Soil Interpretations Committee

Soil Interpretations Committee

Members:

Aziz, Fred - Jamestown,

Bednarek, Richard - Huron, SD

carl.wacker

Deniger, Jeff - Aurora,

Doug Oelmann

Gary Struben

Gehring, Rich - Columbus,

Gerken, Jon - Washington,

Greg Larson

jon.gerken

Kunze, Bruce - Brookings,

Mark Kuzila

mike.sucik

Randy Miles

Seybold, Cathy - Lincoln,

Sieler, Steve - Bismarck,

Sinclair, Ray - Lincoln,

tonie.endres

Tugel, Arlene - Las Cruces,

Wade Bott

Warner, John - Salina,

Weiser, Hal - Bismarck,

Committee Charges

The NCSS has a history of beneficial contributions to soil science and soil survey through effective cooperation. These contributions include advances in soil classification and mapping, soil interpretations, and landscape analysis. Soil change is another new and exciting challenge for the organization to help meet customer needs. (Review “Soil Change Information for resource Decision Making: A Blueprint for Action”, Tugel et.al., 2005). Each member of NCSS has a role to play, whether it be through committee work, research, education, or building partnerships outside the NCSS. Suggested actions include:

Identify management impacts on soil change and the significance of those changes to environmental, productivity or other issues

Tillage- In my opinion, the single biggest contributor to soil change
Change of Land Use – Removing Forests and Prairies, Urbanization
Drainage – Altering the hydrology
The addition of soil amendments (lime, fertilizer, manure and sewage sludge, etc) which can effect base status levels, pH, organic matter content, organic carbon, permeability, bulk density etc.
Irrigation
Reclamation of surface mined land

Review previous NCSS Committee reports back to 1985 related to dynamic soil properties, soil quality, and use-dependent issues. Make a summary of issues and recommendations.

From the 1999 NCSS National Conference in St. Louis –‘ In the first century we have concentrated on the so-called Static Properties of soils. In the next century we must collect information on the dynamic properties as related to land use and management. This includes the impact of land use and management on the properties of soil surface horizons. We observe the impact of land use on the soils daily in the mapping activities, but just need to develop procedures for recording the information in our databases.’ –Mausbach
From the Northeast and West Regional Conferences in 2000- Adding Value to Soil Surveys With a Dynamic Soil Properties Database - Cathy Seybold and Craig Ditzler - Soil Quality Institute
From the 2001 NCSS National Conference in Fort Collins, CO - State and Transition Ecosystem ModelsApplication to Soil Survey and Dynamic Soil Properties Databases

Initiate a National Soil Carbon Project and integrate it with a plan for dynamic soil properties;

. Database development for benchmark sites (of dynamic near-surface soil properties, plant communities, and management history), NRST/IRWET (soil biology), and soil food web (pilot project to link non-NRCS microbial data to the NRCS interpretive database [NASIS]).

dynamic soil properties, and using geophysical tools, such as electromagnetic induction and ground-penetrating radar.

The overall goals of the SGCC program are to study the dynamics of soil organic and inorganic carbon pools and fluxes for principal ecoregions and to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities on these pools and fluxes.

State and Transition Ecosystem ModelsApplication to Soil Survey and Dynamic Soil Properties Databases - Arlene J. Tugel and Joel R. Brown

Importance of dynamic soil properties. Changes in soil properties can affect the capacity of the soil to function. Increased availability of dynamic soil property information will allow the development of additional management tools to support sustainable management based on consideration of soil functions and the resistance and resilience of the soil to disturbances.

Uses of dynamic soil property data.

From the 2006 NCSS North Central Regional Conference in Medora, ND:

Recommendation #1

A pre-written document (concise paper) should be developed to explain spatial, temporal, and man-induced variability of soil properties to the soil survey user. This material would state that the tables in soil surveys generate a representative value based on a typical land use and management for the survey area, but that different management styles and land uses can have a significant impact on soil properties and interpretations (Some soil scientists are not confident that current properties and interpretations have been consistently collected from representative land uses and we should avoid making this statement).

The material should be developed to address regional climate, cropping systems, land use, soils, etc. and be based on availability of information from the NRCS characterization data and observations, and scientific studies. The material should explain derivation of representative values and their limitations, and also provide examples based on measured data.

The National Leader for Soil Interpretations through the NSIAG would be requested to develop this material. The material would be posted on the Web Soil Survey, the Soil Data Mart, and also incorporated into any .pdf soil survey documents. Each soil survey table would have a footnote that would lead the user to this section on soil variability.

Recommendation #2

A brief explanation of soil properties and interpretations most impacted by land use should be developed to explain the table column and how management may impact it.

Example:

‘Organic Matter – The value listed for organic matter is what can be expected under typical (common land use) conditions for that horizon or layer. Organic matter is listed as a percentage of the total soil and can be converted to a weight basis by multiplying by the soil bulk density. Cultivating the soil will lead to organic matter losses through decomposition. Losses will vary depending on original organic content, its distribution throughout the profile, and vegetation. The loss of organic matter results from organic matter oxidation through soil disturbance exceeding organic matter inputs through vegetative growth. Excessive erosion will also lead to organic matter reduction through topsoil removal. Organic matter levels can be increased through irrigation (by the production of more vegetation than would normally be produced under normal climatic conditions), or by changing the type of vegetation normally grown to one that has more root mass or remaining plant residue after harvest.’

Example:

‘Available Water Capacity – Available water capacity is the amount of water a soil can hold for plant use. It is typically recognized as the amount of water held in the soil between field capacity (1/3 bar or 33 kPa) and wilting point (15 bar or 1500 kPa) tension. Soil water at saturation or water held at greater than 15 bar tension is not included. Typically medium textured soils with equal distribution of soil macropores and micropores generally have the greatest available water capacity. Available water capacity is reduced as soil bulk density is increased through soil compaction and destroying soil structure tillage operations, traffic). Management alternatives to increase available water capacity include increasing in soil organic matter through manure additions, adding crop residues, or adopting rotations that include grasses.’
Each column heading could then be hyperlinked to these explanations. At the top of the table there would be a statement telling the user to click on the column heading for more information.
The National Leader for Soil Interpretations or NSIAG would be responsible for developing these explanations and maintaining the database. Soil Data Mart and Web Soil Survey programmer’s would assist with linking the tables to their respective explanations.

Recommendation #3

Propose change in NASIS data structure to allow multiple interpretations per data map unit. This currently does not work.

When user selects ‘Alpha Silt Loam’, they might be then prompted to select land use in order to obtain most accurate set of properties and interpretations for that map unit and land use.

Identify Cooperator and Agency needs and uses for DSP data and soil change interpretations.

How do folks feel about recycling the recommendations this committee made in 2006?

Recommendation #1

The material described above could either be included with the interpretation description or under the Into to Soils tab on Web soil Survey.

Recommendation #2

A brief explanation of soil properties and interpretations most impacted by land use should be developed to explain the table column and how management may impact it.

Example:

‘Available Water Capacity – Available water capacity is the amount of water a soil can hold for plant use. It is typically recognized as the amount of water held in the soil between field capacity (1/3 bar or 33 kPa) and wilting point (15 bar or 1500 kPa) tension. Soil water at saturation or water held at greater than 15 bar tension is not included. Typically medium textured soils with equal distribution of soil macropores and micropores generally have the greatest available water capacity. Available water capacity is reduced as soil bulk density is increased through soil compaction and destroying soil structure tillage operations, traffic). Management alternatives to increase available water capacity include increasing in soil organic matter through manure additions, adding crop residues, or adopting rotations that include grasses.’
Each column heading could then be hyperlinked to these explanations. At the top of the table there would be a statement telling the user to click on the column heading for more information.
The National Leader for Soil Interpretations or NSIAG would be responsible for developing these explanations and maintaining the database. Soil Data Mart and Web Soil Survey programmer’s would assist with linking the tables to their respective explanations.

Again, this could be included in the report description with a possible hyper-link to material on the Soil Quality Team web page.

Recommendation #3

Propose change in NASIS data structure to allow multiple interpretations per data map unit. This currently does not work.

When user selects ‘Alpha Silt Loam’, they might be then prompted to select land use in order to obtain most accurate set of properties and interpretations for that map unit and land use.

Although there won’t be anything in the release of NASIS 6.0 dealing with dynamic soil properties, Jim Fortner announced at the State Soil Scientist meeting in Kentucky (3/08) that the programmers are working on including dynamic soil properties in future versions of NASIS

New Recommendations – 2008

1) Develop site selection criteria for soil scientist to select field sites for future DSP sampling and testing that represent long-term soil/land management strategies of major land use categories on benchmark soils.

2) Review current soil biologic property testing methodologies for meaningful measurements of biologic properties that may be useful in soil/ecosystem functional capacity and sustainability assessments. The data could potentially be incorporated into soil survey data collection and reporting.

3) Develop framework for development of regional soil functional assessment and ecosystem sustainability interpretations.

4) Integration of conservation agronomy principles with soil survey to develop better understanding of cropland ecosystem dynamics and identify future agronomic interpretations.

5)We adopt the “Blueprint for Action” (Tugel, et al, 2005) as our committee’s recommendation and begin addressing the six elements. If other regions did the same then we could start addressingthis issue ina more uniform manner.

Identify user needs.
Conduct interdisciplinary research and long-term studies
Develop an organizing framework that relates data, processes, and soil function.
Select and prioritize soil change data and information requirements.
Develop procedures for data collection and interpretation.
Design an integrated soil-ecosystem management information system.

Evaluate the need and consider recommending that Regional Conferences and National Conferences establish Standing Communities for Soil Change

The three DSP recommendations in item 3 above would require a considerable amount of work. Does the National Leader for Soil Interpretations have the time to do this? A standing committee could work on the recommendations and get back to the Soil Interp Committee who could pass it along to the National Leader for Soil Interpretations. If we have the work done from the 3 recommendations then it is easier to support and adopt.

Even though we are recycling some recommendations from 2006, five of the six recommendations have been forwarded to a ‘Dynamic Soil Properties Committee’ that has been established at the NationalSoilSurveyCenter. Maybe the NSSC committee should be expanded to include all of the NCSS.

A Standing Committee could be tasked with deciding what procedures to use for field data collection, what dynamic soil property data should be collected, identify data gaps, etc. If MLRA Soil Survey Offices are going to be asked to collect this data when they sample their benchmark soils, for example, there needs to be an approved methodology available for sampling.

Should we recommend that the NRCS Soil Quality Team be charged with this assignment or keep the committee at NSSC? Either way, I’d like to see a SSD annual business plan with some of the specific items we’ve recommended with dates, lead person, etc.

Identify the new products and services needed by nontraditional customers.

NRCS has very little presence in urban areas, that have soil. There are many single family homes with yards that many people are very proud of. Instead of planting crops they plant grass, trees, flowers and gardens. This should be our nontraditional customer.

One product could be better soil interpretations for these small backyards which have been impacted by dynamic changes in soil properties.

Horticulture Crops – Apples, Blueberries Grapes, Strawberries, etc.

In talking to our conservation side, they would like to see more work on showing the economic benefit and improvement of soil quality for practices like buffer strips and CRP. With the higher crop prices and increased pressure to put some of these areas back into crop production, they would like to see data collected on the benefits of these practices. Crop yields could be incorporated into this, showing how these buffer areas and marginal ground are not as productive and their money would be better spent elsewhere on more productive land and that soil and water quality would be improved by maintaining these and other such practices. Dynamic soil properties by themselves seems hard to sell to some individuals, but if we can make it part of other approaches we may get better results.