Published August 4, 2015

Articles
Ethnopedological Surveys-Soil Surveys
that Incorporate Local Systems
of Land Classification
Joseph A. Taborl
Soil surveys in developing countries can be greatly improved with no
additional cost if soil mappers use farmers and herders as a source of infor-
mation instead of working independently of them. Soil surveys that tap this
indigenous knowledge: (i) describe soils in terms of units that the farmers
and herders manage; (ii) assure that the described soils are typical and im-
portant for the area surveyed with a high level of confidence and at minimal
cost; and, (iii) provide a wealth of soil and soil-related information from
both an annual and historical perspective that can only be gathered through
farmer interviews.

The Problem
Most soil surveys in developing countries use small-scale maps
« 1:50,(00) and describe soils too generally to be useful in making manage-
ment decisions at the farm level. The map unit descriptions are usually of
limited use to planners because they fail to describe the composition of the
large mapping units (> 100 hal in terms of much smaller management units
that the farmers and herders use. Even some of the large-scale maps (I :20,000
and larger) are of limited value because they ignore distinctions between soils
that are important to farmers and herders. Moreover, the names given to
soils in the surveys are usually alien to all but the soil scientists and do not
facilitate communication between farmers and extension agents.
Soil surveys, both small and large scale, are usually conducted with limit-
ed time and budgets so they provide information at a reconnaissance level
of accuracy. Even when using modern technology, these constraints make
it difficult for the soil scientist to determine which sites are truly typical and
which soils are important to the people that manage the land. Another fac-
tor affecting the accuracy of soil surveys is that soil mappers, national and
expatriate, are often unfamiliar with the areas surveyed and many of them
have only minimal field training.
Unlike European and North American countries, many developing coun-
tries do not have an accumulated scientific knowledge-base on the agricul-
tural and engineering capabilities of their soils. Nor do these developing
countries have research institutions capable of quickly generating the enor-
mous amount of soil information that is urgently needed to improve food
production.
I Office of Arid Lands Studies, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85716.
1
2 SOIL SURVEY HORIZONS
Value of Ethnopedology
Farmers and herders allover the world have developed land classifica-
tion systems that can provide useful insights into their farming and land te-
nure systems. These classification systems also offer a useful vocabulary for
talking with villagers about agricultural and land tenure issues. Anthropolo-
gists and geographers have documented for some time that these systems ex-
ist. More recently, soil scientists have used them to guide soil surveys.
The most difficult task in conducting a soil survey is creating a good
soil legend that effectively separates soils on their productive capacity and
allows easy identification in the field. By interviewing farmers and herders
on their systems of soil classification, soil scientists can: (i) identify rapidly
all the soils that are important to the farmer; (ii) determine each soil's rela-
tive productivity and their value for agriculture, forestry, and range; and,
(iii) locate typical soils of each type and correlate them to other systems, both
scientific and indigenous. Collecting this information, along with a wealth
of other natural resource information, requires a large amount of time and
expense if soil scientists work independently of farmers. By working closely
with local farmers and herders, it is possible to produce soil surveys effi-
ciently, especially when soil scientists have limited local experience. Farmers
have even helped soil scientists map soils in Senegal, Mali, and Mauritania
(Tabor et al., 1992).
Local land tenure relationships are more easily understood by outsiders
if they know the local systems of land classification. This knowledge also
provides outsiders with a common vocabulary to discuss land tenure issues
with farmers and herders, as well as allowing interviewers to quickly deter-
mine the resource base and wealth of farmers and villages.
For example, in Kenya's Eastern Province, farmers of the Mbeere, Kam-
ba, and Meru language groups identify a common soil called Yumba. This
clayey soil is kaolinitic and makes excellent fired pots that are important
storage containers for people in the area. The soil is of very small extent but
is widely distributed throughout the region. However, some villages do not
have Yumba soils and must purchase pots transported from other areas. The
soil's economic importance was demonstrated during the Kenyan govern-
ment's land adjudication program. In villages where Yumba soils are rare,
people refused to let the government give individual property rights to this
soil, preferring that it remain communal property. This soil and its impor-
tance had not been described in soil surveys (Tabor et al., 1990). In western
Mali, the different levels of participation by villages in irrigation projects
along the Senegal River is in part explained by the soils that each village con-
trols (Tabor et al., 1992). Once the productivity of the local soils and the
amount of land each village controls are identified, better planning of agricul-
tural development activities is possible.
Agricultural development projects often disrupt established social and
tenure relationships through real or perceived changes in soil productivity
and land value. Needless disruption in tenure relationships can be avoided
if local land classification systems are integrated into the development
project's soil and cadastral surveys.
SPRING 1992 3
Land classification systems that farmers develop separate soils by charac-
teristics important to them. Soil scientists tend to be biased toward classifi-
cation systems they know and thus commonly separate soils to fit the division
breaks of their own system. This can overly complicate the soil survey, or
worse, disregard separations that are important to farmers. Local systems
can provide clues for identifying those soil characteristics that are most im-
portant in land management. They can also help soil scientists identify agricul-
tural interventions that will most economically improve the soil's productivity.
This approach to soil surveys can provide better insights into the farming
system that in turn can better guide agricultural research.
For example, soil surveys of Kenya's Eastern Province could be improved
by incorporating the knowledge of farmers. In previous surveys, extensive
areas of sandy soils were mapped but incorrectly described as more clayey
than those that farmers identified as typical. This soil's peculiar characteris-
tics were also documented through interviews with farmers. During the heavy
rainy season, the soil has low agriculture value because of its poor drainage.
During the light rainy season, its retention of water makes it one of the most
productive soils in this drought-prone area of Kenya. The farmers also provid-
ed a wealth of information on the management of these soils such as the
crops and cultivars grown specifically on them (Tabor et aI., 1990).
Modern, scientifically based soil classification systems group soils by
their gross characteristics and define them by a short string of words. They
are good for providing exclusionary criteria in selecting sites or activities that
depend on soils. However, they generally fall short in providing enough in-
formation for making more specific management decisions. For example,
the USDA Soil Taxonomic family, fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic
Hapludillfs has several contrasting series in terms of Capability Classifica-
tion. To overcome this deficiency, the USDA merged its previous system of
soil series with the more recent U.S. system of soil taxonomy. This allows
a lower level of classification that provides much more information on which
to base management decisions.
Many respected North American and European soil scientists have dis-
couraged the use of soil series in developing countries because of the great
expense involved in collecting large amounts of information required for
establishing soil series. However, much soil information can be collected with
minimal expense from farmers and herders in developing countries. Many
of the soils that are described by farmers in developing countries fit within
the concept of soil series. They have a wealth of information on these soils,
including their relative productivity. In some cases, farmers make finer dis-
tinctions than would normally be made between soil series.
For example, Soninke farmers and Peul herders in drought-prone Sene-
gal, Mauritania, and Mali (annual precipitation between 300-800 mm) make
very fine distinctions between riparian soils with respect to their period and
frequency of flooding. The Soninke identify Kolanga and Khare as separate
floodplain soils. These very fine, noncalcareous, isohyperthermic Typic
Chromusterts are similar but the Khare soils occur in lower areas that flood
longer. The period of flooding dictates the type of cultivation. Recessional
sorghum is grown on the Kolanga soils while rice is grown on the Khare soils.
The Peul identify three different riparian landscapes (Walo, Changoul, and
4 SOIL SURVEY HORIZONS
Salka) that are based on frequency and period of flooding. Each landscape
is composed of the same soils but the type of flooding directly affects their
use. The Walo is the area flooded annually by the Senegal River, peaking
in October after the end of the rainy season. Changoul and Salka riparian
zones depend on local rainfall. Changoul occurs in the lower watersheds and
Salka occurs in the upper watersheds. During high rainfall years, Changoul
soils are flooded too much for agriculture while Salka soils are the most
productive. However, during low rainfall years Changoul soils are the most
productive (Tabor & Ba, 1987; Tabor et aI., 1992).
Local soil names and the knowledge farmers possess for each soil are
extremely useful but they have their imprecisions, especially if one tries to
regionalize local names. Farmers know their local soils well but the soil names
that they use are not always correlated between farmers or regions. Through-
out Haiti (Tabor, 1988) and other countries, farmers give soils names like
"red" and "sandy" to reflect their color and texture or reflect a general land-
scape such as "depression." However, other soil names represent specific
soils and seem well correlated, even across language groups. Reasons for some
of these "imprecisions" may be: (i) extreme complexity and variability of
soils; (ii) newly settled farmers not having the accumulated knowledge of
many generations on which to develop a detailed, well-correlated classifica-
tion system; or, (iii) nonstressful climate that reduces the number of soil
characteristics that perceptibly change the land's productivity.
These inconsistencies do not limit indigenous soil classification to local
uses. The soil information collected from farmers and herders can also be
interpreted by specialists and used to direct regional or even national activities.

Summary

Indigenous soil classification systems should be viewed as complemen-

tary to scientifically based systems and integral to soil mapping. However,
many soil scientists have ignored this indigenous knowledge, while others
considered it as an inadequate substitute to the system that they know. In-
digenous systems have the advantage that they are widely known by the peo-
ple of a region and can greatly improve communication between farmers,
extension agents, and scientists. Only relatively few scientists, technicians,
and extension agents need to learn the farmer's classification system.
Integrating local land classification systems into soil surveys will allow
soil scientists to better define criteria for soil series and use series names that
have some meaning to farmers, something that is not possible to North Ameri-
ca or Europe. Over time this would allow local systems to retain their func-
tional advantage, become standardized across language groups, and satisfy
the rigors of scientifically based classification systems.
In this age of modern technology, it is important that soil scientists not
lose sight of the value of indigenous knowledge. Tapping this knowledge is
not new in soil surveys. The USDA's 1951 Soil Survey Manual has a section
about collecting information from farmers.
SPRING 1992 5
References
Tabor, J .A. 1988. Soils and soil management in the Maissade commune of Haiti. Save the Chil-
dren Federation/USAID, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Tabor, J .A., and Ba Djiby. 1987. Soils and soil management for agriculture, forestry, and range
in Mauritania. Farming Systems Research Along the Senegal River Valley: Rep. 7. (also
in French). The Univ. of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies, Tucson, AZ.
Tabor, J .A., D. W. Kilambya, and J .M. Kibe. 1990. Reconnaissance survey of the ethnopedol-
ogy in the Embu, Meru, Machakos, and Kitui Districts of Kenya's Eastern Province. Univ.
of Missouri-Columbia and USAID, Nairobi.
Tabor, J.A., A. Watson, A. Diagne, M. Daffe, M. Dieme, and M. Khouma. 1992. Annex du
sols. Plan Directeur de Developpement de la Haute Vallee du Fleuve Senegal. Organisa-
tion pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Senegal, Dakar/USAID/Dames and Moore, Paris.
Cartes 1:50.000 et 1:20.000. (In press.)

Protocols for Describing Soils

Henry R. Mount, Robert J. Ahrens, and James R. Culverl
Soil scientists have been describing soil profiles for almost 100 yr in the
USA. To our knowledge, there has never been a documented procedure on
the different physical methods of describing a soil profile. This paper evalu-
ates methods for describing soil profiles from a mechanically dug pit, a hand
dug pit, a coring tube, a road cut, a natural cut, and an excavation cut.
Additional methods such as describing from a soil mapping probe, buck-
et auger, and various peat sampling instruments will not be discussed in de-
tail. Using a soil mapping probe or bucket auger are not preferred methods
for describing typical pedons. Describing organic soils with peat sampling
instruments is acceptable but not of widespread use.

Site Selection
Site selection is critical before any method is used to examine the soil.
A soil scientist needs to make sure that adequate site data are collected
prior to leaving the site when using any method of describing a soil profile.
One can never collect too much site information.
Some of the site information that can be collected prior to describing
the soil profile includes:
1. Series name (if known).
2. Soil survey sample number.
3. Map unit symbol.
4. Aerial photo number.

1 Soil scientist, Soil Survey Quality Assurance Staff, soil scientist, Soil Classification Staff;
and National Leader, Soil Survey Quality Assurance Staff, respectively, National Soil Survey
Center, USDA-SCS, Lincoln, NE 68508.