thickness is
hypothesized due to increased materials to be transported,
porosity and bioturbation. Heimsath et al. (2005) showed that
the thickness-dependent transport law is more broadly applic-
able than the linear diffusion model.
5.5. Biological processes
Biological processes are an important part of the soil
formation processes. Activities of animals and plants can affect
the soil formation factors. These activities are termed
bioturbation, which is generally defined as “the churning and
stirring of sediment by organisms” (Gabet et al., 2003). It is
applied in pedology and geomorphology for an array of
biomechanical processes of soil profile reorganization (Johnson
et al., 2005b). Bioturbation in soil is mainly the result of
earthworm/ant/termite activity, and results in the detachment,
transport, sorting and deposition of material, both within the
soil mantle and on its surface resulting in the homogenisation of
the topsoil, and material transport between the subsoil and the
topsoil.
Carson and Kirkby (1972, pp. 289–291) regarded bioturba-
tion as secondary in importance to systematic moisture and frost
cycling in producing soil creep. Meanwhile Johnson et al.
(2005b) advocated bioturbation as the primary process of soil
formation. Johnson et al. (2005a) gave an animation of the
process to explain the evolution of soil thickness. However it is
only a conceptual model without any physical formulation.
Gabet et al. (2003) provided the first comprehensive review of
quantitative models of bioturbation on soil formation and
sediment transport. In this review the authors provided physical
models to quantify sediment flux for tree throw and root growth
and decay. Heimsath et al. (2002) used natural quartz grains in a
mature soil to determine grain movements from the time elapsed
since each grain last visited the ground surface, measured by
single-grain optical dating. Using a Monte Carlo simulation of
particle transport, they suggested that soil creep involves
independent movements of mineral grains throughout the soil
body and that grains are reburied or eroded by overland flow
upon reaching the surface.
Yoo et al. (2005) modelled soil mass transport by soil-
burrowing animals in terms of the population density and energy
150 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157

expenditure of the animals. They also calculated the average

energy input by the animals for soil transport is 120 J m− 2 year− 1,
only a small fraction of the energy of soil formation.
The effect of biological processes may create a unique
topographic signature of life at the profile or horizon scale.
Dietrich and Perron (2006) emphasized the effect of biota on
landscape evolution, arguing that it even influences the height,
width and symmetry of mountains, but they concluded that
there appear to be no unique signature of life in the topography.
Istanbulluoglu and Bras (2005) suggested that vegetation can
affect landscape form by changing the dominant erosion process
from overland flow under abiotic conditions to land sliding in
well-vegetated states.
Biological processes occur mainly in soil, and linking soil as
a profile in the landscape is the key to be able to give us a
mechanistic understanding of the role of biotic processes in
landscape evolution.
Fig. 5. Biomass productivity as a function of soil thickness and organic carbon
content.
5.6. A soil landscape model

Minasny and McBratney (2006) presented a mass-balance

model for soil formation in the landscape. The model uses the
mass-balance Eq. (18), considering a soil production function
(Eq. (22)) and transport models (Eqs. (27)–(29)). In this review,
we have expanded the model incorporating soil organic carbon
evolution (Fig. 4). The following example attempts to integrate
the landscape mass-balance model to simulate soil evolution in
the landscape.
In addition to the soil mass-balance, we model the carbon
component separately but allow interaction with the mineral
component similar to the model by Yoo et al. (2006):
∂Cz
¼ Iz þ qm  kCz  qC : ð30Þ
∂t
The change in carbon concentration C [L L− 1] over depth z,
Cz, is a function of production Iz [L L− 1], within profile (vertical)
mixing qm, decomposition k and transport qC. Soil carbon
production is modelled as a function of depth (Yoo et al., 2006):
Iz ¼ Ci expðbzÞdz ð31Þ
−1
where Ci is the carbon production at soil surface [L T ], and b
[L− 1] is an empirical constant. The production is influenced by
soil thickness, and productivity (Fig. 5). Productivity is defined as
a sigmoid function of organic carbon, suggesting a feedback of
productivity with increasing soil carbon level. Vertical mixing is
modelled as a diffusion process (Kirkby, 1977):
∂2 C
qm ¼ DC ð32Þ
∂z2
where DC is a mixing constant [L2 T− 1]. This represents mixing
of organic materials by soil fauna. Decomposition is based on a
simple two compartment model (Hénin and Dupuis, 1945):
∂C
¼ hI  kc C ð33Þ
∂t
where h is a humification factor, and kc is the rate constant of
decomposition. The rate constant is dependent on soil depth
kc = kc0 exp(−bkh). Transport of carbon is modelled as simple
diffusion process
qC ¼ r D k S ð34Þ
r is a reduction factor in soil transport due to improvement in
soil structure due to organic matter addition, Dk is a transport
coefficient [L T− 1] and S is slope.
We applied the model to a digital elevation model of the
Hunter Valley in New South Wales, Australia (Minasny and
McBratney, 2006). The area was assumed to have a uniform
parent material and initial thickness of 10 cm. Parameters of the
model were obtained from the literature. Fig. 6 shows the results
of the model from a simulation of 40 000 years. The model can
simulate the distribution of soil thickness and organic carbon in
a landscape. Within this landscape we also recognise three main
soil groups according to the topographical position (Paton,
1978): residual, transportational, and depositional. Residual
soils (Fig. 7) mostly occur on gentle topography, the long
residence time of soil material meaning weathering processes
are dominant. Transportational soils (Fig. 8) take place in
convex topography where lateral movement is dominant near
the surface and weathering processes are dominant near the
bedrock surface. Depositional soils (Fig. 9) occur in concave
topography where lateral movement is dominant, and weath-
ering processes are less important. Residual soils (Fig. 7) show
slow build-up of soil thickness. Carbon is slowly accumulating
in the soil in the initial period (8000 years) and starts to increase
with increasing soil thickness. Transportational soils have very
little accumulation of soil materials, and carbon (Fig. 8). After
25 000 years with sufficient soil build-up, the carbon begins to
accumulate. Depositional soils are characterised with rapid
build-up of soil thickness and carbon storage (Fig. 9). This
example shows that the simulated patterns of soil formation
follow the general soil–landscape relationship. The challenge is
to build a realistic and computationally feasible soil profile
model that can be incorporated in the landscape model.
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157 151

Fig. 6. Simulation of the distribution of (a) soil thickness and (b) organic carbon in a landscape after 40 000 years.

5.7. Profile scale model
Kirkby (1977) realised the importance of soil in landscape
evolution, and presented the first mechanistic soil profile model
as a component of hillslope models. His model is based on the
quantity called soil deficit:
Z h
w¼ ð1  PÞdz
z¼0
where P is the proportion of bedrock or substance remaining
in a soil profile with values between 0 to 1.0 (unweathered
materials), w is the accumulated “soil deficit” which represents
the amount of proportion of bedrock converted to soil. The
mass-balance model is given as:
 
∂w ð1  P s Þ
¼ j J  qs ð36Þ
∂t Ps
where J is chemical sediment transport, and Ps is properties
remaining in the soil at the surface. The model is developed in
ð35Þ three parts: weathering profile, organic profile, and inorganic
profile. The inorganic minerals are treated as mixtures of
elementary oxides. Soil organic materials include production,
decomposition, and vertical mixing. The soil CO2 produced by
organic matter decomposition is simulated via diffusion process,
and soil pH is calculated with reference to the CO2 distribution.
152 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157

Fig. 7. The evolution of soil thickness, carbon storage in the profile, and surface carbon content for residual soils.

Kirkby (1985) improved his model considering nutrient
uptake, leaf-fall and decomposition of nutrients in organic
matter, mechanical mixing by soil fauna, leaching of solutes.
These processes are shown to be sufficient to produce shallow
and deep weathering profiles, and the formation of an organic-
rich surface horizon and a subsurface horizon with base
depletion. No further work has been developed after this.
5.8. A soil profile model
Salvador-Blanes et al. (2007) devised a soil profile model
which is envisaged to be incorporated into a landscape model.
The main processes are physical and chemical weathering,
and reorganization process due to bioturbation. The profile
starts with the physical disintegration of bedrock into a layer of
regolith (Eq. (18)). The regolith layer is then subjected to
physical and chemical weathering creating a particle-size
distribution and chemical composition with time. The weath-
ering of the coarse fraction in the profile is considered as a
physical weathering process only. The primary minerals
released are subsequently subjected to both physical and
chemical weathering. The physical weathering of the minerals
consists in breaking a given mineral particle into smaller
particles. The physical fractionation model is based on the
model of Legros and Pedro (1985). The chemical weathering is
modelled according to White et al. (1996):
mw ¼ kr S ð37Þ
−1
where mw is the mineral weathering rate [mol s ], kr the mineral
weathering rate constant [mol m− 2 s− 1], and S the mineral surface

Fig. 8. The evolution of soil thickness, carbon storage in the profile, and surface carbon content for transportational soils.
 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157 153

Fig. 9. The evolution of soil thickness, carbon storage in the profile, and surface carbon content for depositional soils.

area [m2]. Primary minerals are subjected to weathering into
secondary minerals according to known chemical weathering
pathways.
The reorganization of soil materials within the profile was
modelled as bioturbation, where a given proportion of the fine
fraction (b2 mm) of soil from each layer in the subsoil is
transported to the topsoil layer due to biogenic activities. Thus,
as the soil forms, each layer is subjected to increase weathering
that resulted in a loss of chemical elements, while bioturbation
leads to a removal of soil material from subsoil to topsoil layers.
The model was applied to a study of an in-situ weathering
profile from meta-gabbro, which is mainly composed of
plagioclase, hornblende and quartz (Schroeder et al., 2000).
Results for the evolution of particle-size distribution for various
ages ranging from 10 000 to 80 000 years are shown in Fig. 10.
This example of a simple in-situ, soil profile model with 3 major
pedogenic processes: physical and chemical weathering, and
bioturbation, is able to simulate the formation of a soil with a
stone layer, and thus a first attempt to simulate simple soil
horizon formation.
6. Discussions and conclusions
From field observations, soil scientists have come up with
conceptual models trying to capture the main factors and
processes that are responsible for the genesis of soil and its
horizons. From conceptual models, empirical relationships are
constructed representing climofunctions, biofunctions, topo-
functions, lithofunctions, and chronofunctions (Birkeland,
1999). These functions are useful to explain soil distribution
at catena, landscape or higher spatial scales. However most
research in pedological modelling focussed on developing the
factorial narrative models, which are descriptive, based on field
observations, and not for quantitative prediction (Fig. 11). A

Fig. 10. The evolution of particle-size distribution of a simulated soil profile forming in-situ with physical, chemical and biological processes.
154 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157

Fig. 11. A summary of the development of factorial models.

Fig. 12. A summary of the energy models.

Fig. 13. A summary of the mass-balance pedogenesis models.

 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
move towards mechanistic models of soil formation followed at
a slower pace.
Jenny (1980) distinguished two approaches in modelling
pedogenesis, those based on soil processes and state-factor
sequences. The process approach is reductionist utilising
physics, chemistry and biology to study individual soil
processes. The state factor approach is phenomenological,
seeking the explanation of how soil varies in space and time.
Various quantitative pedogenesis models have been con-
structed by various authors. In geochemistry, these include
modelling continental basalt weathering at geological time scale
(Dessert et al., 2003; Goddéris et al., 2007), mineral weathering
at catchment scale (Goddéris et al., 2006), profile scale over
years (Suarez and Goldberg, 1994). These models focussed
mainly on the weathering and formation of minerals and soil
solution chemistry, while soil itself is a medium of reaction. Soil
physical and chemical models include transformation with
physical and chemical processes over decades in a profile
(Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1994). These models attempt to
simulate current or previous soil conditions to predict what is
going to happen in the future. Soil is assumed to have been
formed. We might call this predictive pedology. This is a useful
pursuit especially considering climate change and land-use
pressures. Here time scales of decades and centuries are relevant
for humanity and its survival. The real challenge is to be able to
model soil development ab initio. This is useful to give us a
better understanding of pedogenesis and help us answers
questions such as: How does soil form, how does it evolve,
where does it come from and how long does it take to form and
reach this state? There appear only a few models that are
designed for the purpose. Most of them come from geomor-
phology such as those by Kirkby, Dietrich, Heimsath and
others, which have made substantive progress in modelling soil
evolution in the landscape based on mass-balance equations.
We tried to define some criteria for pedogenetic models. The
first is physical basis; the model being based on physical laws,
consistent with the conservation of mass and energy. Although
some relationships between soil processes are still not
quantifiable, empirical relationships can be placed within the
framework. The second is it can simulate the present condition,
given an initial condition (also called nowcasting); it can
simulate realistically the soil thickness and soil properties
variation in the landscape. Ultimately, it should simulate soil
profile formation in a landscape, where each voxel represents a
horizon characteristic. And third, the model can be extended to
simulate what is the likely past condition given the present
condition (also called backcasting), and for scenario modelling
what will be the likely soil condition in the future (forecasting).
Pedogenesis modelling may not be able to replicate present
condition accurately, but it should be able to model the trend
and this is the essential part of the modelling exercise.
One of the criteria is to be able to create soil horizons. The soil
horizon is the unique property that defines a soil from pedological
point of view. Soil horizons here do not refer to descriptive soil
morphology, but are genetic layers having characteristic chemical,
and physical properties (Bockheim et al., 2005). Bockheim and
Gennadiyev (2000) identified 17 main processes that lead to the
155
formation of soil horizons or soil profiles. Not many models can
create these qualitative descriptions, and it is the challenge to be
able to model these processes. This is extremely challenging for
most, so many will dismiss it as irrelevant, however this is the
outlook of pedology that allows us to test and better understand
various soil formation processes.
We have demonstrated that simple mechanistic models based
on mass-balance are able to simulate realistically the distribution
of a layer of soil and organic matter in the landscape. A profile
model can simulate the development of simple soil horizons. The
big challenge is to be able to link these two together. The factorial
model allows us to isolate and to identify potent factors in soil
formation, and to confirm them with reality based on empirical
observations (Fig. 11). The energy model accounts for the flow of
energy and indicates which direction the soil is going. As shown
in Regan (1977) it is possible to model the energy of soil
formation in an ecosystem (Odum, 1971) (Fig. 12). The mass-
balance approach offers the best way to mechanistically model
soil processes (Fig. 13). All of these models are complementary,
and the ultimate goal is the ability to link all these three
approaches, and to be able to model how soil horizons and profiles
evolve and change in the landscape. The mechanistic platform
allows a solid link between pedology and modern earth sciences.
Acknowledgements
This work is funded by the Australian Research Council
Discovery project “How do soils grow?” The authors thank
Dr. Bill Dietrich and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful
reviews.
References
Addiscott, T.M., 1995. Entropy and sustainability. European Journal of Soil
Science 46, 161–168.
Ahnert, F., 1967. The role of the equilibrium concept in the interpretation of
landforms of fluvial erosion and deposition. In: Macra, P. (Ed.), L'evolution
des versants. L' Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 23–41.
Ahnert, F., 1977. Some comments on the quantitative formulation of
geomorphological process in a theoretical model. Earth Surface Processes
2, 191–201.
Amundson, R., 2004. Soil formation. Chap. 5.01. In: Holland, H.D.,
Turekian, K.K. (Eds.), Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 1–35.
Amundson, R., Jenny, H., 1997. On a state factor model of ecosystems.
BioScience 47, 536–543.
Birkeland, P.W., 1999. Soils and Geomorphology, 3rd edn. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Bockheim, J.G., Gennadiyey, A.N., 2000. The role of soil-forming processes in
the definition of taxa in Soil Taxonomy and the World Soil Reference Base.
Geoderma 95, 50–72.
Bockheim, J.G., Gennadiyev, A.N., Hammer, R.D., Tandarich, J.P., 2005.
Historical development of key concepts in pedology. Geoderma 124, 23–36.
Braun, J., Heimsath, A.M., Chappell, J., 2001. Sediment transport mechanisms
on soil mantled landscapes. Geology 29, 683–686.
Brimhall, G.H., Dietrich, W.E., 1987. Constitutive mass balance relations
between chemical composition, volume, density, porosity, and strain in
metasomatic hydrochemical systems: results on weathering and pedogen-
esis. Geochimica et Cosmochima Acta 51, 567–587.
Burke, B.C., Heimsath, A.M., White, A.F., 2007. Coupling chemical weathering
with soil production across soil-mantled landscapes. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 32, 853–873.
156 B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 144 (2008) 140–157
Carson, M.A., Kirkby, M.J., 1972. Hillslope Form and Process. Cambridge
University Press, p. London.
Chadwick, O.A., Brimhall, G.H., Hendricks, D.M., 1990. From a black to a gray
box — a mass balance interpretation of pedogenesis. Geomorphology 3,
369–390.
Colman, S.M., 1981. Rock-weathering rates as a function of time. Quaternary
Research 15, 250–264.
Cox, N.J., 1980. On the relationship between bedrock lowering and regolith
thickness. Earth Surface Processes 5, 271–274.
Dessert, C., Dupre, B., Gaillardet, J., Francois, L.M., Allegre, C.J., 2003. Basalt
weathering laws and the impact of basalt weathering on the global carbon
cycle. Chemical Geology 202, 257–273.
Dietrich, W.E., Perron, T., 2006. The search for a topographic signature of life.
Nature 439, 411–418.
Dietrich, W.E., Reiss, R., Hsu, M., Montgomery, D.R., 1995. A process-based
model for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation
data. Hydrological Processes 9, 383–400.
Dietrich, W.E., Bellugi, D., Heimsath, A.M., Roering, J.J., Sklar, L., Stock, J.D.,
2003. Geomorphic transport laws for predicting the form and evolution of
landscapes. In: Wilcock, P., Iverson, R. (Eds.), Prediction in Geomorphol-
ogy. AGU Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 135, pp. 103–132.
Field, D.J., Minasny, B., 1999. A description of aggregate liberation and
dispersion in A horizons of Australian Vertisols by ultrasonic agitation.
Geoderma 91, 11–26.
Furbish, D.J., Fagherazzi, S., 2001. Stability of creeping soil and implications
for hillslope evolution. Water Resources Research 37, 2607–2618.
Gabet, E.J., Reichman, O.J., Seabloom, E.W., 2003. The effects of bioturbation
on soil processes and sediment transport. Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences 31, 249–273.
Gabet, E.J., Edelman, R., Langner, H., 2006. Hydrological controls on chemical
weathering rates at the soil–bedrock interface. Geology 34, 1065–1068.
Goddéris, Y., Francois, L.M., Probst, A., Schott, J., Moncoulon, D., Labat, D.,
2006. Modelling weathering processes at the catchment scale: the WITCH
numerical model. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 1128–1147.
Goddéris, Y., Donnadieu, Y., Dessert, C., Dupre, B., Fluteau, F., Francois, L.
M., Meert, J., Nedelec, A., Ramstein, G., 2007. Coupled modeling of
global carbon cycle and climate in the Neoproterozoic: links between
Rodinia breakup and major glaciations. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 339,
212–222.
Gould, S.J., 1987. Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the
Discovery of Geological Time. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Heimsath, A.M., Dietrich, W.E., Nishiizumi, K., Finkel, R.C., 1997. The soil
production function and landscape equilibrium. Nature 388, 358–388.
Heimsath, A.M., Dietrich, W.E., Nishiizumi, K., Finkel, R.C., 1999.
Cosmogenic nuclides, topography, and the spatial variation of soil depth.
Geomorphology 27, 151–172.
Heimsath, A.M., Chappell, J., Dietrich, W.E., Nishiizumi, K., Finkel, R.C.,
2000. Soil production on a retreating escarpment in southeastern Australia.
Geology 28, 787–790.
Heimsath, A.M., Chappell, J., Dietrich, W.E., Nishiizumi, K., Finkel, R.C.,
2001. Late Quaternary erosion in southeastern Australia: a field example
using cosmogenic nuclides. Quaternary International 83–85, 1169–1185.
Heimsath, A.M., Chappell, J.C., Spooner, N.A., Questiaux, D.G., 2002.
Creeping soil. Geology 30, 111–114.
Heimsath, A.M., Furbish, D.J., Dietrich, W.E., 2005. The illusion of diffusion:
Field evidence for depth dependent sediment transport. Geology 33, 949–952.
Hénin, S., Dupuis, M., 1945. Essai de bilan de la matière organique des sols.
Annales Agronomiques 15, 161–172.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Bryant, R.B., 1992. Towards the quantitative modeling of
pedogenesis — a review. Geoderma 55, 183–210.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Bryant, R.B., 1994. Developing and adapting soil process
submodels for use in the pedodynamic Orthod model. In: Bryant, R.B.,
Arnold, R.W. (Eds.), Quantitative Modeling of Soil Forming Processes. .
SSSA Special Publication, vol. 39. Soil Science Society of America, Inc.,
Madison, WI, pp. 111–128.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Amundson, R.G., Bryant, R.B., 1997. Pedological modeling.
In: Sumner, M.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, pp. E-77–E-116.
Huggett, R.J., 1975. Soil landscape systems: a model of soil genesis. Geoderma
13, 1–22.
Huggett, R.J., 1991. Climate, Earth Processes and Earth History. Springer,
Heidelberg.
Huggett, R.J., 1995. Geoecology. An Evolutionary Approach. Routledge, London.
Huggett, R.J., 1998. In Discussion of: J.D. Phillips, On the relation between
complex systems and the factorial model of soil formation. Geoderma 86,
23–25.
Humphreys, G.S., Wilkinson, M.T., 2007. The soil production function: a brief
history and its rediscovery. Geoderma 139, 73–78.
Hutton, J., 1788. Theory of the Earth or an investigation of the laws observable
in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe.
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh I, 209–304 part II.
Istanbulluoglu, E., Bras, R.L., 2005. Vegetation-modulated landscape evolution:
effects of vegetation on landscape processes, drainage density, and
topography. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, F02012.
Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of soil formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jenny, H., 1961. Derivation of state factor equations of soils and ecosystems.
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 25, 385–388.
Jenny, H., 1980. The soil resource. Origin and Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Johnson, D.L., 1985. Soil thickness processes. In: Jongerius, P. (Ed.), Soils and
Geomorphology. Catena Supplement, vol. 6. Catena Verlag, Braunschweig,
pp. 29–40.
Johnson, D.L., Watson-Stegner, D., 1987. Evolution model of pedogenesis. Soil
Science 143, 349–366.
Johnson, D.L., Domier, J.E.J., Johnson, D.N., 2005a. Animating the
biodynamics of soil thickness using process vector analysis: a dynamic
denudation approach to soil formation. Geomorphology 67, 23–46.
Johnson, D.L., Domier, J.E.J., Johnson, D.N., 2005b. Reflections on the nature
of soil and its biomantle. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 95, 11–31.
Kirkby, M.J., 1977. Soil development models as a component of slope models.
Earth Surface Processes 2, 203–230.
Kirkby, M.J., 1985. A basis for soil profile modelling in a geomorphic context.
Journal of Soil Science 36, 97–121.
Kline, J.R., 1973. Mathematical simulation of soil–plant relationships and soil
genesis. Soil Science 115, 240–249.
Lasaga, A.C., Soler, J.M., Ganor, J., Burch, T.E., Nagy, K.L., 1994. Chemical
weathering rate laws and global geochemical cycles. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 58, 2361–2386.
Legros, J.P., Pedro, G., 1985. The causes of particle size distribution in soil
profiles derived from crystalline rocks, France. Geoderma 36, 15–25.
Lindsay, W.L., 1979. Chemical Equilibrium in Soils. Wiley, New York.
Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., 1999. A rudimentary mechanistic model for soil
production and landscape development. Geoderma 90, 3–21.
Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., 2001. A rudimentary mechanistic model for soil
formation and landscape development II; a two-dimensional model
incorporating chemical weathering. Geoderma 103, 161–179.
Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., 2006. Mechanistic soil-landscape modelling as
an approach to developing pedogenetic classifications. Geoderma 133,
138–149.
Nikiforoff, C.C., 1959. Reappraisal of the soil. Science 129, 186–196.
Nikiforoff, C.C., Drosdoff, M., 1943. Genesis of claypan soil. Soil Science 53,
459–482.
Odum, H.T., 1971. Environment, Society and Power. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Olson, C.G., 2006. Geomorphological soil-landscape models. In: Grunwald, S.
(Ed.), Environmental Soil-Landscape Modeling. Geographic Information
Technologies and Pedometrics. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, pp. 105–124.
Pachepsky, Y.A., 1998. In Discussion of: J.D. Phillips, On the relation between
complex systems and the factorial model of soil formation. Geoderma 86,
31–32.
Paton, T.R., 1978. The Formation of Soil Material. George Allen & Unwin,
London.
Phillips, J.D., 1993. Progressive and regressive pedogenesis and complex soil
evolution. Quaternary Research 40, 169–176.