the anthroposolic soil order - in1touch order_4apr2018_konstantin dlusskiy...outline •why do we...

ANTHROPOSOLIC SOIL ORDERProposed Soil Order for the 4th Edition of the Canadian System of Soil Classification

Konstantin Dlusskiy, Ph.D., P.Ag. Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Ltd.

14th Annual AIA Banff Conference: Governments and People April 2018

Outline

• Why do we need the Anthroposolic soil order

• What is an Anthroposol

• How to classify Anthroposols and describe Anthroposolic soil horizons

• Overview of Anthroposolic Great Groups with examples

• Typical examples of Anthroposols from Alberta

• What are the challenges with Anthroposol classification

• Primarily based on the research paper published by Dr. Naeth• Naeth, M.A., Archibald, H.A., Nemirsky, C.L., Leskiw, L.A., Brierley, A. J.,

Bock, M.D., VandenBygaart, A.J. and Chanasyk, D.S., 2012. Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 92, 7-18

1. INTRODUCTION TO DISTURBED SOILSApproach to the Anthroposols

Canadian System of Soil Classification

The 3rd Edition of the CSSC, published in 1998, includes 10 Soil Orders:

• Brunisolic

• Chernozemic

• Cryosolic Order

• Gleysolic Order

• Luvisolic Order

• Organic Order

• Podzolic Order

• Regosolic Order

• Solonetzic Order

• Vertisolic Order

Why do we need the 11th one?

Why do we need the 11th one?

• In 1941 Hans Jenny published Factors of Soil Formation, a system of quantitative pedology where he summarized and illustrated many of the basic principles of modern soil science to that date

• He said that the following five factors completely describe the soil system:

• Recently a new factor has been introduced beyond the five listed by Jenny

Human activity – the new soil forming factor

• Placement and removal of natural geological materials

• Introduction of new materials to the landscape• Waste

• Chemicals

• Terraforming• Landscaping

• Modifying soil drainage

• Constructing soil horizons and therefore

• Changing trajectories of soil formation

Recognizing human activity

• Regulatory frameworks must incorporate reclamation criteria for disturbed soils, requiring consistent descriptions andinterpretations.

• Many human altered soils cannot be described and classified using the Canadian System of Soil Classification (CSSC)

• Consistent description requires introduction of new horizon types and classification of parent materials

• Consistent interpretation requires creation of subgroups and great groups forming a new soil order based on severe human disruption of soil-forming factors and introduction of potentially new pedogenic trajectories

International approach

• WRB - the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (International Union of Soil Sciences 2007) is widely accepted as an international soil classification

• Anthrosol and Technosol reference soil groups

• Anthrosols have been subjected to intensive agricultural use for some time

• Technosols contain artefacts or technic hard rock (a consolidated product of an industrial process)• Technosols include soils from wastes such as landfills or mine spoils,

pavements and underlying materials, soils with geomembranes and constructed soils in human-made materials

Canadian Approach

• 2006 – Land Capability Classification System• Tailored to forest ecosystems in the Oil Sands region – Alberta only

• Did not cover classification, just suggested horizon designations

• Horizon names were not in a system: OB, Ptmix, TSS, MIN, KM (LOS)

• Approved by the Alberta Government

• 2012 –new Soil Order proposed• Group led by Dr. Anne Naeth (U of A)

• Comprehensive classification of Anthroposols open for discussion

• Yet, just a research paper in Canadian Journal of Soil Science

• 2015 – Field Handbook for the Soils of Western Canada • Group associated with Canadian Society of Soil Science

• Purpose – to allow field testing of the classification proposed in 2012

• No changes made to the 2012 classification

Step 1 – Proposed classification

• 2012 – A research paper by a group of researchers lead by Dr. Anne Naeth (U of A, consulting, Government)

• Thorough review of existing options

• Proposed new soil order – Anthroposols

• Comprehensive classification to Great Groups, Subgroups and Phases

• Approach was generally accepted by the community

• Regulatory frameworks don’t recognize a research paper as a trustful source

Step 2 – Field testing stage

• The Pedology Subcommittee of the Canadian Society of Soil Science (CSSS) was established in 2005• Mandate included “improvement of the taxonomic classification system

for Canadian soils through revision of the system because of new information”

• In 2015-2016 the Subcommittee published the Field Handbook for the Soils of Western Canada• Pedology Subcommittee team (led by Dr. Pennock) in collaboration with

the team that originally proposed the classification (led by Dr. Naeth)

• Intent for the Field Handbook was two-fold1. to simplify the use of the Canadian System of Soil Classification in the

field and

2. to allow field testing of a new soil order for Anthroposolic soils, which has been proposed for inclusion in the Canadian System of Soil Classification

Two sources of information

Naeth, M.A., Archibald, H.A., Nemirsky, C.L., Leskiw, L.A., Brierley, A. J., Bock, M.D., VandenBygaart, A.J. and Chanasyk, D.S. 2012. Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 92, 7-18

Pennock, D.J., Watson, K., and Sanborn, P. 2015. Section 4. Horizon Identification. From: D. Pennock, K. Watson, and P. Sanborn. Field Handbook for the Soils of Western Canada. Canadian Society of Soil Science. 27 pp.

Approach to the Anthroposol definition

• To be classified as an Anthroposol, the soil disturbance or modification needs to be evident

• If the soil was minimally disturbed and could not be distinguished from a natural soil, it could be classified into its appropriate natural soil order

• If over time an anthropogenically modified soil reaches an equilibrium that is diagnostic of a natural soil, then the soil could be classified as such at that time• Not every soil order requires equilibrium and we will discuss this later

Definition lies in parent material deposition

• The most critical moment in classification of Anthroposols is to define limits of the Soil Order

• Naeth et al (2012) defined the Order based on parent material deposition or removal

• >10 cm stripped orreplaced ormodified in situ making soil disturbance or modification evident (disturbed D layer)• Tillage is not qualified

• In future, some agricultural soils could be included in Anthroposols

2. DISTURBED LAYERSand the control sectionas defined in the current classification

Anthroposolic Profile

• It is an Anthroposol if one or more of a soil’s natural horizons was• removed,

• removed-and-replaced,

• added to, or

• significantly modified by human activity.

• Soil should have a diagnostic disturbed horizon (D)

• Depth of the anthropogenic disturbance, modification or addition must be >10 cm.

Note:Ap horizon ( tillage ) - may have been disturbed >10 cm however does not constitute changes sufficient for a soil to be called an Anthroposol.

Definition of Disturbed layer (D)

• The diagnostic Disturbed layers (D layers) are anthropic in origin (anthropogenic) and contain materials that have been significantly modified physically and/or chemically by human activities

• Dr. Naeth with colleagues (2012) uses the term “layer” and avoids using the word “horizon” as the separation is based on placement of materials rather than formation of properties

• Dr. Pennock with colleagues (2015) applies the term “horizon” widely

• Multiple different D layers can be described in one soil profile

Suffixes• Traditional Canadian System of Soil Classification (CSSC) suffixes

and prefixes should be applied to D horizons (h, m, k, g, II, III etc.)

• ADDITION OF NEW SUFFIXES

SUFFIX Description

w artefacts (w for waste)

q hydrocarbons (contained in the quintessential reclamation profile)

o organic materials with >17% organic carbon in Carbic Great Group

Examples of D layers

• Peat-Mineral Mix (Dh, Do),

• Stripped and replaced mineral topsoil (Dh, D1),

• Human waste layer with human artefacts (Dw),

• Placed fair-good subsoil (Dm, D2, Dk),

• Placed calcareous buffer (Dk),

• Waste rock layer (IIDq), or

• Tailings (IID)

Examples of D layers

Example 1: Alberta Oil Sands (Dh) peat mineral mixes on top of (Dk) suitable overburden over (IIDq) unsuitable overburden materials

Example 2: Pipeline or Coal MineLayers were excavated, stored, then replaced in the relative sequence of the undisturbed soils: (Dh) topsoil/former Ah over (Dm) upper subsoil/former Bm, and (Dk) lower subsoil/former Cca, Ck, Csk Example 3: Landfill Capping

Control Section• Control Section – Depth of 120 cm

• compare 100 cm for mineral soil and 160 cm for organic soil (CSSC)

• Diagnostic disturbed D layer – the one encompassing the greatest cumulative proportion of the disturbed profile• if equal proportions – uppermost layer used for classification

3. CLASSIFICATIONGreat Groups, Subgroups and Phases of Anthroposols

Anthroposolic Great GroupsThe great group level in the CSSC, by definition, is ‘‘based on properties that reflect differences in the strengths of dominant processes, or a major contribution of a process in addition to the dominant one’’

Composition of disturbed layers defines Great Group in Anthroposolic classification

The 3 Great Groups

GREAT GROUPAnthropogenic

materials (artefacts)Organic Carbon

Technic Anthroposol ≥10% by volume Any

Spolic Anthroposol <10% by volume <17%

Carbic Anthroposol <10% by volume ≥ 17%

1. Technic (technicus - artefacts)≥ 10% (cumulative volume) physical artefacts (regardless of organic carbon

content)

2. Spolic (spolio – to strip)< 17% organic carbon (if artefacts present must be <10%)

3. Carbic (carbo – carbon) ≥ 17 % organic carbon (if artefacts present must be <10%)

The 3 Great Groups

Anthroposolic Subgroups• Subgroups are differentiated

on ‘‘the kind and arrangement of horizons that indicate conformity to the central concept of the great group, intergrading towards soils of another order, or additional special features within the control section’’ (Soil Classification Working Group 1998)

Anthroposolic Subgroups

Subgroups in the Anthroposolic order are based on:

• Characteristics of a 10-cm topsoil or cover soil layer

• Presence of layers characteristic for other subgroups

• Depth of disturbance

• Drainage characteristics

The 9 Subgroups

SUBGROUP Defining Features

1. EgeoLatin egeo - lack or to be

without

Soils with a distinguishable surface layer that is <10 cm thick, regardless of

its organic carbon content, over another layer(s) of disturbed material

2. AlboLatin albus -white

Soils with a surface layer that is ≥10 cm thick and has <2% organic carbon

(light colour)

3. Fuscofusc - to make dark

Surface layer that is ≥10 cm thick and has 2 to 17% organic carbon (dark

colour)

4. Carbocarbo - carbon

Surface layer that is ≥10 cm thick and has ≥17% organic carbon, but is not

sufficiently deep to be classified in the Carbic Great Group

Combination subgroups are used more widely than in other Orders

The 9 SubgroupsSUBGROUP Defining Features

5. Technotechnicus - artificial

Soils with a technic layer present (≥10 cm), but not in a sufficient

cumulative thickness for the soil to be classified in the Technic great

group

6. Spolospolio – to strip

Spolic layer present (≥10 cm), but not in a sufficient cumulative

thickness for the soil to be classified in the Spolic Great Group

7. Terroterro in Latin

connotes earth, a

sense of naturalness

Soils with shallow disturbances. Depth of disturbance is less than the

depth of original parent material within the control section. At least 10

cm of original parent material present

8. AquoAqua - water

Soils with imperfect, poor or very poor drainage. Mottles and gleying

not necessarily diagnostic in the anthropogenically disturbed

environment (could be relict). Must be evidence of prolonged wetness in

the soil profile, such as a water table or saturated soil in a layer and

hydrophilic vegetation

9. Cryo Soils with the presence of permafrost

Anthroposolic Subgroups

• No standard abbreviations proposed yet

• No Orthic subgroup

• Unlimited combinations are allowed

• Gleyed Eluviated Dystric Brunisol (GLE.DYB)

• Fusco Spolic Anthroposol (FU.SA)

• Fusco Terro Spolic Anthroposol (FUTE.SA)

• Fusco Aquo Techno Terro Spolic Anthroposol (FUAQTCTE.SA ??)

The 11 Anthroposolic Phases

• Used to denote specific characteristics of anthropogenic soils

• They describe chemicalproperties, physical properties or artefacts of the soil profile

• When naming, chemical phases listed before physical

Phases - Chemical

PHASE Defining Features (must be ≥10cm cumulative)

Applies

within

depth

1.Calcareous

Mineral soil that has a layer containing alkaline earth

carbonates. Identified by the presence of visible

effervescence with 10% hydrochloric acid

50 cm

2. DystricpH <5.5 in a saturated paste extract or pH <6.0 in water

occurring in the uppermost 50 cm50 cm

3. Hydrocarbic Containing petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of Tier 1 levels 120 cm

4. ContaminicContaining contaminants such as industrial chemicals,

pesticides, wood preservatives and radionuclides120 cm

5. SalticElectrical Conductivity (EC) >4 dS/m and/or a Sodium

Adsorption Ratio (SAR) >13120 cm


Applies

within

depth

6. Clayic Fine textured (>40% clay) layer 50 cm

7. Compactic

Mineral soil showing evidence of root restriction in a layer as

indicated by compacted structure and very firm to extremely

firm consistence

50 cm

8. Sablic

Textures ranging from sand to loamy sand. It is loose or very

friable, structureless or weakly structured, rapidly permeable,

uncompacted material

120 cm

9. Thick Soil with a surface layer >40 cm deep 120 cm

Phases - Physical


Applies

within

depth

10. Garbic

Contains refuse from human activity either high in organic matter

or primarily of manufactured origin such as glass, plastic or

concrete. Middens may be included in this category.

120 cm

11. Slurric

Materials that are deposited as a slurry layer. This phase is only

applied in situations where the use of a slurry process is still

discernible (e.g., fresh drilling mud). Slurric materials must exhibit

a high degree of human modification. Dredged materials that

have been moved from an aquatic environment to dry land

without physical or chemical modification may be included as this

movement constitutes a high degree of human modification.

50 cm

Phases – Origin of Artefacts

Review

1. Calcareous

2. Dystric

3. Hydrocarbic

4. Contaminic

5. Saltic

6. Clayic

7. Compactic

8. Sablic

9. Thick

10. Garbic

11. Slurric

Anthroposolic

Phases

1. Egeo

2. Albo

3. Fusco

4. Carbo

5. Techno

6. Spolo

7. Terro

8. Aquo

9. Cryo

Anthroposolic

Subgroups

1. Technic

2. Spolic

3. Carbic

Anthroposolic

Great GroupsAnthroposolic

Cryosolic

Organic

Luvisolic

Vertisolic

Podzolic

Gleysolic

Solonetzic

Chernozemic

Brunisolic

Regosolic

Order

4. EXAMPLES6 examples from Naeth et al (2012) = handouts

4 examples from the CEMA’s Long-Term Plot Network

Example 1Landfill site capped with Spolic material

Image source: www.ediweekly.com/worlds-first-municipal-waste-biofuels-plant-opens-edmonton

Image source: http://mmmgrouplimited.com/projects/clover-bar-landfill-re-vegetation

Example 1

Great Group: Technic because technic material (>10% human artefacts) is the

dominant layer in the control section (120 cm of the surface).Subgroup: Spolo because spolic material (<10% artefacts and <17% organic

carbon) is >10 cm thick in the control section. Fusco because the surface layer is >10 cm thick and organic carbon

content is between 2 and 17%.Phases Calcareous because carbonates are present in a >10 cm layer within

50 cm of the soil surface. Garbic because human refuse is present in a 10 cm layer within 120

cm of the soil surface

Landfill site capped with Spolic material

Fusco Spolo Technic Anthroposol – calcareous, garbic phase

Example 2Road cut on an Orthic Black Chernozem

Example 2

Great Group:Spolic because the dominant layer has <10% artifacts and contains

<17% organic carbonSubgroup: Albo because the surface layer is ≥ 10 cm and has <2% organic carbon.Terro because depth of disturbance (10 cm) is less than depth of the

control section.PhasesCalcareous because carbonates are present in >10 cm layer within 50

cm of the soil surface.Compactic because there is evidence of compaction in a 10 cm layer

within 50 cm of the soil surface.

Terro Albo Spolic Anthroposol - calcareous, compactic phase

Road cut on an Orthic Black Chernozem

Example 3Drilling mud spread on the surface of an Orthic Black Chernozem

Example 3Drilling mud spread on the surface of an Orthic Black Chernozem

Great Group:• Spolic because dominant material has <10% artefacts and contains

<17% organic carbon.Subgroup:• Albo because the surface layer (10 cm D horizon) contains <2% organic

carbon.• Terro because the original soil is present in the control section.Phase:• Slurric because a 10 cm slurry layer occurs within 50 cm of the soil

surface.

Terro Albo Spolic Anthroposol - slurric phase

Example 4Well site pad located on a fen, west central Alberta

Example 4Well site pad located on a fen, west central Alberta

Terro Egeo Spolic Anthroposol

Great Group:Spolic because dominant disturbed material in the control

section (120 cm of the surface) is Spolic (<10% artifacts and <17% organic carbon).

Subgoup:Terro because the original soil material (organic fen) occurs

within 120 cm of the surface.Egeo because the surface Dh layer is <10 cm thick

Example 5Reclaimed Pipeline (3 lift) in southern Alberta

Example 5Reclaimed Pipeline (3 lift) in southern Alberta

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol - calcareous, saltic phase

Great Group:Spolic because the dominant disturbed material in the control section

(120 cm of the surface) is Spolic (<10% artifacts and <17% organic carbon).

Subgroup:Fusco because the surface layer is >10 cm thick and contains >2 and<17%

organic carbon.Phase:Calcareous because carbonates are present in >10 cm layer within 50 cm

of the surface.Saltic because free salts (electrical conductivity >4 dS/m) are present in a

>10 cm layer within 120 cm of the surface

Example 6Reclaimed area in the Athabasca oil sands region – peat mineral mix on overburden

Example 6Reclaimed area in the Athabasca oil sands region – peat mineral mix on overburden

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol - calcareous, hydrocarbic phase

Great Group:• Spolic because the dominant disturbed material in the control

section (120 cm of the surface) is spolic (<10% artefacts and <17% organic carbon).

Subgroup:• Fusco because the surface layer (peat mineral mix) is >10 cm thick

and organic carbon content is >2% and <17%.Phase:• Calcareous because carbonates are present in >10 cm layer within

50 cm of the soil surface.• Hydrocarbic because hydrocarbons are present in a >10 cm layer

within 120 cm of the soil surface

• Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA)

• CEMA's role in the oil sands region is to produce recommendations and management frameworks pertaining to the cumulative impact of oil sands development in North-Eastern Alberta

• Long-Term Plot Network (LTPN) – a set of research and monitoring plots through the existing reclaimed areas

Tailings Pond Dyke

Horizon Depth Colour Texture Structure

LF 3-0

Dh 0-18 10YR 3/4 fSL M-M-SBK

IID 18-100 10YR 4/3 fS SG

Reclaimed area in the Athabasca oil sands region – peat mineral mix on tailings sand

Development of LF indicates beginning of boreal soil formation

LF

Dh

IID

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol – dystric phase

Dm development in subsoil


LF 2-0

Dh 0-31 10YR 2/2 fSL W-M-GR

IIDm 31-50 10YR 4/2 fS W-M-SBK

IIDgj 50-100 10YR 5/2 fS SG


Development of LF and slight alteration in Dm indicate progress of boreal soil formation

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol – dystric phaseor

Orthic Sombric Brunisol

LF

Dh

IIDm

IIDgj

Dm development in topsoil


LF 1-0

Dh 0-13 10YR 3/2 SL M-F-GR

Dm 13-43 10YR 3/4 CL M-M-ABK

IID 43-100 10YR 5/3 fS SG


Development of LF and slight alteration in Dm indicate progress of boreal soil formation

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol – dystric phaseor

Orthic Sombric Brunisol

LF

Dh

IID

Dm

Three layer placement on waste rock pile


LFH 4-0

Dh 0-16 10YR 2/2 L W-M-GR

Dmk 16-64 10YR 3/4 CL W-M-ABK

IIDq 64-100 10YR 2/2 SL MA

Reclaimed area in the Athabasca oil sands region – peat mineral mix on fair quality subsoil over unsuitable overburden material

Development of LFH and slight alteration in Dm indicate progress of boreal soil formation

Fusco Spolic Anthroposol – calcareous hydrocarbic phase

LF

Dh

IIDq

Dmk

5. CHALLENGES WITH ANTHROPOSOLCLASSIFICATION

• Equilibrium

• Dm/Bm development

• Cultivation and fertilizers

• Deep plowing

• Gley features

• Subgroup abbreviations

Challenges: Equilibrium

• Naeth et al 2012: • “Anthroposolic soils have not yet reached equilibrium through their

physical expression in the current environment.

• If over time an anthropogenically modified soil reaches an equilibrium that is diagnostic of a natural soil order, then the soil could be classified as such at that time”.

• Not all natural soils have reached equilibrium• Regosols typically are young soils and have not yet reached equilibrium

• Brunisols typically are immature soils that have not reached equilibrium

• Solonetzic soils conceptually evolve from Solonetz to Solodized Solonetz and eventually to Solod. Therefore Solonetz and Solodized Solonetz are not at their equilibrium yet

• When should we call an Anthropogenic soil a Brunisol?

Challenges: Dm/Bm development

Question:

At what stage of development Dm should be called a Bm?

Definition (CSSC, 1998):

Bm – a horizon slightly altered by hydrolysis, oxidation, or solution, or all three to give a change in color or structure, or both.

Characteristically Brunisols have Bm >10 cm

LF

Dh

IIDm

IIDgj


LF 2-0

Dh 0-31 10YR 2/2 fSL W-M-GR

IIDm 31-50 10YR 4/2 fS W-M-SBK

IIDgj 50-100 10YR 5/2 fS SG

Challenges: Cultivation and fertilizers1. Fertilizers change pH and base

saturation leading to evolution of the soil from Dark Gray Chernozem to Dark Gray Luvisol

2. Cultivation mixes LFH, Ahe, Ae and Bt1 horizons forming Ap horizon

• Cultivation does not qualify soil as an Anthroposol

Challenges: Deep plowing

Topsoil-saving plow designed by Alberta Agriculture and built by Kellough Bros. of Stettler. It was designed to penetrate to a depth of over 80 cm and salvage up to 20 cm of topsoil during amelioration of Solonetzic soils (Hermans and Pettapiece, 1980)

Deep plowing of Terric Mesisols in U.S.A. Three tractors pulling a large plow to mix Cg and Om horizons.Source of image: www.yesterdaystractors.com

• Deep plowing creates evident disturbance beyond regular cultivation, therefore

• Deeply plowed soils should be classified as Anthroposols

http://www.yesterdaystractors.com/

Challenges: Gley features

Ponded area on reclaimed pipeline RoW,East-Central Alberta

Distinct mottling in IIDgj horizon,Athabasca Oil Sands Region

• Mottling is not a qualifying parameter for Aquo subgroup• Ponding and hydrophilic vegetation trigger Aquo subgroup

Challenges: Subgroup abbreviations

• Abbreviations are not discussed by Naeth et al 2012 or by Pennock et al 2015

• Intuitive Approach• Fusco Spolic Anthroposol = FU.SA

• Aquo Terro Spolo Carbic Anthroposol = AQTESP.CA

• Fusco Spolo Technic Anthroposol, calcareous, garbic phase = FUSP.TA-cagb

• Setting up standardized abbreviations would be required• During the field testing stage

• Prior adding the Anthroposolic Order to the Canadian System of Soil Classification

6. CONCLUSION

Conclusion

• Classification is a language to communicate a problem• Classification by itself does not solve any problems

• Anthroposolic soil classification was proposed in 2012 • Field testing started in 2015

• Anthroposols will be included in the 4th edition of the CSSC

• Evident disturbance layer >10 cm thick defines Anthroposol• Tillage is not qualified

• Three Great Groups based on TOC and artefacts• Technic Anthroposols

• Spolic Anthroposols

• Carbic Anthroposols

• 9 subgroups and 11 phases subdivide the Great Groups

Acknowledgements

• Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc.

• Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Long-Term Plot Network (LTPN)

• Dr. Anne Naeth (University of Alberta)

• Leonard Leskiw (Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting)

• Diana Dabrowa (Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting)

THANK YOU

Questions?

the anthroposolic soil order - in1touch order_4apr2018_konstantin dlusskiy...outline •why do we...

Documents