csr2: a 10 year review & summary of...

CSR2: A 10 year review & summary of updates

C. Lee Burras & Bradley A. Miller Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University

Iowa State Association of Assessors – School of Instruction

October 07, 2019

We are honored to be here.

We very much thank Gary VanderWerf, Floyd County, and Julie Roisen, Iowa Department of Revenue, for this opportunity to speak about CSR2 as well as update you about ISU capabilities and goals.

Burras & Miller - October 2019 - CSR2 updates 2

Iowa’s soils

“The soil is deep, of exhaustless fertility…..In short, it may truly be said that there is no place on the continent where the soil is more certain to yield an ample reward for the labor bestowed upon it, than in Iowa.”

Iowa Board of Immigration. 1870. Iowa: the Home for Immigrants. (printed in English, German, Dutch, and Swedish)


Some search terms are:

4

1. Web Soil Survey

2. University California Davis soil survey

3. ISU Land Use CSR2 ISPAID

4. Bradley Miller ISU GIS geospatial

5. Iowa Ortho GIS

6. Google Earth

7. NRCS NCCPI

Burras & Miller - October 2019 - CSR2 updates

Objectives & outline

Objectives

(a) Evaluate CSR2.

(b) Provide an update on some changes to CSR2.

(b) Reflect upon our history and a possible approach for our future.

Outline

1) What is the CSR2 formula?

2) What updates have occurred in the parameter values?

3) Where did CSR2 come from?

4) What is our future?


What is the CSR2 formula?

CSR2 = S-M-W-F-D+/-EJ

Where S = Soil Taxonomy subgroup of the Series in the SMU.

M = Soil Taxonomy family particle size class of the Series.

W = AWHC to 60 inches of the Series.

F = Field conditions of the SMU: slope, flooding, ponding, erosion, etc.

D = Series depth, resilience and tolerable erosion rate.

EJ = Expert judgement (we try to avoid this!)


How work with CSR2?

CSR2 = S-M-W-F-D+/-EJ

This is an ISU formula that uses the soil maps provided in Web Soil Survey (WSS) and the data tied to WSS.

Find values online through WSS.

Independently calculate the value using parameters and values in ISU document.


Iowa Corn Suitability Rating CSR2 (IA)—Polk County, Iowa

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

10/7/2019

Page 1 of 3

4597

300

4597

600

4597

900

4598

200

459

8500

4598

800

4599

100

4597

300

4597

600

4597

900

4598

200

4598

500

4598

800

4599

100

445200 445500 445800 446100 446400 446700 447000 447300 447600 447900

445200 445500 445800 446100 446400 446700 447000 447300 447600 447900

41° 32' 32'' N

93°

39' 3

1''

W

41° 32' 32'' N

93°

37' 2

0''

W

41° 31' 28'' N

93°

39' 3

1''

W

41° 31' 28'' N

93°

37' 2

0''

W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84

0 500 1000 2000 3000Feet

0 200 400 800 1200Meters

Map Scale: 1:13,900 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

How well is CSR2 working?

I get about 3 calls/emails a month on CSR2. Before 2014 I received about 1/mo. on CSR.

CSR2 calls are about (a) what is it, (b) why do the values change, (c) tax questions, (d) yield potential.

Big issues are flooding, ponding and “extreme” textures.


Iowa Corn Suitability Rating CSR2 (IA)—Wright County, Iowa

Natural Resources


Web Soil Survey


10/7/2019

Page 1 of 4

4737

400

4737

800

4738

200

4738

600

4739

000

4739

400

4739

800

4737

400

4737

800

4738

200

4738

600

4739

000

4739

400

4739

800428000 428400 428800 429200 429600 430000 430400 430800 431200 431600

428000 428400 428800 429200 429600 430000 430400 430800 431200 431600

42° 48' 27'' N

93°

52'

55'

' W

42° 48' 27'' N

93°

50'

7''

W

42° 47' 7'' N

93°

52'

55'

' W

42° 47' 7'' N

93°

50'

7''

W

N


0 500 1000 2000 3000Feet

0 250 500 1000 1500Meters


Iowa Corn Suitability Rating CSR2 (IA)—Scott County, Iowa

Natural Resources


Web Soil Survey


10/7/2019

Page 1 of 4

4609

600

4609

900

4610

200

4610

500

4610

800

4611

100

4609

600

4609

900

4610

200

4610

500

4610

800

4611

100

4611

400

704700 705000 705300 705600 705900 706200 706500 706800 707100 707400 707700

705000 705300 705600 705900 706200 706500 706800 707100 707400 707700

41° 37' 40'' N

90°

32' 3

4''

W

41° 37' 40'' N

90°

30' 2

2''

W

41° 36' 36'' N

90°

32' 3

4''

W

41° 36' 36'' N

90°

30' 2

2''

W

N


0 500 1000 2000 3000Feet

0 200 400 800 1200Meters


What updates have occurred/are occurring? Notes

The F value for any SMU having both flooding and ponding will be adjusted on a case-by-case basis. This is unusual and fairly atypical in WSS.

S-factor Typic Endoaquert reduced to 55 from 70 (Luton, 7 counties, 135,000 acres)

Typic Natraquert reduced to 40 from 52 (Napa, 2 counties, 3,000 acres)


What updates have occurred/are occurring?

M-factor

Clayey, clayey over loamy and fine increased to 10 from 4 and “skeletal” increased to 20 from 12. These are the textures that create the most challenges for roots to grow in really wet and dry years.

This impacts 530 SMU’s that sum up to about 900,000 acres.


What updates have occurred/are occurring? Flooding

All have increased – e.g., frequent brief is 25 now instead of 20.

Ponding Long and very long durations have increased to 50 from 44.

“Flooding” changes = 1,500 SMU’s and 3.5 million acres.

“Ponding” changes = 145 SMU’s and 77,000 acres.


Why these parameter updates?

The “flooding and ponding” note is the result of a twin condition not envisioned in the original CSR or in my development of CSR2.

I assigned too high of S factors to the Luton and Napa taxonomic subgroups because of “taxadjuncts” in ISPAID 7.3.


Why these parameter updates? The changes with textures, flooding, and ponding are the result of climate change and/or watershed-scale impacts resulting in some locations of any given SMU having incredible wetness yet WSS is unable to uniquely identify these locations.

In other words, a given landowner’s management is not the cause of very real problems that limit her/his soil productivity potential when compared to another landowner with the very same soil.

It is a limitation to how WSS is set up and implemented. It is a limitation of the current NCSS.


Where did CSR2 come from?

Or really: What is the history of our soil productivity index?

Attempts to create soil productivity indices go back about 5,000 years in China and India.

For Iowa they began in earnest in 1947 when the Legislature began requiring county assessors use the information in modern soil surveys to calculate rural land taxes.

Wayne H. Scholtes and Frank F. Riecken (1952) assigned values to each SMU in the modern soil survey of Taylor County, where they introduced the term “corn suitability rating.”


But really CSR2 is the product of CSR.

15 Burras & Miller - October 2019 - CSR2 updates

CSR reflected the ISU Iowa Experiment Station striving to meet the Legislative mandate through the Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey.

Tom Fenton (1971) developed the CSR system. It is a brilliant. Every Iowan & Iowa State University should be very proud of it.


CSR = linked innate productivity to soil genesis & weather (Fenton 1971; Jerry Miller, 2005)


So the map on the left mostly explains the one on the right.


¸50

Miles

Landform Regions of Iowa

Created by Catherine DeLong and Jenny Richter

Southern Iowa Drift Plain

Des Moines Lobe

Northwest Iowa Plains

Iowan Surface

Paleozoic Plateau

East-Central Iowa Drift PlainM

isso

uri R

iver A

lluvia

l Pla

in

Lo

ess H

ills

Mississippi Alluvial

Plain

More specific, Dr. Fenton took two components into account = (1) pedon, (2) catena.


As a result, CSR’s seems independent at the series level yet also linked the soils across a field.


Clarion

Nicollet

Webster/Canisteo

Harps

Okoboji

20

It then “corrects” from 100 based on 11 parameters.

Dr. Fenton’s system uses the soil map unit (SMU) and a base of 100.

21

Example factors in CSR.

22

We subtract for slope groups, e.g., -5 for B slope; -30 for D slopes, etc. We subtract for erosion class, e.g. -5 if it is moderately eroded and has a solum 48 inches or deeper and between 35 to 42% clay in the B or…. We subtract up to 20 points based on a combination of texture and its native biota (i.e., soil formed under prairie, savannah or forest). We correct for parent material………


Parent Material Name—Floyd County, Iowa

Natural Resources


Web Soil Survey


10/7/2019

Page 1 of 4

4761

500

4761

700

4761

900

4762

100

4762

300

4762

500

4762

700

4762

900

4763

100

4763

300

4763

500

4761

500

4761

700

4761

900

4762

100

4762

300

4762

500

4762

700

4762

900

4763

100

4763

300

4763

500

522100 522300 522500 522700 522900 523100 523300 523500 523700

522100 522300 522500 522700 522900 523100 523300 523500 523700

43° 1' 31'' N

92°

43' 4

7''

W

43° 1' 31'' N

92°

42' 3

1''

W

43° 0' 18'' N

92°

43' 4

7''

W

43° 0' 18'' N

92°

42' 3

1''

W

N


0 500 1000 2000 3000Feet

0 150 300 600 900Meters

Map Scale: 1:11,100 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Where did both CSR come from?

I have left out that YOU – the Counties of Iowa – paid for CSR.

The cost of Iowa’s county-by-county soil surveys was divided in thirds with NRCS paying 1/3, IDALS paying 1/3, and the county paying 1/3.

Your county money was paid to the ISU Experiment Station with us using it for mapping (directly ISU field staff; indirectly to NRCS field staff), laboratory analyses, QC/QA, and interpretations.

This is all part of the Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey.


Why CSR2?


CSR2 has “five” goals:

25

1. The technical goal is to have CSR2 consistent with today’s soil mapping,

classification, and government programs.

2. The pragmatic goal associated is that CSR2 automatically updates with Web Soil Survey updates.

3. The philosophical goal is to get values proportional to CSR but with greater transparency, consistency & ease.

4. The money goal was to do this with NO budget.

5. The ancillary goal is to be able to extend CSR2 across boundaries and allow the private sector the ability to add a management factor.


How are CSR2’s calculated?


CSR2 is calculated very similar to CSR.

27

CSR2 uses six parameters that result in the best soils rated at 100 points.


CSR2 was developed by deconstructing CSR using a pedostatistical approach with ISPAID. This let us eliminate and/or consolidate factors. For example, the climate “term” from CSR was eliminated.

28 Burras -- CSR2, A Refresher - ISU ICM 2018 -- November 28, 2018

Louisa County CSR (60) vs CSR2-ISU (62)


Floyd County CSR (60) vs CSR2-ISU (64)

Burras -- CSR2, A Refresher - ISU ICM 2018 -- November 28, 2018

30

Cass County CSR vs CSR2-ISU


31

CSR2 distribution across Iowa as county averages


Please realize, though, our soils are changing…..

33

Iowa State University Soil Science – Burras – Contemporary Pedology of Iowa – November 30, 2018

Catenas of North Central Iowa: A 21st Century Examination-Jenny Richter and C. Lee Burras-January 21, 2015 44

1959 2007 Change

Depth to 3/3 45 45 0

Max. granular 29 7 -22**

Min. grey redox 76 95 +19**

Min. red redox 80 76 -4

Carbonates 110 110 0

Massive 114 120 +5

“no structure” 125 118 -7*

Indicates depth to feature is statistically significantly different: ** a =

0.01, and * a = 0.2. 1959 2007

n = 82

**

**

*

**

**

*

(Veenstra & Burras, 2012)

Identifying, quantifying and mapping this reality is very much part of Bradley’s and my responsibilities.

These findings have huge ramifications.

Soil distribution is increasingly decoupled from natural pedology in Iowa, which very much affects their productivity potential.

34 Iowa State University Soil Science – Burras – Contemporary

Pedology of Iowa – November 30, 2018

What is our future? County Assessors & ISU?

We have a shared responsibility to insure:

(a)Iowa has interpretations that meet our Legislative mandate.

(b) The soil resource of each county is accurately identified and evaluated.


We can move forward one of three ways: (1) We can continue to have me annually update CSR2 and yields in

response to WSS updates, which are handled by 6 MLRA offices (2 IA, 1 MN, 1 WI, 1 NE, 1 IL).

(2) We can reexamine using NRCS’s NCCPI.

(1) We can create a 21st Century County-ISU relationship within ICSS wherein ISU provides and archives soil maps and interpretations on a tax-cycle basis that seamlessly link with NRCS WSS for SMU’s, CSR2, etc. We would also link with USDA crop insurance maps, Iowa Flood Center maps, etc., as well as County GIS services. We would also do field research.


In summary 1) CSR2 is working consistent with its objectives.

2) CSR2 changes did occur with flooding, ponding and extreme texture SMU’s.

3) Modern soil surveys and CSR/CSR2 is the product of the Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey, which very much depended on an ISU-County relationship.


With that, we thank you very much!

Questions, comments &

insights?

38

Example of “climate” on CSR (1) CSR had a “climate” component. CSR2 does not. (2) NRCS data for a soil varies but not at county lines.


39

Dr. Fenton, Dr. Miller and I eliminated the climate term because:


(1) Rain has changed.

(2) Genetics are better suited.

(3) Fertility is better.

(4) Management is better.

(5) ……….

csr2: a 10 year review & summary of...

Documents