D.G.
Rossiter
time-series model showed a steady increase in low-intensity tillage of
about 2% per year over much of the area. We can therefore expect that in
many of these fields distinct phenoforms may have developed. This
depends quantifying the changes to soil functions and then arguing that
they are “substantial”, and also that the phenoforms are stable over the
medium term.
5. Soil classification in the Anthropocene – current situation
If human influence has profoundly and “permanently” (i.e., within
human timeframes) changed the soil, some of these changes are recog­
nized in some modern classification systems. For example, the WRB
recognizes two (of 32) Reference Soil Groups (RSG) as being profoundly
human influenced: the Anthrosols, e.g., paddy rice soils (Chen et al.,
2011), and the Technosols (Schad, 2018). The WRB also provides the
Anthric and Technic qualifiers for use in the other RSG that have a
defined degree of significant and (semi)permanent human influence.
Chinese Soil Taxonomy includes the Anthrosols Order, based on the
work of Gong (1994), with Suborders for Stagnic (wet cultivation) and
Orthic (dry cultivation), and Great Groups of the Stagnic Suborder for
Gleyic, Fe-leachic, Fe-accumulic and Haplic, and for the Orthic Suborder
Fimic, Siltigic, Mud-cumulic, and Earth-cumulic. This rich set of classes
reflects the long and intense land use history of China. They require
substantial alteration of the pre-cultivation soil, for example, at least a
50 cm thick surface horizon satisfying the requirements for the various
groups of the Orthic suborder. If the horizon is 20–50 cm thick, these are
used as modifers in other Orders. US Soil Taxonomy (NRCS Soil Survey
Staff, 2014) provides a set of “human-altered and human-transported
material classes” for use at the family level (one level above the series
used in detailed mapping). The German soil classification recognizes
Plaggenesch for soils built by long-term plaggen addition, Hortisol for
soils with thick Ah horizons due to long-term intensive horticulture,
Rigosol for deep-ripped soils in vineyards, and Tiefumbruchboden for
completely inverted soils. All these examples are of soil genoforms,
recognized by the respective classification system as being more or less
permanent and irreversible.
Yet less extreme human influence can cause a change to the geno­
form, with respect to existing classification systems. For example, long-
term applications of heavy doses of acidifying fertilizer can result in a
mollic epipedon as defined by Soil Taxonomy or WRB degrading to an
umbric one, due to lower base saturation. This can even proceed to an
ochric epipedon, due to loss of organic matter or reduction in thickness
by accelerated erosion, often caused by repeated tillage. If the allocation
keys are properly followed, the genoform thus can change from a Soil
Taxonomy Mollisol to an Umbric great group of Udepts or Ustepts, and
then to a Dystric great group; in the WRB this is a sequence from
Chernozems/Kastenozems/Phaeozems to Umbrisols and then Cambi­
sols. The original classification based on long-term pedogenesis would
then be obscured by this shift to groups set up for other settings of long-
term pedogenesis. This is still pedogenesis, but here due to the anthropic
factor, which was not considered in the definition of these classes. This
reveals a clear problem with this philosophy of soil classification, as now
discussed.
Soil classification developed during the 1860–1960 period from
concepts of “natural” or “minimally-altered” soils, during a time when
human disturbance of soil was relatively minimal. Exceptions were soils
with a long history of plaggen addition and paddy rice soils. Soil clas­
sifiers wanted to keep cultivated soils in the same class as their non-
cultivated/exploited genoforms. Examples include virgin vs. logged
forest soils and virgin vs. plowed grasslands. However in both these
examples soils were radically changed, especially in their loss of organic
matter and the change in topsoil structure. These changes are not
reversible as long as the new land use is practiced (e.g., production
forest, grain crops or pastures). And since it is rare for a productive land
use to be abandoned, the soil in its altered state is typically the soil
genoform, i.e., the central concept of the soil class which names the map
Soil Security 5 (2021) 100017
unit. Yet the soil map using these classes showed the differences between
less and more intervened areas as phases, if at all, and perhaps with
some notes in the soil survey report. And for the “degraded Mollisols”
example of the previous paragraph, mappers often kept these pedons in
the soil series classified in the “natural” higher-level class.
This is implied in some Official Series Descriptions in the USA NRCS
Soils. For example the Mardin series (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic
Typic Fragiudepts) range in characteristics states “[s]olum thickness
ranges from 97–183 cm...depth to the top of the fragipan ranges from
36–66 cm...the BE horizon, where present... ”. These wide ranges and
the possible absence of the BE horizon imply that some pedons have
been severely eroded, on the order of 30 cm topsoil loss, while others
(presumably in forest or on the most stable positions) have not been. Yet
this is considered one soil genoform by US Soil Taxonomy, down to its
lowest (series) level.
This is especially true on texture contrast soils, e.g., Soil Taxonomy
Ultisols. Large areas of these soils in the southeastern USA have suffered
severe erosion, but USA practice is to keep eroded and un-eroded soils in
the same soil series. For example, pedons of the Cecil series are classified
as fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults. Their A horizons in the
uneroded state range from sandy loam, fine sandy loam, to loam, but
eroded phases may be sandy clay loam or even clay loam. This is possible
while still remaining in the Ultisols order because of the Soil Taxonomy
definition of the argillic horizon (Soil Survey Staff, 1999, p. 29 ff.) which
allows for the identification of truncated soils in which the eluvial ho­
rizon has been removed and the illuvial horizon has been mixed into an
Ap horizon. The argillic horizon is then identified by evidence of clay
illuviation, so soil series of Ultisols may have phases with a complete
sequence of horizons (Ap/E/Bt), the first two being relatively
coarse-textured, or just a fine-textured Ap formed from the original
argillic horizon (Ap/Bt). In addition, Soil Taxonomy chose to use a
subsoil control section (the “fine” in the Cecil classification) at the family
level, so that soils with different surface texture classes can be classified
to the same family and hence series. Further, none of the hierarchical
levels of this classification mention the surface particle-size distribution
nor shallow depth to the (truncated) argillic horizon.
In these cases severe erosion has caused a substantial change from
the original soil phenoform, which is reflected not only in the texture
and horizonation, but also in the soil structure. Eroded soils must be
managed differently, and have changed soil functions, in particular
rainfall infiltration and runoff as well as rooting conditions. Since these
are kept in one taxonomic class according to Soil Taxonomy, they must
be distinguished in mapping as phases in USA practice, or in our termi­
nology, soil phenoforms.
6. Soil classification in the Anthropocene – possible changes
Are maps of soil classes defined by long-term pedogenesis obsolete,
or at best partially useful? This is implicitly recognized in the USA by
mapping phases as the primary map unit. These name the soil series (the
genoform), and in addition the surface texture class, erosion class, slope
class, and sometimes other surface features. These phases are also sup­
posed to be relatively permanent, thus they could thus be incorporated
into the hierarchical classification of soil genoforms, with suitable class
definitions. At the most detailed level, soil series as currently defined
could be split according to the phase definitions. These series may then
be reclassified at higher levels, based on their modal soil profile de­
scriptions, depending on how those higher levels are defined. Finally,
the definitions of the higher levels may be reconsidered.
In the case that human influence has more or less permanently
altered the soil, these should considered different soil genoforms. For
example, erosion phases as defined by the USDA Soil Survey Manual
(Soil Survey Division Staff, 2017, Table 4.3) are currently defined within
soil genoforms, in this case the soil series level of Soil Taxonomy, and
thus fall within our concept of soil phenoforms, if sufficient topsoil has
been removed so that the surface layers now include admixtures of