What makes soil?

Pedological comparison of Snuff Mills and Stoke Park

Results
Table 1: Results from analysis to determine soil characteristics

Location Soil type Soil sieving Trace elements found using

Hydrometry
determined ICEP-OES
by texture-
by-feel % % Textural Phi Soil Weight element Concentration
% Clay
Silt Sand classifications (φ) (g) (ppm)

Snuff Mills Sandy Loam 14 8 78 Sandy Loam 1 53.35 Co 0

Cu 0.02
2 6.54 Fe 32.96
Mn 0.65
Zn 0.04
3 0.27

Stokes Sandy Loam 18 6 76 Sandy, Clayey 1 21.38 Co 0.01

Park Loam Cu 0.05
2 9.70 Fe 102.84
Mn 2.97
Zn 0.22
3 3.93

Table 2: results from various methods measuring carbon content

Location TC (%) TOC (%) TIC (%) LOI as (%)
Snuff Mills 11.943 9.955 1.988 70
Stokes Park 12.188 10.979 1.209 43

Table 3: proportions of
common elements in soil by
percentage of total weight of
metal content
Discussion

Before comparing the soils, the methods used to find the results must be analysed to
determine whether they are fit to give relevant results.

A critical analysis of the methods:

All methods used here are limited in that they are only representative of the one very
specific location and time they were taken at, which could be anomalous. The results would
be more reliable if they were an average of all the class results and if they were taken on the
same day . Another issue presented here is that it was not random sampling, the groups
chose where they took the samples from so there may be bias.

A comparison of lab methods and field methods

Lab methods may show different results compared to the field methods as the soil was
sieved before analysis. Its content would be slightly different as anything above 500 µm in
diameter would be sieved out, this would include some sand which can be up to 2000 µm in
diameter.

The field methods are more reliant on the judgement of whoever is taking the
measurements so as well as being less accurate they would also be less precise as there is
less standardisation, especially if more than one person is doing the sampling.

The texture by feel method may be less accurate than hydrometry as it is more subjective
and may be harder to categorise intermediary textures. Both locations have the same
results from texture by feel but hydrometry showed that Stokes Park has a higher clay
content. Texture by feel could be improve by standardising parts of it for example, how
much water added to the soil, how long you knead it for, measuring things instead of
guessing.
LOI gives much higher results than TOC because it counts all organic matter, it would also
include any water still in the soil that had not evaporated yet. LOI was also measured on a
much larger scale so the readings would be less accurate as the scales and measurements
were not as precise.
The penetrometer method would likely have more accurate results than infiltration rate for
determining compaction as it is the average of 5 measurements. It is empirical whereas
infiltration rate relies on your judgement for example, how far down to put the tube and
ability to take measurements and do calculations. Infiltration would also be affected more
by factors other than compaction for example, water content and soil texture, while these
factors would affect results from a penetrometer it is a more direct method. The method for
measuring infiltration rate may be improved if the tube was marked so the depth was
known.

While lab methods may be more accurate, field methods are much more practical as they
can be done much more quickly and inexpensively. Also, if you notice a discrepancy in the
results they can be repeated in the same conditions and the source for them can be found
more easily. For a comparison of two large areas such as these, field methods may make
more sense to use as accuracy does not matter so much for large areas that would have a
lot of natural variation, especially if the results are averages.

My comparisons of results from lab and field methods are lacking in that that I am missing a
lot of the results from the field results as inadequate notes were taken or were lost. This
could be avoided in future by preparing a field book with clearly labelled tables, so the
results are clearly recorded and easy to find.

Soil characteristics

My results show that Stokes Park has a higher clay content and lower silt and sand, less
coarse sand and rocks, more TC & TOC, less TIC & LOI and higher concentrations of all the
elements measured.

Evaluation of results and expectations of physical characteristics for locations

To determine if my results for physical characteristics were representative of these sites I

compared them to the findings from the National Soils Resources Institute soils report
(NSRI, 2021).
Snuff Mills would be expected to have a lower pH due to its natural fertility and typical
habitats, this could be due to the Bristol coalfield being in east Bristol.
While I have no results for Stokes Park, Snuff Mills was found to have a pH of 6.5 so we do
know that it is acidic as suggested by the soils report. Stokes Park would be expected to
have higher levels of iron as the soil is red, this is consistent with my results (Table 1). I
would expect Stokes Park to slake more as it has a higher clay content (Jones et al., 2021).
The soil texture for both locations topsoil is expected to be loam with Stokes Park having a
higher clay content than Snuff Mills. This is accurate but the lab results give a more detailed
description of soil analysis as it shows that they are both Sandy loams but Stokes Park is also
clayey. The soil compaction found by infiltration rate could be expected to be lower in
Stokes Park as the soil would be more permeable. The soil compaction found by
penetrometer can be expected to be higher in Snuff Mills as it is drier and has less clay and
more stones. Stokes Park should have a higher field capacity as it is slowly permeable and
susceptible to seasonal waterlogging although Snuff Mills may have a high water content as
it has a large storage capacity and it is over impermeable rocks.

Carbon content
Stokes Park should have higher TOC as Snuff Mills would have fewer living organisms in the
soil as it is acidic. More acidic soils have higher inorganic carbon because CO 2 from
respiration of microbes accumulates as it is not being buffered. As buffering ability is
negatively correlated to particle size, Snuff Mills has a lower buffering ability due to its
higher sand content (Table 1).

Metal content
Stokes Park has a lower proportion of Iron and Copper and higher Manganese, Zinc and
Cobalt (Table 3). All of these are micronutrients needed for plant growth (Gregory, 2012).
The order of the amounts of elements is the same in both locations and the earth as a whole
(Haynes, Lide and Bruno, 2016) . Stokes Park has a higher iron content because its parent
material is reddish mudstone which suggests that it also has a high iron content. Areas, such
as Bristol, with high copper concentrations in the soil tend to have had some role in the
copper industry at some point (Coope, 1980). Snuff Mills may have a higher proportion of
copper than Stokes Park due to its proximity to areas such as this, like Crews Hole which had
49 copper smelting furnaces (Figure 1). Snuff Mills is also a more urban area in which more
coal has been used, which releases any copper within it during combustion.

Stokes Park

Snuff Mills

Crew Hole
 Figure 1: Map of sampling sites in relation
to Crew Hole

Soil health
Stokes Park appears to have healthier soil. Soil health is usually related to its fertility and
productivity, my results show that Stokes Park has higher micronutrients and water
retention whereas Snuff Mills should be more acidic, has a wider range of habitats, higher
natural soil fertility (Gregory, 2012).

Risks to soils
Neath is susceptible to seasonal waterlogging. Snuff Mills soil is slightly acidic and at risk
from more acidification from acid rain as it is in a more urban area (Gregory, 2012).

Conclusions

In conclusion the main factors influencing the soil characteristics are parent material, the
results of this for example pH and permeability and location (distance from copper mines,
how urban the area is etc.). To improve my understanding of the locations I would take
samples throughout each sampling location and the surrounding areas, especially looking at
the space between them to get a more holistic view of the area and compare the locations
better by seeing which parameters vary where, which ones are connected to each other and
why, I would also include other factors such as topography and foot traffic.

Reference list

Coope, J.Alan. (1980) The Wolfson geochemical atlas of England and Wales. Journal of
Geochemical Exploration [online]. 13 (1), pp. 87–89. Available from:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/18016/1/Advanced_Soil_Geochemical_Atlas_of_En
gland_and_Wales.pdfdoi:10.1016/0375-6742(80)90023-0 [Accessed 8 January 2022].

Haynes, W.M., Lide, D.R. and Bruno, T.J. (2016) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics : a
ready-reference book of chemical and physical data. Boca Raton, Florida: Crc Press.
[Accessed 8 February 2022].

National Soil Resources Institute (2021) Soils Site Report for location 361861E, 176932N,
2km x 2km. National Soil Resources Institute, Cranfield University. Available from:
https://www.landis.org.uk/sitereporter [Accessed 8 February 2022].