See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257857842

Soil-genetic zoning: Principles, goals, structure, and applications

Article  in  Eurasian Soil Science · July 2012

DOI: 10.1134/S1064229312050079

CITATIONS READS
4 193

4 authors, including:

Irina Lebedeva Sergei Ovechkin

27 PUBLICATIONS   249 CITATIONS   
V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute
10 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

M. I. Gerasimova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
120 PUBLICATIONS   559 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soils of ultacontinental cold dry steppes of Central Asia: genesis, geography, evolution, and classification View project

Vertisols in Russia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. I. Gerasimova on 01 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2016, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 272–284. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2016.
Original Russian Text © T.V. Korolyuk, I.I. Lebedeva, M.I. Gerasimova, S.V. Ovechkin, I.Yu. Savin, 2016, published in Pochvovedenie, 2016, No. 3, pp. 299–311.

GENESIS AND GEOGRAPHY

OF SOILS

On the Development of Soil-Genetic Zoning

T. V. Korolyuk, I. I. Lebedeva, M. I. Gerasimova, S. V. Ovechkin†, and I. Yu. Savin
Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, per. Pyzhevskii 7, Moscow, 119017 Russia
е-mail: korolyuktv@akado.ru
Received October 7, 2014

Abstract—The principles of typological soil-genetic zoning based on the substantive-genetic classification of

Russian soils (2004) and realized for the State Soil Map of Russia on a scale of 1 : 1 M are considered. Three
categories of characteristics are applied to the system of zoning units: taxonomic, process-based, and land-
scape-indicative characteristics. The relationship between them changes in dependence on the taxonomic
level of the zoning unit; at the lower level, the spatial (landscape-indicative) criterion plays the major role.
This criterion is also important in the delimitation of soil groups (soil communities) serving as the central tax-
onomic unit of the zoning. At this level, all the three groups of characteristics are equally important. The defi-
nitions of the taxonomic units of the soil-genetic zoning are given, and their characteristic features are
described. An algorithm of the zoning procedure is illustrated by the example of the maps developed for the
Privolzhskii federal okrug. It is suggested that the soil-genetic zoning can be used as one of the ways to update
the State Soil Map.

Keywords: State Soil Map, soil classification, units of soil zoning, elementary pedogenetic processes
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229316030066

INTRODUCTION graphical zoning were based on common perception of

Zoning is a method to systematize spatial regulari-
ties as seen from some theoretical and/or practical
standpoint. This method has long been used in many
fields of geography and soil science. Thus, the second
series of the maps for the institutes of higher education
published in 1970–1980 included several maps of nat-
ural zoning on a scale of 1 : 1 M, i.e., the maps of phys-
iographical, geomorphological, zoogeographical, and
soil-geographic zoning. Various applied maps of zon-
ing were also created: the maps of natural-agricultural
zoning, the maps of zoning of the territory to assess
growth potential of particular crops, etc.
In terms of zoning methodology, regional and
typological zonings are distinguished. Regional zon-
ing implies the division of the territory into unique
subordinated units (regions), each of which has its
own integrity. Typological zoning implies the division
of the territory into units characterized by some com-
mon property (or a set of properties) [1].
The work on the first soil-geographical zoning of the
country was performed in the early 1960s by the
Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute in parallel with the
development of the soil classification system [17]. A
corresponding monograph and a map of the soil-geo-
graphical zoning of the Soviet Union on a scale of 1 :
12.5 M were published [6]. The classification system in
its variants of 1967 and 1977 [8, 17] and the soil-geo-
† Deceased.
zonal and facial regularities of the genesis and geogra-
phy of soils as determined by the factors of soil forma-
tion. In essence, the same approaches were laid in the
basis of the later developed zoning schemes [2–5],
though the maps were compiled on a larger scale.
Thus, the recent map of soil-ecological zoning of Rus-
sia was published in 2013 on a scale of 1 : 2.5 M, which
made it possible to enrich it with diverse information
on the soil cover patterns and the related factors of soil
formation in the particular regions [5].
In recent years, the works on a new variant of the soil
zoning based on direct assessment of the soil morphol-
ogy, properties, soil-forming processes, and composi-
tion of the soil cover have been performed by the
Dokuchaev Soil Science Institutes. It has been called
the soil-genetic zoning, because it is based on the assess-
ment of soil properties and soil-forming processes. The
units of this zoning differ from the traditional units of
soil-geographical zoning. An impetus to this work was
given by the creation of the new substantive-genetic
classification system of Russian soils. The priority in
this zoning is given to the soils proper and to the com-
position of the soil cover rather than to the factors of soil
formation. The soil-genetic zoning is a variant of typo-
logical zoning, because it is based on the typology of
soil processes and soil diagnostic horizons character-
ized in detail for the particular soil regions.
The soil-genetic zoning is based on information
from separate sheets of the State Soil Map (SSM)

272
 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING
interpreted in format of the new soil classification sys-
tem of 2004/2008 [7, 13]. The principles and basic
notions of the new zoning and the first example of its
realization for the Southern federal okrug of Russia
have already been published [11].
In this paper, we consider the results of further
development of the methodology of soil-genetic zon-
ing. Its principles, major units, general structure, and
its placement among other kinds of soil zoning are dis-
cussed. The algorithm (stages and technologies) of the
creation of the map of soil-genetic zoning is presented.
OBJECTS AND METHODS
The new soil zoning is based on information about
soils and soil covers presented on the SSM. This map,
especially on the European territory of Russia, is char-
acterized by the high information capacity. It presents
detailed information on the diversity of soils and par-
ent materials, including data on some of the soil prop-
erties (the humus content, the thickness of humus
horizon, soil texture, stoniness, etc.); the genesis and
composition of parent materials, and the geographical
regularities of soil distribution. The specific regional
features of the soil cover are specially considered in
explanatory notes to each of the SSM sheets. The map
itself was developed in terms of the classification con-
cepts used in the second half of the 20th century,
which creates certain problems of its interpretation in
terms of the modern soil classification concept. How-
ever, these problems can be solved [9, 15]. It is import-
ant that the SSM clearly reflects real and hypothetical
differences in the composition of the soil cover related
to the zonal and facial bioclimatic differences and to
the lithological and geomorphological regularities of
the geography of soils.
The new substantive-genetic classification and
diagnostic system of Russian soils [7, 13] serves as the
methodological basis for the soil-genetic zoning. As
this system is based on the analysis of soil morphology
and soil properties, it provides new opportunities for
the cartographic representation of the soil properties
and the character of soil-forming processes.
The method of the new zoning can be referred to as
the classification-genetic analysis of soils and soil cover
patterns; it combines the genetic interpretation of the
soil profiles with spatial information on the soils and
parent materials presented on the SSM. Information
from the SSM is controlled via the analysis of satellite
images in order to specify the position of the boundaries
of soil polygons according to the character of vegeta-
tion, bedrock outcrops, sand massifs, etc. Literature
sources, including explanatory notes to the SSM sheets,
are used together with expert knowledge of the territory.
In the case of some difficulties in the genetic interpreta-
tion of soils shown on the SSM, the Soil Map of the
Russian Federation (1 : 2.5 M scale) is used [14].
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016
273
The cartographic work was performed using
ILWIS 3.3 Academic software.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Principles, Units, and System of Soil-Genetic Zoning
1. Principles of soil-genetic zoning. The system of soil-
genetic zoning is based on three principles: classifica-
tion, profile-genetic (process), and landscape-indicative
(spatial). As this zoning is based on the substantive-
genetic system of soil classification [7, 13], its units are
considered the areas of genetic soil unities separated
according to the specific features of the soil horizona-
tion—the system of diagnostic horizons that reflect
pedogenetic processes and, hence, can be interpreted in
terms of the elementary pedogenetic processes (EPPs)
[18]. The landscape-indicative principle implies the
analysis of the factors of soil formation; it is used to
explain the reasons for the formation of particular
genetic (diagnostic) horizons or their modifications. It
is also used to reinterpret soil names given on the SSM
in terms of the new classification system, to characterize
the diversity of the soil cover, and to delineate and
refine boundaries between different soils.
2. Units of zoning and criteria for their separation.
The zoning system includes four levels (Table 1). The
units of the high level—soil classes, subclasses, and soil
“communities”—are specified with respect to the char-
acteristic features of the soil morphology (horizona-
tion) and pedogenetic processes. The lowest level—
soil “cells”—is separated according to the specific fea-
tures of the components of soil community, i.e., their
taxonomic and geographic position. The following
definitions for the system of units can be given.
Soil classes represent the areas of soils with a partic-
ular type of the soil profile, including full-profile
(mature) soils with the ABC horizonation, soils with
an incomplete (AC) profile, and soils with a dynamic
profile subjected to continuous rejuvenation (syn-
lithogenic (mainly, alluvial) soils). This division shows
the degree of realization of the soil-forming potential
as related to certain limitations imposed by the speci-
ficity of soil-forming conditions (e.g., cold climate,
steep slopes, hard bedrocks, floodplain regime with
alluviation, etc.). Full-profile soils mainly belong to
the trunk of postlithogenic soils; soils with an incom-
plete profile (underdeveloped soils) mainly belong to
the trunks of organic, synlithogenic, and weakly
developed soils.
Soil subclasses represent the areas of soils having a
common diagnostic horizon (middle-profile or top-
soil, e.g., soils with the textural (clay-illuvial) horizon,
soils with the Al–Fe-humus horizon, soils with the
humus-accumulative horizon, etc.).
Soil communities are the areas of soils with a partic-
ular common combination of diagnostic horizons usu-
ally corresponding to genetic soil types. Soil commu-
nities occupy sufficiently large territories, for which
274 KOROLYUK et al.

Table 1. Taxonomic units of the soil-genetic zoning and their characteristics

Level Taxonomic unit Characteristic
I Soil class (A, B, C) Type of soil horizonation (АС, АВС, АС-[AC] × n) as the reflection of the
degree of realization of pedogenetic potential
II Soil subclass (I, II, …) Common diagnostic horizon as the indication of similarity in the major direction
of pedogenesis
III Soil community (1, 2, …) Area of soils with the particular sets of diagnostic horizons specified by the cer-
tain pedogenetic processes
IV Soil cell (a1 to f3) Parts of the soil community differing in the soil cover complexity; the difference
are manifested in:
—soil components within the cells and their taxonomic levels;
—number of soils in the cell

the given combinations of pedogenetic processes are
typical. Thus, we distinguish between the communi-
ties of podzolic (texture-differentiated) soils, Al–Fe-
humus soils, clay-illuvial chernozems, etc.
Soil cells are the parts of soil communities differing
in the diversity and complexity of the soil cover. For
example, the community of soddy-podzolic soils my
include the cells of soddy-podzolic soils combined
with peat gley soils in the depressions, soddy-podzolic
soils combined with peat gley soils in the depressions
and sandy podzols on sands, or soddy-podzolic soils
combined with soddy calcareous soils on limestone
outcrops.
3. The specificity of the suggested zoning is
reflected in the properties of its units considered in
relation to the classification taxa (3.1); to the taxo-
nomic, genetic, and chorological approaches (3.2);
and to the particular characteristics of the soil pro-
cesses and properties used to judge the complexity of
the soil cells (3.3).
3.1. Relationship between the units of soil-genetic zon-
ing and the taxa of the substantive-genetic classification.
The hierarchy and contents of the zoning units have
much in common with the structure and “volumes” of
the taxonomic levels of the substantive-genetic soil clas-
sification system. Thus, the separation of soil classes is
based on the relationships between soils and parent
materials reflected in the classification in the separation
of four soil trunks. Soil subclasses correspond to the
taxonomic level of soil orders, and soil communities
correspond to the taxonomic level of soil types. At the
same time, each of the zoning units is characterized by
three groups of characteristics: taxonomic, process-
based, and factor-based (landscape-indicative) charac-
teristics. The separation of classes and subclasses is
mainly based on the taxonomic characteristics, whereas
the separation of the lowest zoning unit (soil cells) is
mainly based on the analysis of the factors of soil forma-
tion specifying regional or local features of the soil com-
munities, i.e., the soil composition of the cells (Fig. 1).
The level of soil community occupies the central place
in the system of units of the soil-genetic zoning; the sep-
aration of soil communities is based on the analysis of
all the three groups of characteristics in equal propor-
tions; soil communities are tightly related to soil types,
the central taxonomic unit of all Russian soil classifica-
tion systems.
The separation of soil classes reflects the major
results of pedogenesis in dependence of the character
of parent materials (hard bedrocks, various loose
deposits, and alluvial sediments), i.e., the intensity of
the transformation of parent materials by the modern
pedogenetic processes. To a large extent, this intensity
is controlled by the landscape position of particular
classes: mountains or plains in different geographical
zones, bogs, river valleys. The subclasses of the zoning
definitely correlate with the taxonomic level of soil
orders in the classification system. At this level, the
contribution of the taxonomic proper and process-
based characteristics increases. Finally, at the level of
soil communities, all the three approaches to their
separation are more or less balanced.
At the level of soil cells, the major attention is paid
to the spatial (landscape-indicative) characteristics
[16]. Soil cells are distinguished within soil communi-
ties and differ in the particular soils composing the soil
cover. This difference can be estimated in terms of tax-
onomic distances between these soils. At this level,
spatial (landscape) characteristics of the soil cover
play the major role [16]. At this level, the regional (for
individual cells) and typological (for the types of cells)
approaches to soil zoning are combined [1].
3.2. Characterization of the units of zoning. Soil class A
(full-profile soils) represents the most widespread soils
and is subdivided into the largest number of sub-
classes. Most often, these subclasses differ in the char-
acter of the middle-profile horizon and contain more
soil communities than the subclasses of other classes
(Table 2). Soil communities are specified by the par-
ticular sets of diagnostic horizons with different pro-
portions between soil-forming processes shaping them
(types of soils). For example, in the area of soil sub-
class with the diagnostic BT horizon, two soil commu-
nities are distinguished: soddy-podzolic soils (AY–
EL–BEL–BT–C) and gray soils (AY–АEL–BEL–
BT–C). In both of them, the dominant process of the

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING 275

Units of soil-genetic zoning

Class Subclass Community Cell

Groups of characteristics of zoning units

1 2 3

Fig. 1. Relationships between the three groups of characteristics (1—taxonomic, 2—process-based, and 3—factor-based) of the
units of soil-genetic zoning at different levels.

formation of the textural BT horizon is combined with horizons). The third group includes additional pro-
eluviation processes (shaping the EL and BEL hori- cesses characteristic of the soils of other communities,
zons) and the humus-accumulative process (shaping subclasses, and classes. Being combined with the
the gray-humus AY horizon) of different intensities, major and/or superimposed processes, they produce
which leads to the formation of two communities. the soils “new” for the given community at different
Soils of class B (soils with immature profile) include taxonomic levels. This can be illustrated by the exam-
lithozems and soils of the organo-accumulative order ple of the community of soddy-podzolic soils. Three
(Tables 2 and 3). The accumulation of organic matter major (type-forming) processes in them may be com-
or humus is the major process in this subclass; the soil bined with several superimposed processes responsible
profiles contain various organic or humus-accumula- for the appearance of surface or ground gleyzation
tive horizons (О, Т, AY, AU, AJ, Н), or their agro- (stagnic and gleyic features) (BELg, BTg), superim-
genic modifications; these horizons are underlain by posed Al–Fe-humus profile (BEL[e-hf]), or the sec-
the hard or loose parent material at a relatively shallow ond humus horizon (EL[hh]). The Al–Fe-humus
depth. According to the nature of the upper horizon, process may also act as an additional process in this
the subclasses of organomineral and peat soils are dis- community responsible for the appearance of the areas
tinguished. The number of soil communities in each of of podzols or podburs.
these subclasses is relatively small. The separation of soil cells is specified by the
The areas of soils of class C in the studied region are regional conditions of soil formation modifying the
separated within large river valleys. The floodplain relationships between these three groups of processes.
regime with regular alluviation is the major factor In dependence on the participation of the modal soil
specifying separation of these soils as synlithogenic of the community and/or the soils of other communi-
soils. The major soil processes include humus accu- ties, subclasses, or classes, the cells of different types
mulation, gleyzation, and hydrogenic accumulation of can be distinguished. The soils composing them may
iron compounds or carbonates. The separated soil belong to different classification levels and, thus, differ
communities differ in the character of their modern in taxonomic distances between them. Thus, simple
humus horizon (Table 2). soil cells are composed of the soils belonging to the
3.3. The process-taxonomic approach to the soils in same type (with differences at the subtype level),
a given community allows us to estimate the complex- whereas complex soil cells may contain the soils
ity of the soil cover within it via subdivision of the belonging to different orders and even trunks.
pedogenetic processes into three groups. The first 4. Algorithm of compilation of the map of soil-genetic
group includes the major (horizon-forming) processes zoning. The soil-genetic zoning of the territory on the
shaping the modal soil (its diagnostic horizons) of the basis of separate sheets of the SSM is complicated by
community. The second group includes superimposed the fact that these map sheets were compiled in differ-
processes with a weaker manifestation (usually, at the ent years and by different authors adherent to some-
level of the particular features of the major diagnostic what different classification decisions and soil nomen-

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

276 KOROLYUK et al.

Table 2. Classes, subclasses, and communities of the soil-genetic zoning

Subclasses. Major direction
Classes of pedogenesis Communities. Dominant pedogenetic processes
(diagnostic horizon)
A. Full-profile soils I. Textural differentiation of the 1. Podzolic. Eluvial > illuvial > gleyzation
profile (BT) 2. Soddy-podzolic. Eluvial-illuvial (partluvation) > gray-
humus >>> eluvial gley
3. Gray–dark gray. Humus accumulation > clay illuviation >
eluvial
II. Al–Fe-humus (BHF) 4. Al–Fe-humus. Al–Fe-humus > gleyzation
5. Soddy Al–Fe-humus. Al–Fe-humus = gray-humus >> gley-
zation
III. Metamorphism of the min- 6. Burozemic. Structural metamorphism >> ferrugination
eral part (BM) 7. Gray metamorphic. Metamorphism of the mineral mass =
humus accumulation
IV. Accumulation of dark mull 8. Chernozemic clay-illuvial. Dark-humus >> clay-illuvial =
humus (AU) eluvial
9. Chernozemic. Dark-humus ≥ carbonate-accumulative
10. Chernozemic textural-carbonate. Dark humus = carbonate-
accumulative >>> (paleo?) lessivage
V. Accumulation of carbonates 11. Chestnut. Carbonate-accumulative > humus accumulation >
and light humus (САT-ВМК AJ) solonetzic
VI. Solonetzic (BSN) 12. Solonetzic. Solonetzic > salinization
B. Soils with an incom- VII. Humus accumulation 13. Gray-humus (soddy). Accumulation of gray humus
plete profile (AU)
14. Dark-humus. Accumulation of dark humus > leaching of car-
bonates
15. Light-humus. Accumulation of light humus
VIII. Peat accumulation (T) 16. Eutrophic peat
17. Oligotrophic peat
C. Soils with dynamic IX. Humus accumulation–sed- 18. Gray-humus alluvial. Sedimentation > accumulation of gray
profile (synlithogenic) imentation (A~) humus > gleyzation > hydrogenic accumulation of substances >
diagenesis
19. Dark-humus alluvial. Sedimentation > accumulation of dark
humus > gleyzation > hydrogenic accumulation of substances >
diagenesis

Table 3. Soils with an incomplete profile (class B) developing from different substrates
Parent materials
Thickness,
cm loose
hard silicate hard calcareous loose calcareous sands
(loams and clays)
Trunk of weakly developed soils
5–10 petrozems carbopetrozems pelozems psammozems
Trunk of postlithogenic soils
<30 soddy lithozems dark-humus gray-, dark-, and dark-humus soils gray-humus and
>30 gray-, dark-, and lithozems light-humus soils (including soils with light-humus soils
light-humus soils residual carbonates)

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING
clature systems. These map sheets need to be harmo-
nized. The soil-genetic zoning based on the SSM is a
multistage process following a certain algorithm.
This algorithm includes several consecutive
stages: the conversion of soil names given on the
original map sheets of the SSM into the new names
following the soil nomenclature of the new classifica-
tion system → interpretation of the obtained soil
units in terms of pedogenetic processes responsible
for their formation → separation of the units of the
soil-genetic zoning on the SSM with due account for
the factors of soil formation → creation of the legend
to the map of zoning → creation of the map of zon-
ing. These stages are briefly discussed below.
4.1. Renaming of the soils on the SSM with the use of
nomenclature decisions of the new classification system
of Russian soils. The renaming of the soils on the orig-
inal map (SSM) may include two different cases. For
some soils, their names and genetic essence in the new
classification system and on the original map are vir-
tually similar with minor modifications. For example,
solonchaks and solonetzes and the loamy soddy-
podzolic and podzolic soils have preserved their
names in the new system. However, in other cases, the
genetic essence of the soil has a different interpretation
(and a new name) in the new system. For such soils, an
interpretative analysis has to be performed for their
correct renaming. In this case, information on the
soil-forming factors (as displayed on the SSM) is also
taken into account. There are two variants of such
renaming. In some cases, new soil areas have to be
separated within the areas of a given map unit on the
SSM, because the new classification system distin-
guishes several different soils within it. In other cases,
the earlier shown soil areas have to be combined
together into a single area with the new soil name.
One of the examples of the separation of new soil
areas upon the transition to the new genetic concept is
the differentiation of the areas of former soddy-
podzolic soils into the areas of soddy-podzolic soils
(on loams) and soddy podzols (on sands). Another
example is the separation of the soddy weakly podzolic
soils on sands within the area of chernozems; in the
new classification system, such soils are distinguished
as gray-humus soils. Thus, the areas of soddy podzols
and gray-humus soils that were absent on the original
SSM have been introduced on the new map of soil-
genetic zoning. The third example is the reinterpreta-
tion of thin zonal soils (chernozems) developing from
hard rocks. On the SSM, the areas of such soils are
separated as the areas of weakly developed thin cher-
nozems. According to the new classification, they can
be specified into the orders of organo-accumulative
soils or lithozems (in the case of shallow embedding by
the hard rock and the high stoniness).
The grouping of genetically similar soils into one
unit is based on data on the morphology of their pro-
files. Thus, the earlier distinguished soddy-podzolic
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016
277
and light gray forest soils are combined into one type
of soddy-podzolic soils according to the new soil clas-
sification system. Southern chernozems and dark
chestnut soils are also grouped together into the type
of texture-carbonate chernozems.
4.2. Interpretation of the new (renamed) soil units in
terms of elementary pedogenetic processes is given in
agreement with the particular soil descriptions and the
definitions of elementary pedogenetic processes (EPPs)
suggested in the monograph published by the Institute
of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences
[18]. This interpretation is necessary for a better
understanding of the essence of the distinguished soil
communities, characterization of the cells, and their
ranking in terms of the soil cover complexity. For
example, within the same direction of pedogenesis—
the textural differentiation of the profile—several dif-
ferent processes may play the major role. In podzolic
soils, these are the eluvial, illuvial, and gleyzation pro-
cesses, whereas in soddy-podzolic soils these pro-
cesses are somewhat modified: the illuviation process
mainly implies lessivage (partluvation), and gleyzation
is represented by the eluvial-gley process. In addition,
the humus-accumulative process in the form of accu-
mulation of forest mull humus (the gray-humus pro-
cess) is an obligatory process in the soddy-podzolic
soils (Table 2).
4.3. Separation of the units of soil-genetic zoning has
been performed for the Privolzhskii federal okrug
(Fig. 3). First, the areas of soil communities as central
units of the soil-genetic zoning are separated (Fig. 2).
This separation is based on the grouping of soil
areas with similar horizonations of the profile (similar
sets of diagnostic horizons) with further characteriza-
tion of the pedogenetic processes (Table 2, Fig. 3, I).
The areas of modal soils with sizes corresponding to
those of the soil-geographic zoning on a scale of 1 : 1 M
are taken into account. With respect to the number of
modal soils within the separated soil communities, the
latter are subdivided into monocommunities, poly-
communities, and communities of soil complexes.
Monocommunities have one or several modal soils
characterized by close sets of EPPs and belonging to
the same subclass. Polycommunities contain several
modal soils belonging to different subclasses. In the
monocommunities, modal soils are represented by the
subtypes or types belonging to the same soil order
(subclass). Modal soils of polycommunities are usually
represented by the types and subtypes of soils belong-
ing to different orders and even trunks (to different
subclasses and classes in terms of the units of soil-
genetic zoning).
The central place of the soil communities in the
system of the units of soil-genetic zoning and the bal-
anced value of the taxonomic, process-based, and fac-
tor-based characteristics in the definition of these
communities make it possible to group them into the
higher categories (subclasses and classes) with the use
278 KOROLYUK et al.
3. Classes
2. Subclasses
1. Communities
4. Cells
5. Types of cells 6. Kinds of cells
Fig. 2. The sequence of stages (1–6) in separation of the
units of soil-genetic zoning.
of the first two categories of the soil characteristics. In
turn, a more careful examination of the factors of soil
formation (primarily, characteristics of the relief and
parent materials) makes it possible to separate the
communities into different soil cells. Thus, the separa-
tion of the cells is mainly based on the analysis of land-
scape-indicative features.
The grouping of communities into subclasses is
based on the presence of a common diagnostic horizon
typical of all the soils in the given subclass. In the
Privolzhskii federal okrug with its multicomponent soil
cover, nine soil subclasses are distinguished (Fig. 3, II).
The subclasses are grouped into classes with the
similar development of the soil profiles. Along with
the predominant full-profile soils (class A), the soils
with simple (immature) profiles (class B) are present
(they may belong to mineral or to organic soils). The
areas of soils with a dynamic profile (class C) are con-
fined to large river valleys.
As the mineral soils with immature profiles (class B)
are shown on the SSM as gravelly and/or thin variants
of corresponding zonal soils, they are interpreted in the
new classification system as the soils of the organo-
accumulative order, lithozems, and primitive (weakly
developed) soils distinguished as a separate trunk (the
trunk of initial pedogenesis) in the new classification
system.
In dependence on the soil cover composition, soil
cells of different types are separated within each of the
soil communities (Fig. 3, III). The soils of particular
cells may belong to different classification levels; thus,
the cells differ in taxonomic distances between their
components. Simple cells (type a) contain the soils
belonging to the same genetic type, whereas the most
complex cells (type e) contain the soils belonging to dif-
ferent classes. The composition of the soil cover within
a cell is characterized in agreement with its type:
(а) simple homogeneous soil cover composed of
the one modal soil of the given community;
(b) homogeneous soil cover composed of the model
soil and its modifications owing to the appearance of
additional features (soil subtypes), such as solonetzic,
quasigley, and gley features; separate areas of such soils
shown on the SSM as well as their presence in the soil
cover marked on the SSM by special signs;
(c) the appearance of other soil types along with
preservation of the soils of category (b); the participa-
tion of taxonomic “neighbors” and other soils (except
for the soils of class B) is possible (in the analogous cell
distinguished in class B, the participation of the soils
of class A is excluded);
(d) the appearance of soil complexes (with indica-
tion of their degree of complexity and geneses (auto-
morphic, salt-affected, cryogenic, and other soil com-
plexes)'
(e) the appearance of the soils with different hori-
zonation of the profile (e.g., the appearance of imma-
ture (class B) soils among full-profile (mature) soils
(class A) and vice versa.
In the first case (type a), the taxonomic distances
between the soil components of a cell are small, whereas
in the second case they gain their maximum (type e).
Along with qualitative (classification) criteria, the
cells are also characterized by the number of soil com-
ponents. Within the considered types of cells, several
kinds of cells are distinguished (Fig. 3, IV). This quan-
titative approach is analogous to the separation of soil
species in the classification system. The number of
soils in a cell is assessed according to the following
scheme.
For the cells of type a:
1—few other soils shown by conventional signs on
the SSM (homogeneous soil cover);
2—many other soils (shown by conventional signs
on the SSM), or a few other small soil areas (within the
cell) shown on the SSM.
For the soils of types b–f:
1—two soil areas (the major soil and its subtype)
plus conventional signs on the SSM;
2—3–4 soil areas;
3—5–6 soil areas;
4—>7 soil areas shown on the SSM within the cell.
These figures characterizing the complexity of the
soil cover of the cells are shown on the map of soil-
genetic zoning as subscript indices.
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016
 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING 279

N
1
1
1
1 4 6
4 4
4 S
4 4
2 1
1 1

2 2 4
2
2
5
2 2 5 Perm
5 2 2
2 5 2
5
5 5
2 3 3 3
5 3 2
Kazan 5
3 3 3 13 2
2 8
5
3 3
5 5 3 Ufa
3 8 3 8
3 8
8 3 8 6
3 14
3 3 8
5 14
8 3
5 3 Samara 7 9a
8 9
14
9 9 9
14
9
10 10
14
11
11 15
11
100 0 100 200 300 km
12

Fig. 3. Soil communities separated in the Privolzhskii federal okrug: (1) podzolic, (2) soddy-podzolic, (3) gray and dark gray,
(4) podzol Al–Fe-humus, (5) soddy Al–Fe-humus, (6) burozemic, (7) gray metamorphic, (8) clay-illuvial chernozemic,
(9) chernozemic, (10) textural-carbonate chernozemic, (11) chestnut, (12) solonetzic, (13) soddy gray-humus, (14) dark-humus,
and (15) light-humus. Alluvial soils (without further separation) are shown in gray color.

Thus, the full designation of a cell in the system of —Subscript numeral to designate the subtype of a
soil zoning consists of the following elements: cell.
—Capital letter (Cyrillic) to designate the class; An example of the full index of a soil cell within
—Roman numeral to designate the subclass; the class of full-profile soils, subclass of light-humus
carbonate-accumulative soils, community of chest-
—Arabic numeral to designate the number of com- nut soils, and representing a relatively homogeneous
munity with the class (or subclass); soil cover with participation of two soils looks as fol-
—Lower-case letter (Cyrillic) to designate the type lows: AV2b1 (in the text, Cyrillic letters are replaced
of a cell; by Latin letters).

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

280 KOROLYUK et al.

4.4. Development of the database. The map of soil- ing [5] was called by its authors the soil-ecological
genetic zoning is created as a geographic information zoning. In essence, it preserved the principles and
system with the following structure of the database. structure of the previous variants of soil-geographical
The geometric part of the database consists of the zoning. The highest categories (geographic belts and
smallest units (cells) separated on the maps. Each of soil-bioclimatic regions) represent the sets of soil
the cells is characterized by attribute information con- zones and mountain soil provinces grouped together
taining data on its belonging to the (1) class, (2) sub- in agreement with the similarity of their radiation and
class, (3) community, (4) type of the cell, (5) kind of temperature conditions, atmospheric moistening con-
the cell, and (6) soil composition of the cell. ditions, and the degree of climatic continentality. The
Additional information for each particular cell names of the zones include the names of soils at the
includes data on the (7) climate, (8) relief conditions, type or subtype levels (e.g., the steppe zone of ordinary
(9) parent materials, (10) vegetation, and (11) land use. and southern chernozems). At the next level (soil
For each of these attributes, its own classification provinces), facial subtypes and species (varieties) of
and coding system are used. Thus, the first attribute soils are indicated (e.g., the Ciscaucasian province of
(belonging to the class) is coded as follows: mycelium-carbonate, deep, low-humus ordinary
chernozems). Each province is characterized by the
A—full-profile soils (ABC type); specific atmospheric and soil regimes; their parame-
B—soils with an immature profile (AC type); and ters (overall, 13 parameters) are given in a separate
C—soils with a dynamic profile subjected to con- table. These regimes specify separation of the facial
tinuous rejuvenation (synlithogenic (mainly, alluvial) subtypes of soils. The soil properties are further con-
soils). sidered at the level of soil okrugs with indication of the
Codes for the second attribute are given according soil textures and the character of parent materials. The
to Table 2 as follows: boundaries of soil okrugs and soil districts within them
usually fallow the geomorphological boundaries. For
I Textural differentiation of the profile (ВТ) the particular soil districts (the lowest category), data
II Al–Fe-humus (BHF) on the composition of the soil cover with indication of
the dominant (>60% of the area) and accompanying
III Alteration (metamorphism) of the mineral part
soils are given. Soil district as the basic unit of a
(BM) detailed soil zoning is considered to be the area, in
IV Accumulation of mull (dark) humus (AU) which the given type of land use predominates [4].
V Accumulation of carbonates and light humus The soil-genetic zoning developed in our work is
(САT-ВМК AJ) compared with this latest soil-ecological zoning
VI Solonetzic horizon (BSN) because of their relatively close scales (1 : 1 M and 1 :
VII Humus accumulation (AU) 2.5 M) and because the latest soil-ecological zoning
also takes into account some elements of the new Rus-
VIII Peat accumulation (T) sian soil classification system. The comparison
IX Humus accumulation coupled with sedimentation includes the analysis of criteria used to separate the
(A~) units of soil zoning at different taxonomic levels. The
most considerable differences are seen at the highest
The following codes are used to designate soil com- levels; at the third level (the level of soil communities
munities: in the soil-genetic zoning and the level of soil zones in
1. Podzolic 11. Chestnut the soil-ecological zoning) both schemes have some
2.Soddy-podzolic 12. Solonetzic common features, because in both cases the separa-
tion of these units is based on the analysis of soil types.
3. Dark gray humus 13. Gray humus (soddy) The differences at the lower level (levels V and VI of
4. Al–Fe-humus 14. Dark humus the soil-ecological zoning and level IV of the soil-
5. Soddy-Al–Fe-humus 15. Light humus genetic zoning) arise from the fact that soil cover pat-
6. Burozemic 16. Eutrophic peat terns are considered at this level in the soil-ecological
zoning, whereas only the composition of the soil cells,
7. Gray-metamorphic 17. Oligotrophic peat the number of soils in the cell, and the taxonomic dis-
8. Chernozemic clay-illuvial 18. Gray humus alluvial tance between are taken into account in the soil-
9. Chernozemic 19. Dark humus alluvial genetic zoning. However, in both cases, the major dif-
10. Chernozemic texture- ferences between the cells (okrugs and districts in the
carbonate
soil-ecological zoning) are dictated by the lithological
and geomorphological conditions.
Similar coding systems were developed for other In general, we argue that soil-ecological and soil-
components of the attribute database. genetic zonings represent two different approaches to
5. Comparison between different kinds of soil zoning. systematization of data on the soils and soil covers.
The latest published variant of the traditional soil zon- The soil-ecological zoning tends to reveal the regular-

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING 281

AI

AI
Perm

AI
AII

AI
AII AI BIX
Kazan 5

I AIV 8
BVII
AI
AIII
AIV Samara BVII

BVII AIV

AIV
AV
BVII
AV
V

VI 100 0 100 200 300 km

Fig. 4. Classes and subclasses of soil communities in the Privolzhskii federal okrug. Soil classes: A—full-profile soils, B—imma-
ture soils, and C—synlithogenic (alluvial) soils. Soil subclasses (major direction of pedogenesis): I—textural differentiation
(communities 1–3), II—Al–Fe-humus (communities 4 and 5), III—metamorphism of the mineral part (communities (6 and 7),
IV—accumulation of dark mull humus (communities 8–10), V—accumulation of carbonates and light humus (community 11),
VI—solonetzic (community 12), VII—humus accumulation (communities 13–15), IX—humus accumulation and sedimenta-
tion (without subdivision).

ities of the zonal and provincial arrangement of the
soil cover patterns. The soil-genetic zoning considers
the regularities of soil geography in terms of differenti-
ation of pedogenetic processes and properties of soils.
The complexity of the soil cover is estimated is esti-
mated in terms of the soil diversity and the taxonomic
distance between the particular components included
in the zoning units. Being combined together, these
two approaches allow us to obtain the most complete
and versatile information on the genesis, geography,
and conditions of the development of soils as complex
natural objects.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Soil-genetic zoning can be considered one of
the many variants of soil zoning. It is based on the
notions about the regularities of soil formation and soil

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

282 KOROLYUK et al.

е
S

c
Perm
а
а
e

b c
Kazan b

c
b

e Samara
e
а c
а
b

d f

c
100 0 100 200 300 km

Fig. 5. Grouping of soil cells according to the diversity and taxonomic distances between the soils composing them; (a–e) types
of cells (explanation in the text).

cover patterns of large regions as inferred from the
analysis of the State Soil Map of Russia reinterpreted
in terms of the new substantive-genetic classification
system of Russian soils. The soil-genetic zoning differs
from the traditional soil-geographical or soil-ecological
zoning; it belongs to the group of typological zoning.
(2) New “soil-based” units have been suggested for
the soil-genetic zoning. They differ from the units
used in the soil-geographical zoning schemes, because
soils per se with inherent properties and pedogenetic
processes serve as the major object of the soil-genetic
zoning.
(3) The methodology of soil-genetic zoning is
based on a detailed analysis of information about soils,
parent materials, and soil textures presented on the
base State Soil Map. Information about soils is rein-
terpreted in terms of the new substantive-genetic clas-
sification of Russian soils with due account for the
genetic and geographic concepts reflected on the par-
ticular map sheets compiled in different periods.
(4) The use of the substantive-genetic classification
of soils for the purposes of soil mapping involves cer-
tain difficulties. The developed soil-genetic zoning
can be considered the first cartographic testing of the

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-GENETIC ZONING 283

N
2
1 1
2 2
4 1 3
1
3 3
2
S 4 3
1
3
1 2 2 1 2(а)
3 1(а) 2
3 2 1 2
1
1 1 1
1(а) 1(а)
1(а)
1 1 2(а) 2 Perm
2 1
1
1 1(а)
1 1(а)
2 2
2
1(а)
2 3 1 1
1 2
3
2 1
2 Kazan 3 3
2 1 1(а) 2
1 2
1 2
1(а)
1(а) Ufa
1
1 3 1
3 3 4
2 3
1 2
1 2 2 2
1 4
2 1(а)
3
1 1
1 1 1(а) 3
2 1 1(а)
2
1(а)
1
2 3 2 3
2 1 2
4 3

100 0 100 200 300 km

2

Fig. 6. Grouping of soil cells according to the number of soils within them; (1–4) kinds of cells (explanation in the text). An addi-
tional index (a) is given to the cells with the most simple homogeneous soil cover.

new classification for the purposes of small-scale soil maps of diagnostic soil horizons [19]), soil- and hori-
mapping. zon-forming processes, and for the prediction of
changes in the soils and their functions on the basis of
(5) Three major directions of further use of the information contained in the State Soil Map in the
soil-genetic zoning can be specified. First, this zoning explicit or “hidden” form. It can also be used for edu-
is considered the initial stage for the further renewal cational purposes in lecture courses devoted to the
and updating of information on the State Soil Map [9]. geography and ecology of soils.
Second, it can be applied for the assessment of pedo-
diversity of the territory [10], which is important in
terms of the environmental conservation policy, the REFERENCES
choice of long-term soil monitoring objects, etc. 1. D. L. Armand, “Principles of physico-geographical
Third, this zoning can be used for further creation of zoning,” Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geogr., No. 1,
the maps of the particular soil properties (e.g., the 68–82 (1952).

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016

284 KOROLYUK et al.
2. G. V. Dobrovol’skii, I. S. Urusevskaya, and N. N. Rozov,
A Map of Soil Geographical Zones of the Soviet Union,
Scale 1 : 8 M (Central Department of Geodesy and Car-
tography, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian].
3. “A map of soil geographical zones of Russia, scale
1 : 1.5 M,” in National Atlas of Soils of Russian Federa-
tion, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii and I. S. Urusevskaya
(Astrel’, Moscow, 2011), pp. 196–201.
4. Soil-Ecological Zoning of the East European Plain, Scale
1 : 2.5 M, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii and I. S. Uru-
sevskaya (Central Department of Geodesy and Cartog-
raphy, Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].
5. Soil-Ecological Zoning of the of Russian Federation,
Scale 1 : 2.5 M, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii, I. S. Uru-
sevskaya, and I. O. Alyabina (Talka Plus, Moscow,
2013) [in Russian].
6. E. N. Ivanova, N. N. Rozov, V. M. Fridland, D. I. Shas-
hko, and S. A. Shuvalov, Soil-Geographical Zoning of the
Soviet Union (in Relation to the Agricultural Land Use),
Ed. by P. A. Letunov (Academy of Sciences of the Soviet
Union, Moscow, 1962) [in Russian].
7. L. L. Shishov, V. D. Tonkonogov, I. I. Lebedeva, and
M. I. Gerasimova, Classification and Diagnostic System
of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Rus-
sian].
8. Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of the Soviet Union
(Kolos, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].
9. T. V. Korolyuk and S. V. Ovechkin, “Approaches to
modernization of the state soil map of Russia on the
basis of the methods of digital soil mapping,” Eurasian
Soil Sci. 43 (5), 488–498 (2010).
10. I. I. Lebedeva, M. I. Gerasimova, T. V. Korolyuk, and
S. V. Ovechkin, “Experience in the assessment of the
soil cover complexity on the basis of the state soil map
interpreted in terms of the new classification of Russian
View publication stats
soils,” in Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Con-
ference “Genesis, Geography, Soil Classification, and
Assessment of Soil Resources” (KIRA, Arkhangelsk,
2010), pp. 160–163.
11. I. I. Lebedeva, S. V. Ovechkin, T. V. Korolyuk, and
M. I. Gerasimova, “Soil-genetic zoning: principles,
goals, structure, and applications,” Eurasian Soil Sci.
45 (7), 639–650 (2012).
12. National Atlas of Russian Soils (Astrel’, Moscow, 2011)
[in Russian].
13. Field Guide for Identification of Russian Soils
(Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow, 2008) [in
Russian].
14. Soil Map of the Russian Federation, Scale 1 : 2.5 M (Cen-
tral Department of Geodesy and Cartography, Mos-
cow, 1988) [in Russian].
15. M. S. Simakova and V. D. Tonkonogov, “Compilation
of the attribute database for the state soil map, scale 1 :
1 M,” Byull. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva, No. 63,
3–15 (2009).
16. V. B. Sochava, The Theory about Geological Systems
(Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1975) [in Russian].
17. Guidelines for the Classification and Diagnostics of Soils
(Kolos, Moscow, 1967), Nos. 1–5.
18. Elementary Pedogenetic Processes: Conceptual Analy-
sis, Characteristics, and Systematics (Nauka, Moscow,
1992) [in Russian].
19. S. Ovechkin, T. Koroliuk, I. Lebedeva, and M. Gerasi-
mova, “Map of diagnostic horizons – example of inter-
preting the soil map of southern Russia,” in 4th Global
Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping, Rome, May 24–26,
2010, Abstracts of Papers (Rome, 2010), p. 98.
Translated by D. Konyushkov
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 3 2016