Geoderma 124 (2005) 23 36 www.elsevier.

com/locate/geoderma

Historical development of key concepts in pedology

J.G. Bockheim a,*, A.N. Gennadiyev b, R.D. Hammer c, J.P. Tandarich d
Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, 1525 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706-1299, USA b Faculty of Geography, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119992, Russia c Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-2200, USA d Hey and Associates, 1141 Commerce Drive, Geneva, IL 60134, USA Received 1 May 2003; received in revised form 16 February 2004; accepted 18 March 2004 Available online 27 April 2004
a

Abstract As a subdiscipline of soil science, pedology consists of an accepted body of laws and theories that cover a range of related ideas and concepts. We have traced the history of these concepts as they pertain to the definition of the soil; soil horizons, profiles, and pedons; soil-forming factors; pedogenic processes; soil classification; soil geography and mapping, and soil landscape relationships. The presented concepts have proven to be useful in our careers and are offered here to generate discussion in the pedology community. Because of space limitations, we have not attempted to critique these concepts. The concepts identified here are useful not only for understanding the development of pedology, but also for identifying future areas of research and providing a frame of reference from which pedologists can evaluate potential scientific contributions to a rapidly changing world. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pedology; Concepts; Soil history; Soil genesis; Soil landscape

1. Introduction Pedology, a component of soil science, has evolved through the creation and justification of ideas and generation and rationalization of processes (Huggett, 1997). Defined by Joffe (1936) as the study of the soil body in its natural position, pedology traditionally has been subdivided into soil morphology, soilforming factors, soil-forming processes, soil classification, and soil geography and mapping (Sokolov, 1996; Buol et al., 1997). Some have criticized that pedology is too descriptive and overly dependent on

the framework of soil classification systems (e.g., White, 1997); however, our review of the literature shows a rich diversity of concepts that have led to the development of pedology as an important component of Earth sciences. The literature1 contains several publications on specific concepts in pedology (Arnold, 1965; Huggett, 1975; Yaalon, 1975; Sokolov, 1996; Targulian and Sokolova, 1996; Nikitin, 2001). Many other substantive works on the history of soil science have

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-608-265-2595. E-mail address: bockheim@wisc.edu (J.G. Bockheim). 0016-7061/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.004

1 We have attempted to be unbiased in our selections of key literature and have striven to provide an international balance to our review. However, we recognize that the topic is conducive to subjective interpretation.

24

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

contributed to our understanding of some early concepts in pedology (Jenny, 1961b; Simonson, 1968; Arnold, 1983; Tandarich et al., 1988, 2002; Hudson, 1992; Krupenikov, 1992; Gennadiyev et al., 1995, 1996; Buol et al., 1997; Yaalon, 1997; Brevik, 1999). However, none of these works summarized key concepts in pedology. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify the key concepts in pedology. Some of the identified concepts may be considered obsolete, dated, or applicable to a particular soil system. However, as Cline (1961) observed, each individuals concept of a discipline represents the state of knowledge that the individual has acquired, tempered by that individuals unique experiences and perspectives. As knowledge is acquired in a discipline, new models replace old models. Cline (1961) further suggested that the best scientific models are those that prompt sufficient, focused research to set the template for their own replacement by subsequent, more complete models. An understanding of currently accepted concepts often requires knowledge of the developmental history of ideas that led progressively from one concept to another. We have made no attempt to critique the concepts, as that is beyond the scope of this review. 1.1. Soil definition Simonson (1968) provided a historical review of the concept of soil. The earliest definition of the soil was that it is a medium for plant growth. Known as the edaphological concept of soil, this view prevailed in soil science early in the 20th century (e.g., Lyon and Buckman, 1922). This view is still emphasized where soil fertility is the primary concern and the focus is on physical and chemical soil attributes important for plant growth with little regard for conditions external to the rooting medium. Secondly, the soil can also be viewed as a mantle of loose and weathered rock (Shaler, 1891; Hilgard, 1906; Coffey, 1912; Ramann, 1928; Targulian, 2001). A third view of the soil is that it is the excited skin of the subaerial part of the Earths crust (Nikiforoff, 1959). Runge (1973) proposed an energy model based on energy vectors operative in soils. Chesworth (1973) viewed soils as systems spontaneously moving toward a state of equilibrium. During soil development, the weathering process preferentially removes

mobile components from upper horizons and concentrates the relative immobile components in lower horizons. Huggett (1975) viewed soil landscape systems as storing, transforming and transmitting power plants whose inputs are material and energy and whose outputs include clastic sediments, colloids, and soluble material. An important component of Huggetts model is the perspective of the soil as a body larger than a pedon or polypedon, within which the lateral down-slope migration of dissolved and suspended constituents in temporally percolating water is a key component. Daniels and Hammer (1992) expanded upon this concept in a perspective that further welded geomorphic processes to soil-forming conditions. Dmitriev (1996) presented a detailed analysis of existing definitions of soil within the scope of Dokuchaevs approach; he defined the soil as a natural exon, which has properties developed as a result of the influence of autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms on soil constituents resulting from exogenic transformations. Targulian and Sokolova (1996) described the soil as a reactor, memory, and regulator of biosphere interactions. Following the ideas of Vernadskii (1926) and Kovda (1990), Dobrovolskii et al. (2001) considered the soil as a component of the biosphere with ecological functions responsible for biodiversity, productivity, etc. Nikitin (2001) considered the soil as an abiotic system with numerous biospheric functions and emphasized that a soil acts as a habitat, accumulator, and source of substances for all terrestrial organisms, as a link between the biological and geological cycles of matter, and as a planetary membrane (protective barrier and buffer system) that maintains suitable conditions for normal development of the biosphere. These approaches have led to more recent applications of thermodynamics in modeling soil processes. Today soils are recognized as complex systems that change in entropy and are controlled by convergent and divergent developmental pathways (Phillips, 1998, 2000). The most common view of the soil from a pedological perspective is that it is an independent natural evolutionary body that can be subdivided into subcompartments and that has formed under the influence of the five soil-forming factorsclimate, organisms, parent materials, relief, and time. This view was

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

25

initially proposed by Dokuchaev (1879a,b, 1883, 1893, 1899b) and supported by Sibirtsev (1900). Glinka (1914, 1931), Coffey (1909, 1912) and Marbut (1927, 1935) introduced this view of the soil to the USA. According to Yaalon (1983), the realization that soil profiles are a record of soil genesis and history was possibly the most significant discovery in pedology. Brevik (1999) and Ableiter (1949) noted that Coffey (1909) probably was the first American to incorporate Dokuchaevs concept of soil as a natural body into his perspective of soil, but that this idea was ignored for nearly a decade. Ableiter (1949) suggested that new ideas, no matter how sound, probably would not be immediately accepted if they differ profoundly from currently prevailing views. According to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1960, 1975, 1999), the soil is a natural body composed of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquid, and gases that occurs on the land surface, occupies space, and is characterized by horizons or layers that are distinguishable from the initial materials. From this brief summary, key concepts regarding the definition of the soil include the following: 1. The soil is a medium for plant growth. 2. The soil is a mantle of loose and weathered rock. 3. The soil is an independent, natural, evolutionary body. 4. The soil is the excited skin of the subaerial part of the Earths crust and a key component of the biosphere. 5. The soil is a natural body composed of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquids, and gases that occurs on the land surface, occupies space, and is characterized by horizons or layers that are distinguishable from the initial material. 1.2. Soil horizons, profiles, pedons, and stratigraphic units Soil horizons originally were used solely for descriptive purposes (Dokuchaev, 1879a,b, 1883; Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev, 1893), but they were later identified as genetic layers more or less parallel to the earths surface that could be (1) distinguished on the basis of morphological, chemical, and physical properties and (2) used to interpret the developmental history of the soil (Glinka, 1914; Marbut, 1921, 1927,

1928; Shaw, 1927). Marbut (1921) was the first person to suggest that soil horizons should be used to classify and differentiate soils. He proposed eight descriptive criteria of the soil, seven of which were soil-horizon attributes. This marked the beginning in the USA of recognizing soils as natural bodies distinct from geologic materials. A soil profile was recognized as a vertical, twodimensional section of the soil from the surface to the underlying unweathered material (Dokuchaev, 1879a,b, 1883, Glinka, 1914; Marbut, 1927, 1928; Shaw, 1927). Tandarich et al. (1994, 2002) described the history of the profile and the delineation of particular horizons. A question that arose early in the science of pedology was what is the smallest unit that can be recognized on the landscape as a soil? In the USA, the pedon was identified as the smallest three-dimensional unit (volume) of soil that shows all of the soil horizons present and their relationships (Simonson and Gardner, 1960; Johnson, 1963). The cross-sectional area of the pedon later was defined as ranging from 1 to 10 m2 depending on soil variability (Soil Survey Staff, 1960, 1975, 1999). Cline (1949) proposed the modal pedon as the central individual profile within a mapping unit or soil series. This concept was based on the statistical mode of a population and was extended to be the representative soil profile for a soil series. The type location for a series or mapping area (individual soil survey) often is perceived to be the modal soil for the population. Cline later regretted having proposed the modal pedon concept, because he thought that it focused attention on profiles at the expense of soil distributions.2 The polypedon was recognized as a soil individual that is comprised of contiguous pedons, all of which have characteristics lying within the defined limits of a single soil series or soil mapping unit (Johnson, 1963). Broader views of the soil include recognition of the geosol, a laterally traceable, mappable, geological weathering profile that has consistent stratigraphic position (Morrison, 1967), which is recognized by the North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (1983) as the fundamental pedostrati-

Richard Cline, personal communication.

26

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

graphic unit. The weathering profile, the geologic homologue of the soil profile, is defined as a vertical section that extends downward through the zones affected by subaerial weathering to the unweathered zones of unconsolidated or consolidated geologic material, if present (see Tandarich et al., 1994, 2002). Tandarich et al. (1994) advanced the pedoweathering profile as a synthetic paradigm that melded pedological and geological profile concepts. Some key concepts relative to the subdivision of the soil body include the following: 1. Soil horizons are genetic layers more or less parallel to the earths surface that are distinguished on the basis of morphological, chemical, and physical properties. 2. A soil profile is a vertical, two-dimensional section of the soil from the surface to the underlying unweathered material. 3. The pedon is the smallest volume of soil that is described and sampled; the horizontal area of the pedon ranges from 1 to 10 m2 depending on soil variability. 4. A polypedon is a collection of pedons within the defined limits of a single soil series. 5. The modal profile is the central concept of soil attributes in a soil series. 6. A geosol is a laterally traceable, mappable, geological weathering profile that has consistent stratigraphic position; it is the fundamental pedostratigraphic unit. 7. A weathering and pedo-weathering profile is a vertical section that extends downward through the zone affected by subaerial weathering that includes the soil profile to the unweathered, unconsolidated or consolidated rock. 1.3. Soil-forming factors Dokuchaev (1879a,b, 1883, 1893, 1899b) recognized that the soil is a function of the interplay of climate, organisms, relief, and parent material, all operating over time. Dokuchaev, and later Glinka (1914, 1927), Joffe (1936) and Marbut (1927) considered soil-forming factors as the causes of soil formation and soil properties as their effects. Joffe (1936) stated that the soil-forming factors set the conditions for internal soil-forming processes.

Shaw (1932) prepared the first soil-forming factor equation: S M C V T D 1

In this equation, M = parent material, C = climatic factors, V = organic life, T = time, and D = modification of the soil by erosion and deposition. In the discussion following Shaws (1932) presentation at the International Congress of Soil Science, a scientist in the audience suggested that Shaw write the equation as an integral function to more precisely capture the interacting influences of the factors upon an individual soil. Jenny (1941) stated that the introduction of causality aspects to soil formation is not fruitful, because every property may be considered a cause as well as an effect. According to Jenny (1941), soil-forming factors are not forces or causes, but are independent variables. Jenny (1941) rewrote Shaws (1932) soil-forming factor equation: S f cl; o; r; p; t . . . 2

In this equation, cl = climate, o = organisms, r = relief, p = parent material, and t = time. The soil-forming-factor equation has become a popular concept in pedology. It serves to simplify complex relations among the soil-forming factors in mathematical terms and provides a basis for interpreting soil attributes in terms of genetic history. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, the equation has never really been solved (Crowther, 1953; Kline, 1973; Phillips, 1998). State-factor equations were intended to describe the influence of a single factor on soil properties and are useful in studying soil development (Jenny, 1961a). Yaalon (1975) reviewed quantitative solutions of the univariant soil-forming functions and suggested that computer simulation strategy can advance the quantification of the process-oriented models of soil dynamics. Richardson and Edmonds (1987) developed linear regression equations depicting Jennys relative effectiveness of state factors equation. Phillips (1998) showed the links between the application of soil state-factor theory and nonlinear dynamic systems for modeling complex systems. Perhaps the most emphasized soil-forming factor is soil climate; however, interactions among climate,

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

27

vegetation and soils are complex and are not easily distinguished on some landscapes. Hilgard (1882) stressed the role of climate in soil formation, emphasizing soil temperature and moisture conditions. Marbut (1935) subdivided soils of the USA into two climatic groups, Pedalfers and Pedocals, which were based on leaching and non-leaching soil water regimes, respectively. Bonneau (1982) identified pedoclimate as the driving factor of soil formation; indeed, it is used to delineate soils in global soil taxonomic systems at the suborder (second) level. Butler (1959) and Hack and Goodlett (1960) provided evidence that soil development and erosion have been periodic and are driven by episodic geomorphic processes (e.g., Butlers K cycles), rather than being continuous in concert with climate change. Daniels and Hammer (1992) emphasized the integrating roles of water and gravity in synergistic soil-geomorphic processes. The recognition that geomorphic processes are periodic and related to soil development (Lobeck, 1939) was an important conceptual difference from the geologic concept of uniformitarianism upon which Marbut (1935) based his ideas of normal soils. Marbuts normal soil concept was based on Davis (1909) slope-forming geographic principles. The role of vegetation was recognized early in the development of pedology as a reflection of climate and as being important in soil formation (Dokuchaev, 1883). Rode (1947) proposed that soil development is theoretically possible only within the soil plant system, thereby emphasizing the edaphologic perspective of the soil. The role of organisms in soil development was emphasized by Hole (1961) and Johnson et al. (1987) in terms of pedoturbation, or soil mixing, which represents a local cyclic movement of soil materials. Parent material was recognized early in the history of pedology as a key soil-forming factor particularly at the regional scale (Dokuchaev, 1883; Hilgard, 1906; Coffey, 1912). Early approaches to distinguishing soil individuals were based on the geologic substratum or major geologic events (i.e., glaciation). Topography was initially recognized as being an important factor in the vertical zonation of soils. The topographic factor also has received special attention in connection to the soil catena concept. A catena was recognized as a drainage sequence of soils

(Milne, 1935; Bushnell, 1942; Fridland, 1972; Sommer and Schlichting, 1997). Dan and Yaalon (1968) identified a pedomorphic surface as a landscape in which the soils are genetically and evolutionarily interdependent and a pedomorphic surface is synonymous with a geomorphic surface. The soil-geochemical catena concept was developed in Russia (Polynov, 1953; Glazovskaya, 1964; Kasimov and Perelman, 1992). Early ideas in soil science recognized that soils mature with time (Dokuchaev, 1883; Kossovich, 1911; Shaw, 1932; Marbut, 1935). Stevens and Walker (1970) illustrated the importance of chronosequences in studying soil development. Soil chronosequences have different combinations of isochronism (isochrony) and/or time transgression of incipience and cessation of development of their encompassed end members (Vreeken, 1975). Bockheim (1980) prepared chronofunctions from published data and showed that linear and curvilinear models effectively depicted changes in soil properties over time. Gennadiyev (1990) and Birkeland (1999) analyzed various approaches to the role of time in soil development and different schemes of soil formation that included the time factor. In summary, some key concepts with regards to soil-forming factors include the following: 1. The soil is a function of the interplay of climate, organisms, relief, and parent material, all operating over time. Soil-forming factors set the conditions for soilforming processes. Soil-forming equations simplify complex relationships among the soil-forming factors in mathematical terms and provide a basis for interpreting soil attributes in terms of genetic history. Climate is a driving factor of soil formation. Parent material is a key soil-forming factor, especially at the regional scale. Topography is a key soil-forming factor at the landscape level; a catena is the interlocking of soils on a landscape. Organisms play a key role in soil development from a microscopic to the continental scale. Soil chronosequences are valuable for understanding rates and directions of soil and landscape evolution.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

28

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

9. State-factor equations are intended to describe the influence of a single factor on soil properties (i.e., the other factors are assumed to be more or less univariant over time) and are useful in studying soil development. 10. Soil development and erosion have been periodic rather than continuous. 1.4. Soil-forming processes Perhaps the earliest recognition of soil-forming processes was posited in the concepts of eluviation and illuviation (Glinka, 1914; Marbut, 1927). Eluviation is the removal of material in suspension or solution primarily from A and E horizons; and illuviation is the deposition of these weathering products in B-horizons. Huggett (1997) adopted a similar view that soils represent a balance between soil formation and dynamic denudation, which he identified as a key paradigm in pedology. Beginning with the pioneering efforts of Dokuchaev (1879a,b, 1883, 1899a) and continuing with his Russian successors (Polynov, 1923; Neustruev, 1930), soil scientists paid considerable attention to soil-forming processes. Soil processes were recognized in the USA until the late 1950s (Marbut, 1927, 1928; Joffe, 1936; Baldwin et al., 1938). For example, Joffe (1936) and Byers et al. (1938) identified seven predominant soil-forming processes, including podzolization, calcification, laterization, gleization, salinization, solonization, and solodization. Three general kinds of soil-forming processes have been recognized in Russia, including microprocesses, elementary processes, and general soil-forming processes (Rode, 1971). Microprocesses include various biological, chemical, and physical processes that collectively define the elementary soil-forming processes; elementary soil-forming processes are responsible for soil-horizon formation; and general soil-forming processes are responsible for formation of the entire soil profile. Gerasimov and Glazovskaya (1960) identified 10 elementary soil-forming processes that contribute to the development of genetic horizons and the entire profile. Gerasimov (1975) systematized elementary pedogenic processes as a basis for the genetic classification of soils, using a hierarchy: soil-forming factors>soil-forming processes>diagnostic soil properties. Rode (1971) showed how successive cycles of

soil microprocesses were transformed into directed irreversible, elementary soil-forming processes that result in a natural body. Targulian and Sokolov (1976) developed the idea of a soil as a moment, which was represented by labile short-term soil-forming processes; soil as a memory was represented by consequences of long-term processes. Rozanov (1983) grouped about 70 elementary soil-forming processes into nine categories. The movement away from an emphasis on soilforming processes in the USA was predicated on the assumption that soil properties result from soil processes and are more readily quantifiable than the processes (Bockheim and Gennadiyev, 2000). Soil processes were viewed as being poorly understood; and specific pedogenic processes were recognized as occurring simultaneously in a given soil, reinforcing or contradicting one another. Simonson (1959) proposed that soil horizons form from two overlapping steps, the accumulation of parent materials and the differentiation of horizons in the profile. Horizon differentiation was ascribed to the internal (soil profile) balance among additions, losses, transfers, and transformation of energy and matter. This concept has been the underpinning of soil genesis for the past 45 years. Crompton (1960) suggested that soil formation represented the balance between release of elements from weathering (richness of weathering) and loss of elements due to leaching (intensity of leaching), as moderated by new materials that form from the products of weathering. The mass-balance approach to soil development, originally proposed by Haseman and Marshall (1942) and expanded upon by Chadwick et al. (1990), enables the calculation of gains and losses in weathering products based on the distribution of index minerals. As soil properties approach a dynamic steady state, they adjust at a decreasing rate (Yaalon, 1971). Muhs (1984) recognized that intrinsic thresholds that explain instability in the absence of environmental change exist in soil systems. Yaalon (1983) identified and discussed feedback systems in soils that slowly change internal processes. For example, as argillic horizons form, they gradually reduce the internal vertical percolation of soil water. Bockheim and Gennadiyev (2000) synthesized approaches of different investigators and identified

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

29

17 elementary soil-forming processes that could be linked to soil taxa and diagnostic horizon, properties, and materials in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and the World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources (FAO, 1998). A summary of main ideas about soil-forming processes includes the following: 1. Eluviation represents the removal of soil material in suspension or solution; and illuviation represents the deposition of weathering products in the subsoil. 2. Soil horizons form as a result of the accumulation of parent materials and the differentiation of horizons due to balances among additions, losses, transfers, and transformations of energy and matter. 3. Soils represent a balance between the richness of weathering and the intensity of leaching. 4. Soil properties may rapidly or slowly approach a dynamic steady state and upon burial may be persistent or reversible. 5. Intrinsic thresholds exist in soil systems that explain instability in the absence of environmental change. 6. Soils may develop feedback systems that change internal processes over time. 7. Three general kinds of soil-forming processes have been recognized. Microprocesses include various biological, chemical, and physical processes that collectively define the elementary soil-forming processes; elementary soil-forming processes are responsible for the formation of specific soil horizons; and general soil-forming processes are responsible for formation of the entire soil profile. 8. Soil-forming processes can be linked to diagnostic surface and subsurface horizons and higher categories of soil classification systems. 1.5. Soil classification Joel (1926) explained that one of the fundamental needs of any natural science is to classify the proposed bodies of study. This was a particularly daunting challenge for soil science because the soil, unlike mammals, reptiles, insects, birds and plants, does not exist as discrete entities. Rather, the soil is a continuous multivariable natural body that changes at different rates and along different pathways into

diverse combinations of the defining attributes (Joffe, 1936). Crowther (1953) emphasized the temporally dynamic natures of many key soil attributes as yet another dimension of complexity in an already conceptually bewildering entity. Joel (1926) and Marbut (1935) believed that the study of soils could not advance as a science until a generally accepted classification system, based on the soil itself, was developed. The earliest soil classification systems were based mainly on geomorphological and geological concepts, such as mineralogical and chemical properties of parent materials. Soil classification schemes, beginning with Dokuchaev (1883, 1949) and continuing with those used in the USA until 1960 (Marbut, 1928; Baldwin et al., 1938), were based on the zonality concept. For example, in the USA soils were divided into three broad orders. Soils in the zonal (normal soils) order contained well-developed characteristics reflecting the predominant influence of climate and vegetation on well-drained stable sites; soils in the intrazonal order were well developed but had characteristics reflecting local factors such as relief, parent material, or age; soils in the azonal order were poorly developed. The evolutionary approach to soil classification was developed by Polynov (1923) and Kovda et al. (1967). Higher categories in the latter scheme were based on different geochemical mass and energy transfers, as evidenced by major stages and trends in weathering and humus and clay mineral formation. Elements of the evolutionary approach are contained in the French soil classification scheme (Duchaufour, 1968). Some early and the current soil classification schemes used in Russia are based on the concept of genetic profiles (Gerasimov, 1975; Glazovskaya, 1983; Dobrovolsky and Trofimov, 1996; Goryachkin et al., 2003). The highest categories in the current Russian system were distinguished on the basis of a conjugated system of genetic soil horizons that make up the soil profile. The definitions of soil horizons were based on the integrity of substantive soil properties dictated by soil-forming processes. Cline (1949) summarized the basic principles of soil classification that were the foundation of global soil classifications such as Soil Taxonomy (1999) and the WRB (FAO, 1998). In these systems, soils are

30

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

classified on the basis of diagnostic surface horizons (epipedons), subsurface horizons, and other characteristics. In Soil Taxonomy, soils are classified at six levels in a hierarchical system, from highest to lowest: orders, suborders, great groups, subgroups, families, and series (Soil Survey Staff, 1999). Soil orders are differentiated on the basis of soil processes (i.e., the threads of genesis principle of Cline and Johnson, 1963) as indicated by the presence or absence of diagnostic horizon and materials; in 8 of the 12 orders, suborders are distinguished primarily from soil climate; and great groups are subdivided on the basis of several criteria. Subgroups are subdivided according to the central concept of the great group vs. intergradations to other taxa or extra-gradations to not soil. Families are separated into particle-size, mineralogy, and soil temperature classes. Fundamental concepts of Soil Taxonomy were presented in a special symposium of the Soil Science Society of America Proceedings in 1963, and Volume 96 of the journal Soil Science was dedicated to the philosophical underpinnings and applications of Soil Taxonomy. The lowest category in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) is the series, which is based on the kind and arrangement of horizons. Soil series are divided into phases on the basis of surface stoniness, slope steepness, amount of previous erosion or other attributes that are not diagnostic in Soil Taxonomy, but which are important to land use. The soil series concept has changed with time and summarizes the evolution of pedology from an observational, geology based discipline to a more quantitative science. The initial definition of soil series (Whitney, 1906) was: . . . a given set of soil classes. . . so evidently related through source of material, method of formation, topographic position, and coloration that the different types constitute merely a gradation in the texture of an otherwise uniform material. Soils of different classes that are thus related constitute a series. A complete soil series consists of material similar in many other characteristics, but grading in texture from stones and gravel. . . through the sands and loams to a heavy clay. . . Thus, a soil type was a textural class within the series. This concept persisted (Marbut, 1910; Kruse-

kopf, 1921) until Marbut (1921) suggested that the soil profile should be classified on the basis of morphologic attributes of the horizons. Simonson (1968) cited the Sassafras soil as an example of the effect of the taxonomic change on distributions of soil series. The original Sassafras soil (fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults) became more than 50 separate soil series by 1968. It should be noted that the concepts of Soil Taxonomy were not universally accepted when they were introduced and was debated in the literature. Webster (1968) reviewed and discussed the most consistently expressed objections and proposed a statistically based system of soil classification. Some key concepts pertaining to soil classification include the following: 1. A zonal (normal) soil has well-developed characteristics reflecting the influence of climate and vegetation; an intrazonal soil is more or less well developed but has characteristics reflecting local factors such as relief, parent material, or age; an azonal soil is one that lacks well-developed characteristics. 2. Evolutionary or process-based systems distinguish soils at the higher levels on the basis of the collection of genetic soil horizons comprising the soil profile. 3. In Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and the WRB for Soil Resources (FAO, 1998), soils are classified the basis of diagnostic surface horizons (epipedons), subsurface horizons, and other diagnostic characteristics. 4. In Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999), an example of a global soil classification system, soils are classified at six levels, from broadest to narrowest: orders, suborders, great groups, subgroups, families, and series. 5. The fundamental soil entity mapped in most soil surveys is the soil series. 1.6. Soil geography and mapping The factors accounting for the distribution of soils on the landscape have been of interest in pedology for more than a century. Dokuchaev (1899a) distinguished two levels of soil-geographical regularities. The first level deals with the variation of soils across continental

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

31

expanses, and the second level explains spatial changes of soils at the landscape scale. Dokuchaev (1899a) identified the factors controlling global soil distribution and developed the doctrine of soil zones, including the laws of horizontal and vertical bio-climatic zonation of soils. These concepts were explained in the first schematic soil map of the Northern Hemisphere presented at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1900 (see Gerasimov and Glazovskaya, 1960). Prasolov (1922) and Gerasimov (1933) divided Dokuchaevs zones into provinces and facies, which are controlled mainly by climate and geomorphology. Bioclimatic zonation and provinciality of soil cover were expressed on a continental scale and were used by Glinka (1927), Gerasimov (1933), and Prasolov (1937) to prepare the first world soil maps. It was apparent, however, that while the regional controls of climate and vegetation were important at continental scales, local soil variability within smaller areas could often be attributed to changes in relief and topography and to local parent materials (Glinka, 1927; Joffe, 1936; Marbut, 1935; Ramann, 1928). An important component of this concept was the definition of basic soil-geographic units, or soil individual. The soil series is now recognized as a group of polypedons; it is deemed the most homogeneous category in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). Some other definitions included the three-dimensional soil body (Hole, 1953), the soil-area unit (Muir, 1962), the artificial soil body (van Wambeke, 1966), and pedomorphic forms (Dan and Yaalon, 1968). Fridland (1972) introduced the concept of the elementary soil areals (ESA), defining them as soil bodies without internal pedogeographic boundaries. The soil cover pattern as defined by Fridland (1972) pertains to the detailed arrangement of ESAs, CSAs (combinational soil areas), and associated bodies of non-soil. In 1972, he wrote: A certain pattern of soil cover is characterized by a set of soil areals which repeats across space, resulting in a consistent character and structure of soil cover and geochemical and geophysical linkages between soils within the sets (p. 12). Each soil cover pattern has the same history of development. His approach was based on the earlier concept of soil combinations (Sibirtsev, 1900; Neustruev, 1930). Fridland (1972) suggested indices to describe and classify ESAs and soil cover patterns. They are

taxonomic soil units of definite size and composition, spatial characteristics, and environmental condition. According to Hole and Campbell (1985), there are two contrasting views of soil geography: (1) the traditional view employed for soil surveying and mapping and (2) Fridlands (1972) soil cover patterns approach (i.e., the other soil geography). The geography of this soil geography denotes those properties that pertain to soil bodies, specifically as areal entities possessing characteristic sizes, shapes, volumes, slopes, and internal variability (p. 97). He denoted as a point of departure: Just as an elementary soil body is a natural, relatively distinct cluster of pedons, so a combination soil body is a distinct unit in the soil cover (p. 4). The geomorphic approach to the distribution of soil bodies on landscapes recognizes that geomorphic processes are important agents of distributing parent materials (Ruhe, 1956) and that the sorting and arrangement of particles during transportation and deposition creates landforms and deposits with unique and distinguishing features (Gerrard, 1981; Selby, 1982; Daniels and Hammer, 1992; Paton et al., 1995). Fundamental to this linkage of soils and landforms is that they are co-evolving (Hall, 1983). The synergism between soils and geomorphology is important for predicting the areal distribution of soils on the landscape and the flow of water through the watershed (Daniels and Hammer, 1992). This perspective links sediment processes with soil formation in ways that complement and complete Simonsons (1959) process model and the soil cartographers soil landform paradigm (Hudson, 1992). This approach also provides a conceptual linkage with the soil to its broader landscape in ways not formally discussed or recognized in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1960, 1975, 1999). In the USA, broader soil map units include soil associations and complexes, which were used as groups of soils occurring together in a characteristic and unique patterns on the landscape (Kellogg, 1933; Simonson et al., 1952). Soil associations were mostly formed by the different soil series of significant genetic and morphologic diversity. Whereas the components of an association can be mapped separately at a scale of about 1:24,000 and are distributed in predictable patterns in the landscape, the components of a complex cannot be differentiated at this scale and

32

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336

may be distributed randomly. Hole (1978) identified soilscapes as distinct subdivisions of the landscape with unique sizes, shapes, and arrangements of geographic units. Rozanov (1977) differentiated hierarchical levels of the worlds soil cover according to: mega-, macro-, meso-, micro-, and nanostructures. Megastructure refers to the genetic-morphostructural regions, e.g., soils of mountains, plains, lowlands, etc., that are produced by the geological peculiarities of the continents. Macrostructures are bioclimatic zones, facies, and districts. Mesostructures are areas consisting of soil combinations related to mesotopographical forms. Microstructures are related to microrelief; and nanostructures are the elementary soil areals. Fridland (1984) did not support the idea of zonalprovincial structure of soil cover as the upper levels of an overall hierarchical system of soil-geographical organization. He proposed six levels of soil cover patterns: elementary soil area, elementary soil cover pattern (microstructure), mesostructure, soil region, soil district, and soil country. He also recognized several levels in the zonal-provincial (bio-climatic) structure of soil cover: province, facies, subzone, zone, and region (Fridland, 1984). Key assumptions relating to soil geography and mapping include the following: 1. The continental-scale distribution of soils is controlled by the effect of climate and its effect on organisms and soils; at the landscape level, the distribution of soils is influenced by topography, i.e., soil catenas. 2. Soils are linked to their resident landforms and their landscapes, by geomorphic processes with which they co-evolve. 3. Basic soil geographic units include three-dimension soil bodies (Hole, 1953); soil-area units (Muir, 1962); artificial soil bodies (van Wambeke, 1966), pedomorphic forms (Dan and Yaalon, 1968; and elementary soil areals (Fridland, 1972).

cover a range of related ideas and concepts pertaining to the definition of the soil, soil horizons and profiles, soil-forming factors and processes, soil classification, and soil geography and mapping. In this review, we are able to identify several key milestones in pedology, including the following:

Pre-1880

Concept of soil as a medium for plant growth and as a weathered rock layer. 1880 1900 Appearance of fundamental pedology concepts: soil as a natural body; soil horizons/profiles; soil-forming factors; early ideas of soil geography. 1900 1940 Global acceptance of concepts of soil as a natural body and soil-forming factors; development of first regional soil classification systems; soil surveys initiated; identification of key soil-forming processes. 1940 1960 Factors of soil formation and genesis of soils clarified; development of global soil taxonomic systems; intensified soil mapping. 1960 1990 Refinement of global soil taxonomic systems; identification of pedon concept; development of early soil models and soil cover pattern concept; recognition of co-evolution of soils and landforms. 1990 present Increased understanding of soil processes; refinement of global soil models; further refinement of global soil taxonomic systems; development of statistical and computer-based soil information systems.

These presented concepts and milestones have proven to be useful in our careers and are offered here to generate discussion in the pedological community.

Acknowledgements We appreciate the constructive reviews of R.J. Huggett and L.R. Follmer.

References
Ableiter, J.K., 1949. Soil classification in the United States. Soil Sci. 67, 183 191. Arnold, R.W., 1965. Multiple working hypotheses in soil science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29, 717 724. Arnold, R.W., 1983. Concepts of soils and pedology. In: Wilding, L.P., Smeck, N.E., Hall, G.F. (Eds.), Pedogenesis and Soil

2. Conclusions As a subdiscipline of soil science, pedology consists of an accepted body of laws and theories that

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336 Taxonomy: I. Concepts and Interactions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1 21. Baldwin, M., Kellogg, C.E., Thorp, J., 1938. Soil classification. Soils and Men. U.S. Dep. Agric. Yearbook. U.S. Govt. Print., Washington, DC, pp. 979 1001. Birkeland, P.W., 1999. Soils and Geomorphology, 3rd edn. Oxford Univ. Press, NY. Bockheim, J.G., 1980. Solution and use of chronofunctions in studying soil development. Geoderma 23, 71 85. Bockheim, J.G., Gennadiyev, 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, 53 72. Bonneau, M., 1982. The concept of pedoclimate. In: Bonneau, M., Souchier, B. (Eds.), Constituents and Properties of Soil. Academic Press, London, pp. 372 376. Brevik, E.C., 1999. George Nelson Coffey, early American pedologist. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1485 1493. Buol, S.W., Hole, F.D., McCracken, R.J., Southard, R.J., 1997. Soil Genesis and Classification, 4th edn. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. Bushnell, T.M., 1942. Some aspects of the soil catena concept. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 7, 466 476. Butler, B.E., 1959. Periodic phenomena in landscapes as a basis for soil studies. Aust. CSIRO Soil Publ. 14, 1 10. Byers, H.G., Kellogg, C.E., Anderson, M.S., Thorp, J., 1938. Formation of soil. Soils and Men. U.S. Dep. Agric. Yearbook. U.S. Govt. Print., Washington, DC, pp. 948 978. Chadwick, O.W., Brimhall, G.H., Hendricks, D.M., 1990. From a black to a gray boxa mass balance interpretation of pedogenesis. Geomorphology 3, 369 390. Chesworth, W., 1973. The residual system of chemical weathering: a model for the chemical breakdown of silicate rocks at the surface of the earth. J. Soil Sci. 24, 69 81. Cline, M.G., 1949. Basic principles of soil classification. Soil Sci. 67, 87 91. Cline, M.G., 1961. The changing model of soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25, 2 446. Cline, A.J., Johnson, D.D., 1963. Threads of genesis in the Seventh Approximation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27, 220 222. Coffey, G.N., 1909. Physical principles of soil classification. Proc. Am. Soc. Agron. 1, 175 185. Coffey, G.N., 1912. A Study of the Soils of the United States. USDA Bur. of Soils Bull., vol. 85. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Crompton, E., 1960. The significance of the weathering/leaching ratio in the differentiation of major soil groups, with particular reference to some very strongly leached brown earths of the hills of Britain. Trans. 7th Internat. Congress of Soil Sci. vol. 4. Internat. Congress of Soil Sci., Madison, WI, pp. 406 412. Crowther, E.M., 1953. The skeptical soil chemist. J. Soil Sci. 40, 107 122. Dan, J., Yaalon, D.H., 1968. Pedomorphic forms and pedomorphic surfaces. Trans. 9th Internat. Congress of Soil Sci. vol. IV. Internat. Congress of Soil Sci., Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 577 584.

33

Daniels, R.B., Hammer, R.D., 1992. Soil Geomorphology. Wiley, NY. Davis, W.M., 1909. Geographical Essays. Harvard Univ. Press, Harvard, MA. Dmitriev, E.A., 1996. Soils and soil-like bodies. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 275 282. Dobrovolskii, G.V., Nikitin, E.D., Karpachevskii, L.O., 2001. New approaches to the concept of soil place in the biosphere. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34 (Suppl. 1), S1 S5. Dobrovolsky, G.V., Trofimov, S.Y., 1996. Soil Systematics and Classification (History and Up-to-Date Status). Moscow Univ. Press, Russia. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1879a. Mapping the Russian Soils (in Russian). Imperial Univ. of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1879b. Chernozeme (terre noire) de la Russie DEurope. Societe Imperiale Libre Economique. Imprimeric Trenke and Fusnot, St. Petersburg. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1883. The Russian Chernozem Report to the Free Economic Society (in Russian). Imperial Univ. of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1893. The Russian steppes/study of the soil in Russia, its past and present. Dept. of Agric. Ministry of Crown Domains for the Worlds Colombian Exposition at Chicago, St. Petersburg. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1899a. A Contribution to the Theory of Natural Zones: Horizontal and Vertical Soil Zones (in Russian). Mayors Office Press, St. Petersburg, Russia. 62 pp. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1899b. The Place and Role of Contemporary Pedology in Science and Life (in Russian). Mayors Office Press, St. Petersburg, Russia. 28 pp. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1949. Natural Historical Classification of Russian Soils (in Russian). From Selected Works. vol. 3. Publishing House for Agric. Literature, Moscow, Russia. 19 pp. Dokuchaev, V.V., Sibirtsev, N.M., 1893. Short Scientific Review of Professor Dokuchaevs and His Pupils Collection of Soils Exposed in Chicago in the Year 1893. E. Evdokimova, St. Petersburg, Russia. Duchaufour, P., 1968. LEvolution des Sols. Masson et Cie, Paris, France. 93 pp. FAO, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Rep. vol. 84. Food and Agric. Organization, Rome, Italy. 161 pp. Fridland, V.M., 1972. Pattern of the Soil Cover. Transl. from the Russian. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. Fridland, V.M., 1984. Patterns of the Soil Cover of the World (in Russian). Mysl, Moscow. Gennadiyev, A.N., 1990. Soils and Time: Models of Development. Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow. Gennadiyev, A., Gerasimova, M., Arnold, R., 1995. Evolving approaches to soil classification in Russia and the United States of America: their divergence and convergence. Soil Surv. Horiz. 36, 104 111. Gennadiyev, A.N., Olson, K.R., Chernyanskii, S.S., 1996. Soil science in the United States and the doctrine of V.V. Dokuchaev. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 133 138. Gerasimov, I.P., 1933. On soil-climatic facies of the USSR. Proc. Dokuchaev Soil Inst. 8 (5), 29 37.

34

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336 Huggett, R.J., 1997. Environmental Change: The Evolving Ecosphere. Routledge, London. Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill, NY. Jenny, H., 1961a. Derivation of state factor equations of soils and ecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25, 385 388. Jenny, H., 1961b. E.W. Hilgard and the Birth of Modern Soil Science. Collana Della Revista Agrochimica, vol. 33. CDRA, Pisa, Italy. Joel, A.H., 1926. Changing viewpoints and methods in soil classification. Sci. Agric. 6, 225 232. Joffe, J.S., 1936. Pedology. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Johnson, W.M., 1963. The pedon and polypedon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27, 212 215. Johnson, D.L., Watson-Stegner, D., Johnson, D.N., Schaetzl, R.J., 1987. Proisotropic and proanisotropic processes of pedoturbation. Soil Sci. 143, 278 292. Kasimov, N.S., Perelman, A.I., 1992. The geochemistry of soils. Eurasian Soil Sci. 24, 59 76. Kellogg, C.E., 1933. A method for the classification of rural lands for assessment in North Dakota. J. Land Public Util. Econ. 9, 10 14. Kline, J.R., 1973. Mathematical simulation of soil plant relationships and soil genesis. Soil Sci. 115, 240 249. Kossovich, P.S., 1911. Basics of Soil Science (in Russian). St. Petersburg, Russia. 168 pp. Kovda, V.A., 1990. The role and functions of the soil cover in the earths biosphere. Problems of Soil Science. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 5 10. Kovda, V.A., Lobova, E.V., Rozanov, B.G., 1967. Problems of world soil classification. Sov. Soil Sci. 7, 3 13. Krupenikov, I.A., 1992. History of Soil Science from Its Inception to the Present. Acad. Sci. of the USSR. Transl. from the Russian. Amerind Publishing, New Delhi. Krusekopf, H.H., 1921. The Missouri soil survey. Univ. Mo. Coll. Agric. Exp. Stat. Circ. 104. Columbia, MO. 20 pp. Lobeck, A.K., 1939. Geomorphology: An Introduction to the Study of Landscapes. McGraw-Hill, NY. Lyon, T.L., Buckman, H.O., 1922. The Nature and Properties of Soils: A Textbook of Edaphology. Macmillan, NY. Marbut, C.F., 1910. Soils of the Ozark region: a preliminary report on the general character of the soils and the agriculture of the Missouri Ozarks. Univ. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stat. Res. Bull. 3. Columbia, MO. 273 pp. Marbut, C.F., 1921. The contribution of soil surveys to soil science. Soc. Prom. Agric. Sci. 41. Marbut, C.F., 1927. In: Glinka, K.D. (Ed.), The Great Soil Groups of the World and their Development. Edwards Bros., Ann Arbor, MI. Transl. Marbut, C.F., 1928. A scheme for soil classificationProc. 1st Int. Cong. Soil Sci. Comm., vol. 5. Internat. Congress of Soil Sci., Washington, DC, pp. 1 31. Marbut, C.F., 1935. Soils of the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric., Atlas Am. Agric. (Pt. 3). Milne, G., 1935. Some suggested units of classification and mapping particularly for East African soils. Soil Res. 4, 183 198.

Gerasimov, I.P., 1975. Elementary pedogenic processes as the basis for genetic diagnostics of soils. Sov. Soil Sci. 5, 3 9. Gerasimov, I.P., Glazovskaya, M.A., 1960. Fundaments of Soil Science and Geography. Geografgiz, Moscow. In Russian. Gerrard, A.J., 1981. Soils and Landforms: An Integration of Geomorphology and Pedology. George Allen and Unwin, Boston, MA. Glazovskaya, M.A., 1964. Geochemical Foundations of the Typology and Methodology of Investigating Natural Landscapes (in Russian). Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow, Russia. 237 pp. Glazovskaya, M.A., 1983. Soils of the World, vol. 1. Amerind Publishing, New Delhi. Glinka, K.D., 1914. Die Typen der Bodenbildung, irhe Klassification und Geographische Verbreitung. Gebruder Borntraeger, Berlin. Glinka, K.D., 1927. Dokuchaevs ideas in the development of pedology and cognate sciences. Russian Pedological Investigations. USSR Acad. Sci., vol. 1. Publishing Office of the Academy of Science U.S.S.R., Leningrad. Glinka, K.D., 1931. Treatise on soil science. In: Gourevitch, A. (Ed.), Transl. from Russian, 4th edn. Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem. 674 pp. Goryachkin, S.V., Tonkonogov, V.D., Gerasimova, M.I., Lebedeva, I.I., Shishov, L.L., Targulian, V.O., 2003. Changing concepts of soil and soil classification in Russian. In: Eswaran, H., Rice, T., Ahrens, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 187 199. Hack, J.T., Goodlett, J.C., 1960. Geomorphology and forest ecology of a mountain region in the central appalachians. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., vol. 347. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. 65 pp. Hall, G.F., 1983. Pedology and geomorphology. In: Wilding, L.P., Smeck, N.E., Hall, G.F. (Eds.), Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy: I. Concepts and Interactions. Elsevier, NY, pp. 117 140. Haseman, J.F., Marshall, C.E., 1942. The quantitative evaluation of soil formation and development by heavy mineral studies: a Grundy silt loam profile. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 7, 448 453. Hilgard, E.W., 1882. Report on the relations of soil to climate. U.S. Dep. Agric. Weather Bull. 3, 1 59. Hilgard, E.W., 1906. Soils: Their Formation, Properties, Composition, and Relations to Climate and Plant Growth in the Humid and Arid Regions. Macmillan, NY. Hole, F.D., 1953. Suggested terminology for describing soils as three-dimensional bodies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 17, 131 135. Hole, F.D., 1961. A classification of pedoturbations and some other processes and factors in soil formation in relation to isotropism and anisotropism. Soil Sci. 91, 375 377. Hole, F.D., 1978. An approach to landscape analysis with special emphasis on soils. Geoderma 21, 1 23. Hole, F.D, Campbell, J.B., 1985. Soil Landscape Analysis. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NY. 196 pp. Hudson, B.D., 1992. The soil survey as paradigm-based science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 836 841. Huggett, R.J., 1975. Soil landscape systems: a model of soil genesis. Geoderma 13, 1 22.

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336 Morrison, R.B., 1967. Principles of Quaternary stratigraphy. In: Morrison, R.B., Wright, H.E. (Eds.), Quaternary Soils. Proc. Internat. Assoc. Quat. Res. 7th Cong., vol. 9. Desert Research Institute, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, pp. 1 69. Muhs, D.R., 1984. Instrinsic thresholds in soil systems. Phys. Geogr. 5, 99 110. Muir, J.W., 1962. The general principles of classification with reference to soils. J. Soil Sci. 13, 22 30. Neustruev, S.S., 1930. An essay of soil process classification. Elements of Soil Geography (in Russian). Selkhozgiz, MoscowLeningrad. Nikiforoff, C.C., 1959. Reappraisal of the soil. Science 129, 186 196. Nikitin, E.D., 2001. Soil as a bio-abiotic polyfunctional system. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, S6 S12. North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature, E.D., 1983. North American Stratigraphic Code. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull. 67, 841 875. Phillips, J.D., 1998. On the relations between complex systems and the factorial model of soil formation (with discussion). Geoderma 86, 1 21. Phillips, J.D., 2000. Signatures of divergence and self-organization in soils and weathering profiles. J. Geol. 108, 91 102. Polynov, B.B., 1923. Soils and Their Formation (in Russian). Mysl Publishing House, Petrograd, Russia. 172 pp. Polynov, B.B., 1953. Doctrine of Landscapes (in Russian). Geogr. Proc., vol. 33. USSR Acad. Sci. Press, Moscow. Prasolov, L.I., 1922. Soil Regions of European Russia (in Russian). Gosizdat, Petrograd, Russia. 156 pp. Prasolov, L.I., 1937. On nomenclature and fundamentals of genetic soil classification. Soil Sci. 8 (in Russian). Ramann, E., 1928. The Evolution and Classification of Soils (Translated by C.L. Whittles). W. Heffer & Sons, London. Richardson, J.L., Edmonds, W.J., 1987. Linear regression estimations of Jennys relative effectiveness of state factors equation. Soil Sci. 144, 203 208. Rode, A.A., 1947. The Soil-forming Process and Soil Evolution. (Transl. by J.S. Joffe). Israel Program for Scientific Transl., Jerusalem. Office of Tech. Serv., U.S. Dep. Commerce, Washington, DC. Rode, A.A., 1971. System of Research Methods in Soil Science (in Russian). Nauka, Novosibirsk. Rozanov, B.G., 1977. Soil Cover of the Earth (in Russian). Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow, Russia. 248 pp. Rozanov, B.G., 1983. Soil Morphology (in Russian). Moscow State Univ., Moscow, Russia. 320 pp. Ruhe, R.V., 1956. Geomorphic surfaces and the nature of soils. Soil Sci. 82, 441 455. Runge, E.C.A., 1973. Soil development sequences and energy models. Soil Sci. 115, 183 193. Selby, M.J., 1982. Hillslope Materials and Processes. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Shaler, N.S., 1891. The origin and nature of soils. In: Powell, J.W. (Ed.), 12th Annual Report of the U.S. Geol. Surv. 1890 1891. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC, pp. 219 345. Shaw, C.F., 1927. Report of committee on soil terminology. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 8, 66 98.

35

Shaw, C.F., 1932. A soil formation formula. In: Prassolov, L.F., Vilensky, D.G. (Eds.), Proceedings and Papers of the Second International Congress of Soil Science. Commission V, vol. 5, pp. 7 14. Sibirtsev, N.M., 1900. . In: Skorokhodva, Y.N. (Ed.), Pochvovedenie. Y.N. Skorokhodov, St. Petersburg, Russia. 212 pp. Simonson, R.W., 1959. Outline of a generalized theory of soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23, 152 156. Simonson, R.W., 1968. Concept of soil. Adv. Agron. 20, 1 47. Simonson, R.W., Gardner, D.R., 1960. Concepts and function of the pedon. 7th Int. Cong. Soil Sci., Trans., vol. 4. Internat. Congress of Soil Sci., Madison, WI, pp. 127 131. Simonson, R.W., Riecken, F.F., Smith, G.D., 1952. Understanding Iowas Soils. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook, vol. 18. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff, 1960. Soil Classification, A Comprehensive System, 7th Approximation. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. 265 pp. Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil Taxonomy, A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook, vol. 436. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. 754 pp. Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, 2nd edn. Agric. Handbook, vol. 436. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC. 869 pp. Sokolov, I.A., 1996. Paradigm of pedology from Dokuchaev to the present day. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 222 231. Sommer, M., Schlichting, E., 1997. Archetypes of catenas in respect to matter; a concept for structuring and grouping catenas. Geoderma 76, 1 33. Stevens, P.R., Walker, T.W., 1970. The chronosequence concept and soil formation. Quart. Rev. Biol. 45, 333 350. Tandarich, J.P., Darmody, R.G., Follmer, L.R., 1988. The development of pedological thought: some people involved. Phys. Geog. 9, 162 164. Tandarich, J.P., Darmody, R.G., Follmer, L.R., 1994. The pedoweathering profile: a paradigm for whole regolith pedology from the glaciated midcontinental United States of America. In: Cremeens, D.R. (Ed.), Whole Regolith Pedology. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Spec. Pub., vol. 34, pp. 97 117. Tandarich, J.P., Darmody, R.G., Follmer, L.R., Johnson, D.L., 2002. Historical development of soil and weathering profile concepts from Europe to the United States of America. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 335 346. Targulian, V.O., 2001. Pedogenesis and the lithosphere. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, S21 S27. Targulian, V.O., Sokolov, I.A., 1976. Structural and functional approaches to soil: soil memory and soil moment. Mathematical Modeling in Ecology (in Russian). Nauka, Moscow, pp. 17 34. Targulian, V.O., Sokolova, T.A., 1996. Soil as a biotic/abiotic natural system: a reactor, memory and regulator of biospheric interactions. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 30 41.

36

J.G. Bockheim et al. / Geoderma 124 (2005) 2336 Yaalon, D.H. (Ed.), PaleopedologyOrigin, Nature and Dating of Paleosols. Int. Soc. Soil Sci. and Israel Univ. Press, Jerusalem, pp. 29 39. Yaalon, D.H., 1975. Conceptual models in pedogenesis: can soil-forming functions be solved? Geoderma 14, 189 205. Yaalon, D.H., 1983. Climate, time and soil development. In: Wilding, L.P., Smeck, N.E., Hall, G.F. (Eds.), Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy: I. Concepts and Interactions. Elsevier, NY, pp. 233 251. Yaalon, D.H., 1997. History of soil science in context: international perspective. Adv. Geo. Ecol. 29, 1 13.

Vernadskii, V.I., 1926. Biosphere. Chem-Tech. Publ. House, Leningrad. Vreeken, W.J., 1975. Principal kinds of chronosequences and their significance in soil history. J. Soil Sci. 26, 378 394. Webster, R., 1968. Fundamental objections to the 7th Approximation. J. Soil Sci. 19, 354 366. White, R.E., 1997. Soil science: raising the profile. Aust. J. Soil Res. 35, 961 977. Whitney, M., 1906. Soil Survey Field Book. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. 319 pp. Yaalon, D.H., 1971. Soil-forming processes in time and space. In: