INVITED REVIEW

Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis

Jonathan D. Phillips

ABSTRACT:
This paper reviews recent developments in studies of soil complexity, focusing on the variability of soil types within soil landscapes. Changes in soil
complexity are directly related to divergent and convergent pedogenesis and to dynamical stability and chaos. Accordingly, strong links exist between
nonlinear dynamical systems theory and studies of soil complexity. Traditional conceptual models of soil formation emphasized convergence of the
soil cover in the form of progress toward mature, climax soils. A view of divergence as a frequent occurrence rather than an occasional exception is
more recent. Measurement of soil complexity is now firmly linked to field pedology. In addition to strong methodological links to pedometrics and soil
geography, standard tools for assessing complexity include chronosequences and other historical approaches, relationships between soil properties
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/soilsci by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3dW0s7N5CLiYKgtFQ7SO3jV2yq+otKiHT1PAgVzrp7qRE4WX+8Oavzw== on 09/02/2019

and soil forming factors, and pedological indicators. Eight general pathways to changes in soil complexity are identified. Three are based on changes
in soil-forming factors. These may increase or decrease complexity depending on whether the factors themselves are converging or diverging and the
relative magnitudes of soil and state factor divergence. Three pathways are associated with local disturbances. If these occur less frequently than the
relaxation time for soil responses, and if internal pedological dynamics are dynamically stable, then disturbance-induced complexity is reduced over
time. Otherwise, divergence and increasing complexity occurs. Two additional pathways are directly related to dynamical stability of intrinsic pedo-
logical processes, which may result in decreasing or increasing complexity, either in concert with, or independently of, environmental controls or
disturbances.
Key Words: Soil complexity, pedogenesis, divergence, convergence
(Soil Sci 2017;182: 117–127)

S oils, regoliths, and the landforms and surfaces they occupy change
and evolve over time. A key issue is the extent to which their
development is convergent or divergent. Whereas convergent devel-
opment leads to less complexity over time, divergent development
increases complexity, as initially similar soils become increasingly
more differentiated. Traditionally, pedological theory has focused
on divergent evolution in the vertical dimension, as initially undif-
ferentiated parent materials develop horizonation and layering due
to pedogenesis. At the same time, convergence in evolution of the
soil cover has been emphasized, whereby soils evolve toward some
attractor state (e.g., zonal, mature, or climax soils). This paper is a
review and synthesis of recent research on changes in complexity
of soilscapes over time, focusing on convergent and divergent devel-
opment. Special attention is given to evidence of divergent pedogen-
esis (as historically, the emphasis has been on convergent trends)
and methods to detect and analyze changes in soil complexity.
Convergent pedogenesis at the landscape scale (as well as analo-
gous concepts of landscape evolution and ecological succession) has
long been recognized and traditionally considered normative. Thus,
its implications and associated conceptual frameworks are well un-
derstood by pedologists. Divergent pedogenesis (as a fairly common
occurrence rather than an occasional aberration) has a much more re-
cent scientific history. Thus, outstanding questions remain: Under
what circumstances is soil development convergent or divergent?
What are the implications for soil (and landscape and ecosystem)
evolution where divergence is dominant? How do mode shifts (c.f.
Phillips, 2014) occur between convergent and divergent pathways?
Earth Surface Systems Program, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY.
Address for correspondence: Jonathan D. Phillips, PhD, Earth Surface Systems
Program, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky Lexington, KY.
E-mail: jdp@uky.edu
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest: No external funding sources.
Submitted to Soil Science.
Received March 29, 2017.
Accepted for publication May 18, 2017.
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 0038-075X
DOI: 10.1097/SS.0000000000000204
Divergent versus convergent evolution is directly related to soil
complexity from two general perspectives. With respect to evolu-
tionary trajectories, convergence or divergence implies changes in
complexity over time in the form of decreasing or increasing vari-
ability, irregularity, differentiation, and diversity. Thus, measuring,
estimating, or assessing convergence and divergence entails measur-
ing or modeling changes in complexity. From the perspective of soil
complexity more broadly, complexity has many important aspects
and implications, including pedodiversity, spatial variability, and
pedometrics, as well as evolutionary pathways. However, with re-
spect to pedogenesis, questions about convergence and divergence
are arguably the most fundamental. Specifically, changes in com-
plexity over time are relevant to the following:
• Models and understanding of soil formation and development:
These provide the lenses through which we evaluate soils. View-
ing the soil from different perspectives can lead to quite different
conclusions, and as discussed below, some frameworks are explic-
itly linked to convergent (especially) and divergent development.
If only convergence or divergence is dominant, then it is important
to choose an appropriate conceptual model. If both are significant,
it implies a need to use multiple frameworks or one that allows for
either convergence or divergence. This also applies to genesis and
development of landscapes, ecosystems, and hydrologic systems,
because pedological, geomorphic, ecological, and hydrologic sys-
tem development is inextricably intertwined.
• Linking pedological change to changes in soil forming factors: To
what extent is pedological change attributable to changes in fac-
tors of soil formation, disturbances, or intrinsic feedbacks? Is ped-
ological change proportional to that of environmental controls?
This is particularly relevant for soil (and other Earth surface sys-
tem) responses to climate, anthropic, and other environmental
changes, as potential changes in complexity have profound impli-
cations for the methods, context, and uncertainty of predictions.
• Interpretation of paleosols, soil stratigraphy, and soil memory:
Are observed features attributable to single or multiple poten-
tial causes or developmental trajectories? Is the magnitude or
variability of preserved features likely to be disproportionately
small or large compared with the driving factors? How does
convergence/divergence influence the preservation of soil features
or properties?

Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4 www.soilsci.com 117

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Phillips
• Explaining soil heterogeneity: Convergent and divergent pedogene-
sis imply fundamentally different hypotheses and assumptions (and
therefore eventually different conclusions and interpretations) about
variation of soils in space and over time.
There exist multiple aspects of soil complexity, including com-
plexity of individual pedons or weathering profiles (e.g., Phillips,
2000; 2001a; Peh et al., 2010; Montagne et al., 2013), or complexity
of the soil cover (soil maps or landscapes; e.g., Fridland, 1976; Hole
and Campbell, 1985; Ibáñez et al., 1995). One can also consider
complexity of soils as holistic entities (e.g., soil types or series) or
of more specific soil properties or features. Soil complexity is inex-
tricably intertwined with soil variability, irregularity, and predictabil-
ity. Soil complexity is also fundamental to pedodiversity (Richter
and Babbar, 1991; Ibàñez et al., 2013; Phillips, 2013a), which itself
has multiple aspects, including richness (number of different entities
present) and evenness (relative abundance of entities). Complexity
is also linked to some aspects of soil memory (Phillips and Marion,
2004; Targulian and Goryachkin, 2008).
This synthesis will not attempt a comprehensive review of all as-
pects of soil complexity, although they are all interrelated. The focus
will be on changes in complexity and convergent versus divergent
evolution and on complexity of soil landscapes, with soil types or
taxa (generally at the series level) as the fundamental units.
Convergent and Divergent Soil Development
Dominant ideas about soil formation, ecological succession, and
geomorphic landscape evolution in the 20th century (and earlier) de-
veloped in a common intellectual milieu and all focused on conver-
gent evolution toward, for example, a mature or climax soil, climax
vegetation community, or a peneplain (or later steady-state equilib-
rium) landscape (Osterkamp and Hupp, 1996; Huggett, 1998). Other
developmental pathways were acknowledged, but in the prevailing
conceptual models, they were interpreted as abnormal exceptions
or as the result of disturbances or interruptions of normal patterns.
In pedology, this was expressed as development toward a mature,
climax, zonal soil, characterized by dominantly progressive pedo-
genesis (promoting increased levels of pedogenic development)
and proisotropic (increasingly differentiated) vertical or strati-
graphic development (Schaetzl and Thompson, 2015).
In the late 1980s, Johnson and colleagues promoted a view of pe-
dogenesis that gave regressive pedogenetic pathways and proanisotropic
processes equal conceptual weight and recognizing that either or both sets
of pathways and processes (progressive/regressive and proisotropic/
proanisotropic) may be common and “normal” in different soils
(Johnson et al., 1987; 1990 Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1987).
My own early research into pedogenetic complexity was based on
linking these ideas to complex nonlinear dynamics and divergent
development of soil landscapes (e.g., Phillips, 1993a;b;c; 1995).
Soil formation and development, and variation of soil properties,
may be dominated by extrinsic (allogenic) controls (e.g., the classic
soil forming factors of climate, biota, topography, parent material,
and age or time), intrinsic (autogenic) factors involving processes
and phenomena within the soil, or some combination. Intrinsic soil
relationships may be dynamically stable or unstable. For example,
under some circumstances, feedbacks between weathering and soil
thickness may produce a steady-state thickness, whereby surface re-
movals are approximately balanced by soil production through
weathering (e.g., D'Odorico, 2000). Although these conditions are
often unmet (e.g., Johnson et al., 2005), where they do obtain soil
thickness is closely related to topography, and are minimally vari-
able in similar slope positions. By contrast, interactions among ver-
tical moisture movement, material translocation, and hydraulic
conductivity are often dynamically unstable, resulting in extreme lo-
cal spatial variability in the depth to illuvial layers and the wetting
front geometry (e.g., Montagne et al., 2013). Denoting extrinsic
118 www.soilsci.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Science
controls as soil-forming factors (SFFs), soils dominated by extrinsic
factors, or by intrinsic factors that are mainly dynamically stable,
lead to convergent pedogenesis with soil variation that is less than
the variability of SFF. Likewise, soils dominated by stable intrinsic
phenomena will be convergent, with variation proportional to, or
less than, that of the SFF. Where soil development is dynamically
unstable, pedogenesis will be divergent, with variation greater than
that of SFF.
Recent studies on the role of initial conditions in landscape and
ecosystem development, in contrast to approaches that implicitly
or explicitly assume convergent development, postulate divergent
development. More homogeneous conditions exist in early stages,
with increasing heterogeneity over time. For instance, in their review
of the role of initial development processes as key factors in land-
scape development, Raab et al. (2012) identified a common pattern
of lower complexity initially, with complexity increasing over time
because of sensitivity to initial conditions and amplification of vari-
ations. A study of interrelationships among substrate, topography,
and vegetation in early stages of development by Biber et al. (2013)
also assumed increasing complexity. However, as Maurer and
Gerke (2016) pointed out, such studies are in their infancy and are
based on a notion (tacitly assumed, as they are focused on young
systems) that whatever the pathways of early soil and landscape de-
velopment, a state of dynamic equilibrium tends to be approached.
Note, however, that the latter may simply be a deceleration of
change or a relaxation time in response to disturbance rather than
a normative steady-state attractor.
Mode Shifts
A mode is defined as the way or manner in which something occurs.
It is not unusual for soils and other Earth surface systems to shift be-
tween convergent and divergent modes of evolution as the processes
involved reach various limits or thresholds (Phillips, 2014). For ex-
ample, consider pedon-scale chemical weathering as shown in
Figure 1. Parent material properties (e.g., structure, lithology, mineral-
ogy) or microtopography may create initial variations in weathering
susceptibility that are often exaggerated because of positive feed-
backs (Nahon, 1991; Twidale, 1991, 1993). This divergence increases
the weathering contrast until weatherable minerals are depleted in the
more strongly weathered zones. Then geochemical kinetics rather
than moisture availability becomes the major limiting factor
for weathering rates. This switch results in eventual convergence
of weathering rates and the stage or extent of weathering (Phillips,
2001a; 2014). Conceptual models of initial codevelopment of
FIGURE 1. Divergent-convergent mode switches in chemical
weathering (after Phillips, 2001a; 2014).
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
topography, soils, and vegetation often tacitly, if not explicitly, as-
sume divergence in early stages with eventual convergence (Raab
et al., 2012; Maurer and Gerke, 2016).
Just as divergent systems may switch to convergent modes, soils
formed under extended periods of convergent evolution can transi-
tion to divergent development by tectonic, geomorphic, climatic, bi-
ological, and anthropic disturbances. Small, localized disturbances
can also precipitate divergence because of unstable growth of distur-
bance effects. A number of examples are available from the literature
on woody vegetation invasions of grasslands, typically driven by
climate change, human agency, and/or disturbances. The ecological
transition often results in increasing spatial fragmentation that may
be expressed in soil morphology as well as soil chemical and ecolog-
ical properties (e.g., Daryanto et al. 2013; Verboom and Pate, 2013;
Podwojewski et al., 2014). Similar divergence may occur because of
shrub or tree removal in woodlands (e.g., Shankey et al., 2012).
DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT OF CONVERGENCE
AND DIVERGENCE
Because convergence and divergence are closely related to dynami-
cal instability and deterministic chaos, methods for detecting and an-
alyzing dynamical instability and chaotic dynamics are relevant.
Reviews and syntheses of these methods in the contexts of pedology,
geosciences, and ecology are given elsewhere (Phillips, 1999; 2004;
2006; Sivakumar 2009; 2017; Turcotte, 2012). Divergence and con-
vergence also imply either increasing or decreasing spatial variabil-
ity over time. Thus, methods of assessing spatial variation, which are
highly advanced in soil science, are also relevant when applied in a
historical or change-over-time context (Phillips, 2004; 2006). This
includes applications of fractal analysis to soils (see overview by
Pachepsky et al., 2000), which is closely linked to complex nonlin-
ear dynamics and scaling properties. While most applications of
fractals have addressed problems in soil physics, hydrology, taxon-
omy, and soil structure, these methods have also been used to quan-
tify heterogeneity at broader scales.
Convergence or divergence in a soilscape can be considered in
terms of the mean difference between any two randomly selected
points initially, δ(ο), and at time t, δ(t). These differences can relate
to the soil as a whole (e.g., a profile development index or taxonomic
distance) or specific properties (e.g., soil thickness, cation exchange
capacity). In the latter case, different portions or properties of a soil
could show different trends (c.f. Phillips, 2000; Richter and Markewitz,
2001). If δ(ο)/δ(t) or δ(t)/δ(t + i) > 1, this indicates convergence;
δ(ο)/δ(t) or δ(t)/δ(t + i) < 1 divergence. That is, differences are ei-
ther being reduced or exaggerated (on average).
TABLE 1. Studies showing dynamical instability and chaotic development of soils or soil morphological properties
Type of study or evidence
Numerical modeling
Temporal changes in entropy
Increasing soil richness in soil chronosequence
Spatial variability disproportionately large relative to SFF
Divergent development indicated by state probability function
Divergent development dominated by intrinsic controls of soil variability
Statistical analysis of soil spatial variability
Dynamical stability analysis based on field observations
Spectral properties of soil adjacency graphs
Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis
Rosenstein et al. (1993) explicitly related δ and its changes to de-
terministic chaos (or the absence thereof ) and dynamical stability in
nonlinear dynamical systems. Phillips (1993a, 1999) adapted the
method to soil and other Earth surface systems. Thus, when soils
are treated as dynamical systems, there is a direct equivalence among
dynamical stability, absence of deterministic chaos, convergence, and
a decrease in complexity. Likewise, a direct equivalence exists be-
tween instability, chaos, divergence, and increasing complexity.
Table 1 shows studies demonstrating or suggesting instability and
chaos in development of soils. This is not to imply that all studies ap-
plying such methods find evidence of divergence (see, e.g., Ryzhova,
1996; Phillips, 2016a). Most do (Table 1), but this is largely because
many of the earlier studies were specifically looking for evidence
of chaotic pedogenesis, and many others applied the methods
to cases where observed soil complexity could not be readily
explained otherwise.
A number of studies that do not explicitly mention complexity
theory, nonlinear dynamics, chaos, and instability provide empirical
evidence of divergent pedogenesis (Table 2). The remainder of this
section will focus on techniques developed since (roughly) 2000
and that do not necessarily fit obviously into broad categories of
stability analysis, chaos detection, or analysis of spatial variability.
Richness-Area Analysis
Richness-area analysis as an approach for assessing potential diver-
gence was developed by Phillips (2001b) to examine the relative im-
portance of extrinsic (SFF) versus intrinsic (local instabilities)
factors in pedodiversity. Where the latter are prominent, divergent
development is present. Denoting S as the number of different soil
types (richness) and A as area, S = f(A), a power function has gener-
ally been found to be the best fit; that is,
S ¼ c Ab ð1Þ
If the relationship is developed by successively sampling larger or
additional areas, the c represents richness in the smallest area,
whereas b indicates the rate of increase of richness with area. For this
type of curve (as opposed to a relationship developed by sampling
discrete units of varying area), c ≥ 1, and b > 0.
A can be divided into n homogeneous elementary units Ai, i = 1, 2,
…, n, such that A = ΣAi and Si = ci Abi i . If the elementary units are
indeed constant (within observational precision) with respect to
SFF, soil variability within an Ai must be due to intrinsic rather than
extrinsic factors. If no intrinsic variability is present, ci = 1; bi = 0.
Therefore, ci reflects inherent richness of unit i, and bi the tendency
for larger areas or more samples of unit i to have increasing
Example references
Phillips 1993b; Minasny and McBratney 1999; 2001; D'Odorico, 2000;
Furbish and Fagherazzi 2001; Caruso and Rillig 2011
Ibáñez et al.; 1990; Ibàñez et al., 1994; Phillips, 1994; 2000; Toomanian et al., 2006
Phillips, 1993a; Barrett, 2001; Saldaña & Ibàñez, 2004
Phillips et al., 1996; Borujeni et al., 2010; Phillips, 2013b
Phillips, 2001a;b
Phillips & Marion, 2005; Montagne et al., 2013
Borujeni et al., 2010
Phillips, 2008
Phillips 2013b
www.soilsci.com 119
Phillips
TABLE 2. Studies demonstrating divergent pedogenesis without specific reference to instability, chaos, or nonlinear dynamics
Type of study or evidence
Increasing spatial variability over time due to effects of individual trees in forest soils
Increasing variability over time in coastal dune soils
Increasing variability over time due to plant-soil-landform feedbacks in karst soils
Divergent development and sensititivity to small perturbations in coastal marsh soils
Increasing soil richness in chronosequence on sandy lake terraces
Disproportionately large microtopographically induced variations in soil morphology
Divergent development in a single parent material in tropical soils
Divergent self-organization in subtropical and tropical weathering mantles
Convergent development of soil properties within soil horizons accompanied by
divergent development between horizons
Spatial variation in soil morphological properties of forest soils disproportionately
large relative to SFF; domination by intrinsic controls of soil variability
Divergent (and convergent) development of mountain soil morphological properties
pedodiversity independent of environmental heterogeneity related
to SFF.
! " ! "
S ¼ ∑ ci Ai bi −k i ¼ m∑ ci Ai bi ; ð2Þ
where ki is the number of soil types in unit i already encountered in
other units and m an adjustment factor for taxa (e.g., series) counted
in multiple elementary units (m = S/ΣSi ≤ 1). Therefore,
− −bi m n
S¼ −
ci A i
with the overbars indicating mean values.
−
The ratio bi /b therefore indicates the relative importance of between-
unit (extrinsic) sources of variability and within-unit (intrinsic) vari-
ability. In many cases, the number of samples N, Ni can be substituted
for A, Ai in any of the equations above. For an agricultural soil land-
scape, Phillips (2001b) found a bi /b ratio of 1.145, indicating a greater
importance for chaotic, intrinsic, within-unit variation. Phillips and
Marion (2007) also found bi /b > 1 for soils in a subtropical forest set-
ting. Other pedological applications of this type of richness-area anal-
ysis include Svoray and Shoshany (2004) and Petersen et al. (2010)),
which both found evidence of divergent evolution. The approach is
analogous to the species-area relationships commonly used in bio-
geography since the 1960s. Ibáñez et al. (1995; 2005; 2009) have
applied richness-area analysis in a similar way to analyze scale rela-
tionships and geographical patterns of pedodiversity.
Graphs and Networks
Graph theory and network-based approaches to pedology, geomor-
phology, and ecology have developed rapidly in recent years. Some
of these are directly relevant to assessing divergent pedogenesis.
Heckmann et al. (2015) and Phillips et al. (2015) distinguish be-
tween spatially explicit applications of graph theory in Earth and en-
vironmental sciences and structural graphs. Spatially explicit graphs
have locations or spatially-discrete entities as their nodes (for in-
stance, the starting and end points of landslides in Heckmann and
Schwanghardt, 2013). Like spatial analytic methods in general,
graph-based methods of assessing variability and complexity can
be used to assess convergence or divergence when applied at two
or more periods or iterations of system evolution.
Structural graph models are network representations of the
structure of soil systems. These may be empirically derived
120 www.soilsci.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Science
Example references
Šamonil et al., 2008; 2014; 2015; Kooch et al., 2015; Dan!ek et al., 2016;
Shouse & Phillips, 2016
Thompson 1983, 1992
Crowther, 1987; Bárány-Kevei, 1998; Estrada-Medina et al., 2013
Orson and Howes 1992, Nyman et al. 1993, Hackney et al. 1996
Barrett & Schaetzl, 1993
Miller et al., 1994; Price, 1994
Dubroeucq & Volkoff, 1998
Gracheva, 2011
Richter and Markewitz, 2001
Šamonil et al., 2011
Temme et al, 2015
state-and-transition models, correlation structures, theoretically de-
rived networks based on fundamental equations, or system models.
Applications of graph theory to structural models of Earth surface sys-
tems typically seek to identify or measure the complexity or synchroni-
zation properties of environmental state transitions or to deduce
geosystem properties from network structures. This can include in-
dications of possible divergence.
Soil spatial adjacency graphs (SAGs) are a hybrid where the
nodes (soil types) are not spatially explicit, but links are based on
whether or not the soil types are spatially contiguous in the land-
scape. Phillips (2013b) developed methods for analyzing SAG and
associated soil factor sequences that allow assessment of how much
complexity in the spatial pattern is associated with gradients or se-
quences of SFF. Complexity not explained by SFF implies either un-
identified state factors or dynamical instability and divergent
pedogenesis. One of the two coastal plain agricultural soil land-
scapes analyzed by Phillips (2013b) showed evidence of diver-
gence. These methods were extended by Phillips (2016a) and
applied to a soil system in karst terrain, where only minor evidence
of complexity not associated with SFF was found.
Daněk et al. (2016) analyzed the SAG for the soil landscape of an
old-growth forest using a sequentiality index that indicates the extent
to which soils have gradual versus abrupt variations in underlying
soil factors. They found that geomorphology is the primary control
over a very locally complex soil pattern, but microtopography and
local disturbances, mostly related to the effects of individual trees,
are also critical. Spatial complexity greater than that of the local
SFF implies divergent pedogenesis (Daněk et al., 2016).
Evolutionary and Historical Approaches
Pedogenesis cannot be directly observed over periods of more than a
few decades, and in most cases, original conditions are unknown, al-
though an increasing number of multi-decadal field observations are,
or will become, available. Furthermore, although paleosols and fossils
within soils and paleosols are keys for paleoenvironmental recon-
struction, fossil records of modern soils are rare. This makes it diffi-
cult to evaluate convergent or divergent trends.
Of major importance to initial conditions are the many situations
where anthropic activities or major disturbances create new environ-
ments for soil formation or reset the pedogenetic clock. For instance,
Montagne et al. (2013) documented chaotic development and diver-
gence in Albeluvisols triggered by artificial drainage. In this example,
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
positive feedbacks associated with moisture flux, translocation, and
resulting morphological modifications drove the chaotic divergence.
Field evidence suggests that such local divergence due to similar feed-
backs may be common (Fig. 2).
Another example is where rapid or recent geomorphic changes
create new surfaces for pedogenesis. For instance, Roland et al.
(2016) examined a vegetation/soil chronosequence across a set of
different-aged terraces exposed by melting ice over a 54-year period.
They linked the spatial pattern of vegetation expansion (mainly bal-
sam poplar) to changes in the soil. Sparsely vegetated sites allow for
rapid invasion or expansion of plants such as mosses that insulate
and paludify the soil. Roland et al. (2016) indicated established veg-
etation communities have cold and/or acidic soil profiles that im-
pede establishment of balsam poplar. However, early successional
species such as balsam poplar, with traits that allow it to persist
and fundamentally alter the vegetation mosaic, may serve as a van-
guard of a profound landscape change. The spatial mosaic of the
transformative species thus influences, and is influenced by, chang-
ing or evolving soil properties. The result is divergent pedogenesis.
There is significant potential to advance this type of research. For
example, in some of my own work on effects of vegetation in early
stages of soil formation on newly exposed bedrock, the association
of biotic weathering with local geological structural features implies
divergent regolith development, at least initially (Phillips et al., 2008).
However, although work elsewhere in the region suggests this is likely
the case (Phillips and Marion, 2005; 2007), we did not explore this
sufficiently to go beyond mere suggestion.
Chronosequences are the classic method for evaluating pedoge-
netic trends, although establishment of a good chronosequence is
difficult and interpretation is not always straightforward (e.g.,
Huggett, 1998; Sauer, 2010; 2015). Chronosequence studies have
mostly used single or mean characterizations of the soil at each time
increment. However, as chronosequences have spatial and temporal
dimensions, several different soil types may exist during the same
stage. Some soil chronosequence studies address, or at least ac-
knowledge, variations within periods and changes in variability or
diversity over time (Sondheim and Standish, 1983; Thompson,
1983, 1992; Barrett and Schaetzl, 1993; Phillips, 1993a, 2001c;
Eppes and Harrison, 1999; Barrett, 2001; Richter and Markewitz,
2001; Saldaña and Ibàñez, 2004; Toomanian et al., 2006; Caldwell
FIGURE 2. Soils formed on Holocene alluvial terrraces in tropical
north Queensland, Australia. Divergent pedogenesis associated with
preferential flow, differential soil wetting, and accumulation of organic matter
and iron oxides is evident. However, it is not known whether these early
divergent trends persist or grow over time. The cause-effect or mutual
adjustment mechanisms underlying the visually suggested relationships
between vegetation tufts and soil properties are also not known. A color version
of this figure is available in the online version of this article.
Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis
et al., 2012). Mostly, these studies show an increase in soil richness
over time, indicating divergence; however, some show convergence
or are ambiguous in this regard. (e.g., Howard et al., 1993), and in
some cases, both convergent and divergent trends could be observed
between different stages in the same chronosequence (e.g., Zilioli
et al. 2011; Botha and Porat 2007; Gracheva, 2011).
A typical objective in chronosequence research is to identify rates
and trends of soil development or of changes in soil properties over
time. Indeed, the assumption in a chronosequence is that all SFF
other than time or age are constant (although this is rarely, if ever,
strictly true). If the chronosequence assumption is valid, observed
changes unrelated to time imply either unknown SFF, transient ef-
fects of disturbances, or dynamical instability and potential diver-
gence. A review of pedogenesis in old landscapes of tropical
Africa (Da Costa et al., 2015) identified a need to distinguish among
soil parameters that are, or are not, closely related to soil age, which
could assist in making the distinction above between unknown SFF,
transient effects, and divergence. Da Costa et al. (2015) also underscored
the role of geological rejuvenation of landscapes and geomorphic
reworking by water and wind erosion in complicating paleopedological
reconstructions—although, as mentioned previously, in some cases,
these may provide opportunities for shorter time frame observations
of pedogenesis. In the quite different environmental setting of post-
glacial pedogenesis in formerly ice-covered landscapes, Johnson
et al. (2015) made similar points in their study of soils formed on
a temporal sequence of relatively young, post-glacial landforms with
varying parent materials and climate histories.
The temporal patterns of changes revealed in chronosequences or
other historical sequences can be represented as a graph or network,
and Phillips (2015; 2016b) has developed methods specifically
for analyzing their complexity. Path stability is a measure of
chronosequence robustness; that is, the degree to which developmen-
tal trajectories are sensitive to disturbances or change (Phillips, 2015).
Several generic chronosequence structures indicate five general
cases: (1) path-stable reversible progressions, (2) neutrally path-
stable irreversible progressions, (3) path unstable with very low
divergence, (4) path unstable with low divergence, and (5) highly
divergent complex multiple pathways (Phillips, 2015). Path stability
is probably rare in soil chronosequences because of the directional-
ity inherent in most of them. A complex soil chronosequence on the
lower coastal plain of North Carolina was analyzed as described
previously, indicating very low divergence. This outcome is consistent
with field evidence, and derives largely from the presence of self-
limiting early stages, and a few highly developed states that inhibit
retrogression back to many of the earlier stages (Fig. 3; Phillips, 2015).
Phillips (2016b) studied the complexity of network representa-
tions of evolutionary sequences more generally, with a pedological
case study. He found that converging and diverging graphs with
the same topology did not differ with respect to graph complexity
measures so that change in complexity over time depends on in-
creasing or decreasing richness. Results also showed that identifica-
tion of additional changes in the historical record (e.g., soil shifts in
paleosol sequences) produces more structurally complex but less
historically contingent representations (Phillips, 2016b).
Pedological Indicators
Soil morphology provides indicators of past or ongoing change,
such that the trajectory of change can be discerned from careful pro-
file description and analysis. Standard soil stratigraphic and morpho-
logical indicators included in typical profile descriptions sometimes
indicate the direction of pedological changes and, combined with a
suitable metric such as Kolmogorov entropy, can be used to detect
signatures of divergence (or convergence) in weathering profiles
and soils. In a study of subtropical ultisols, Phillips (2000) found ev-
idence of both convergence and divergence, linked to relative rates
of processes associated with horizon differentiation in surficial
www.soilsci.com 121
Phillips
FIGURE 3. Soils formed in late Pleistocene sediments exposed on eroding shorelines of Neuse River estuary, lower coastal plain of North Carolina.
These soils, which are highly variable with respect to presence, absence, depth, and thickness of A, E, Bs, and Bt horizons, formed in uniform parent
sediments. A color version of this figure is available in the online version of this article.
horizons by the formation of transitional AE or A&E horizons be-
cause of secondary podzolization, thickening of the solum at the
weathering front, and surface erosion.
Soil stratigraphic variation can, in some cases, be analyzed with
techniques that allow determination of whether variability is inherited
from parent material or acquired during pedogenesis. Where the latter
is dominant (as in the east Texas weathering profiles studied by
Phillips, 2001a), this indicates divergence, whereby parent material
anisotropy is magnified and overprinted by pedogenesis. Inherited
versus acquired properties were also assessed by Peh et al. (2010),
who analyzed soil geochemical data from Croatia with a trimming
procedure, in which the outliers were removed and attributed to non-
linear causes precluding simple cause-and-effect relationships (the
necessary condition of a Gaussian distribution). The geochemical
background (equivalent to the inherited portion) was then defined
as the normal range of data of the remaining (trimmed) data.
Disturbance Effects
In addition to large landscape scale disturbances resetting the clock
for pedogenesis, the effects of relatively small local disturbances
can give insight into trends in complexity over time. If a local distur-
bance has impacts on soil morphology, convergent pedogenesis will
cause these effects to be reduced or smoothed out over time,
returning toward its original self. Divergence will be characterized
by persistence of the local pedological effects well beyond the dura-
tion of the disturbance and includes their possible amplification.
This has been most explicitly studied with respect to effects of indi-
vidual trees on soil morphology. Such effects are associated with
uprooting, locally accelerated weathering, stemflow and concen-
trated hydrological fluxes, root penetration of subsoils and parent
materials, mass displacement by tree growth, and other processes.
Vasenev and Targulian (1995), for instance, developed a model
for development of forest podzols by uprooting, based on Russian
field experience, involving eventual convergence to the background
soil. However, other studies show divergent soil development asso-
ciated with persistence of pedologic impacts of uprooting (e.g.,
Šamonil et al., 2014; 2015; 2016). Overall, both convergent return
to background soils and divergent persistence and growth of
uprooting effects may occur (see reviews by Ulanova, 2000;
Šamonil et al., 2010; Pawlik, 2013).
Biomechanical effects of individual trees, along with facilitation
of chemical weathering and hydrological effects, can result in local
deepening of soils beneath trees, which has feedback effects that
promote future tree establishment at the same microsites. This pro-
duces the hypothesis that divergent evolution of soil thickness oc-
curs, with increasingly thicker soils at tree-occupied sites. This has
been tested and confirmed in several studies (Phillips, 2008; Shouse
122 www.soilsci.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Science
and Phillips, 2016). However, this phenomenon may only be appli-
cable where soil thickness is less than coarse rooting depth of trees.
Monosequences
The idea of chronosequence, lithosequence, biosequence, toposequence,
and climosequences is to assess the effect of a single SFF by sam-
pling where all factors other than the one of interest are considered
to be constant (only minimal variability, not true constancy, can re-
alistically be obtained). These are generally carried out where signif-
icant qualitative differences or a strong quantitative gradient in the
SFF of interest exists.
Where the concern is primarily with soil heterogeneity or convergence/
divergence, however, a comparative analysis between variation in
soils or their properties and that of a key SFF need not involve the
kinds of differences typically reflected in SFF sequence studies.
For example, in the study of microtopographic effects on soil mor-
phology by Miller et al. (1994), they used sites where all factors ex-
cept microtopography were constant. As the observed morphological
effects (driven by local moisture fluxes) were disproportionately large
compared with the microtopographic variability (Miller et al., 1994),
this indicates divergent pedogenesis. To distinguish this type of
work from typical broader-scale toposequences, and so on, I refer
to them as monosequences. Other examples include Price (1994),
Phillips et al. (1996), Dubroeucq and Volkoff (1998)), Borujeni
et al. (2010), and Šamonil et al. (2011).
One issue in monosequence studies is measurement techniques
and the level of detail in the SFF and soil characterizations. In central
Kentucky, for example, geological mapping at the same 1:24,000
spatial scale as soil maps has identified more surficial formations
than there are soil series (Phillips, 2013a). This implies convergent
evolution—but the soil and geological mapping were conducted at
different times by different individuals and organizations and for dif-
ferent purposes. A local-scale analysis in the same region found mul-
tiple soil types in identical parent materials with other SFF constant,
implying divergence (Phillips, 2013a).
PATHWAYS TO CHANGING SOIL COMPLEXITY
Three sets of pathways to changes in soil complexity can now be
identified. These pathways are likely not exhaustive, nor are they mu-
tually exclusive, as increasing complexity and decreasing complexity
pathways could operate contemporaneously in the same soilscape,
with the net effects depending on relative rates and intensities.
The first set of pathways is associated with changes in the envi-
ronmental controls and influences on pedogenesis—the SFF (Fig. 4).
As topography, hydrology, biota, and other factors change, related
changes in soil can occur. Changes in SFF themselves can involve
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
FIGURE 4. Potential pathways to increases or decreases in soil
complexity associated with changes in soil-forming factors (SFFs). Soil
complexity will converge or divergence in concert with SFF unless offset or
overridden by intrinsic phenomena.
convergence (for instance, when biota are homogenized by mono-
culture cropping or a highly successful invasive species) or diver-
gence (e.g., topographic divergence during fluvial landscape
dissection). Convergent development of an SFF would promote
convergent development and decreasing complexity of soil, other
things being equal (Fig. 5). In the Cumberland Plateau region of
the United States, for example, valley side slopes expose various
types and combinations of sandstones, conglomerates, shales, and
siltstones (as well as coal and limestone in some areas). Each parent
rock has distinct sets of soils associated with it. However, develop-
ment of a colluvial cover on many slopes effectively reduces parent
material variability, resulting in a reduction in soil richness to a few
soil series formed in colluvium, independent of the underlying bed-
rock (see, e.g., Kelley, 1990).
FIGURE 5. Complex fault-related geological structures and lithological
variation exposed in regolith of Big Walker Mountain, southwestern
Virginia. In many cases, such variations are expressed in variations in the
overlying soil. Here, however, active geomorphic processes on the steep
slopes smooth and obscure any such variations. A color version of this figure
is available in the online version of this article.
Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis
Soil-forming factor divergence will promote soil divergence, but
the latter may be greater or less than the differentiation of the SFF.
Soil divergence greater than or equal to that of the SFF leads to in-
creasing complexity. This is the case, for example, in the coevolution
of soils and landforms associated with fluvial dissection in the Ibe-
rian Peninsula (Ibáñez et al., 1990), where increasing pedological
complexity was documented. However, if the rate of pedological di-
vergence is disproportionately small compared with the SFF, de-
creasing complexity may occur—if not absolutely, at least with
respect to soil-SFF relationships. This appears to be the case at the
regional (but not necessarily local) scale in the Inner Bluegrass phys-
iographic region of Kentucky, where the richness of geological par-
ent materials exposed by Quaternary incision is greater than the
number of recognized soil series (Phillips, 2013a).
A second set of pathways is related to sublandscape scale, local
disturbances (Fig. 6). Disturbances that modify soils create, at least
temporarily, increasing differentiation of the soil cover. If the fre-
quency of such disturbances is greater than the relaxation time for
pedological recovery (i.e., the disturbances reoccur before recovery
is complete), increases in soil complexity persist. Several examples
exist related to faunalturbation, where patchy habitats concentrate
repeated animal foraging and nesting, which can enrich soil com-
plexity by evolving to distinct soil “islands” within the soilscape
(Wilkinson et al., 2009). Even if disturbance frequency is less than
relaxation time, divergent pedogenesis can result when dynamical
instabilities associated with net positive feedbacks are present.
This is the case, for instance, with interactions among runoff, soil
erosion, vegetation, and soils that promote divergence with respect
to an increasingly complex spatial mosaic in semiarid environments
(Puigdefabregas et al., 1999). Another example is local vegetation
disturbance in sand dunes, which creates blowouts that grow unsta-
bly and persist, with attendant effects on dune soils (Gares and
Nordstrom, 1995).
FIGURE 6. Potential pathways to increases or decreases in soil
complexity associated with local disturbances. These depend on
dynamical stability of pedogenic processes and on soil recovery time
versus disturbance frequency.
www.soilsci.com 123
Phillips
Decreasing complexity and convergent evolution can occur, how-
ever, in disturbed soil systems dominated by dynamical stability and
net negative feedbacks. This occurs, for example, when soils dis-
turbed by tree uprooting recover to the background soil (Vasenev
and Targulian, 1995).
Even without (or independently of ) changes in environmental
factors or disturbances, changes in soil complexity can occur be-
cause of intrinsic factors and feedbacks. These pathways are shown
in Figure 7. Because of the prevalence of thresholds, storage effects,
lag times, and other factors, soil systems are nonlinear. When these
nonlinear dynamics are stable, pedogenesis is convergent, and com-
plexity is reduced. For example, feedbacks between organic matter
accumulation and decomposition rates may lead to a steady state
in organic matter content or O-horizon thickness. Effects of local
variations in litter inputs or decay rates may thus be smoothed,
thereby decreasing spatial complexity (e.g., Ryzhova, 1996).
Cases where initial variations associated with parent material
are reduced as the soil develops toward a climatically controlled
zonal soil are another example (Chesworth, 1973; Chandran
et al., 2005), although parent rock effects may often persist. Com-
plex nonlinear dynamics are often associated with dynamical
instability, however, which fosters divergent evolution and increas-
ing complexity independent of external forcings or disturbances.
This can occur, for example, with respect to illuvial accumulation
and moisture flux in podzolized soils (Phillips et al., 1996) or be-
cause of feedbacks among weathering and moisture penetration
(Phillips, 2001a).
FIGURE 7. Potential pathways to increases or decreases in soil
complexity associated with intrinsic dynamics of soil systems.
124 www.soilsci.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Science
DISCUSSION
Soil complexity is directly related to soil spatial and temporal vari-
ability, pedodiversity, conceptual models of pedogenesis and soil ge-
ography, and appropriate representations of soil information. Evolution
of, and changes in, soil complexity are directly related to divergence
and convergence in pedogenesis.
Traditional theories and conceptual models of soil formation have
focused on stratigraphic differentiation at the pedon scale driven pri-
marily by vertical processes. However, many possibilities exist be-
tween the end members of layering entirely inherited from parent
material and wholly created by pedological processes, and viewing
soil stratigraphy through a particular conceptual lens can lead to
quite different interpretations of the same profile. Thus, a recogni-
tion that both convergent and divergent evolution are common,
and a better understanding of the circumstances under which they
occur, will lead to better interpretations of soils, paleosols, and
weathering profiles (Johnson et al., 1987; 1990; 2005; Johnson
and Watson-Stegner, 1987; Wilkinson et al., 2009).
Traditional theories and conceptual models of soil formation have
focused on convergence of the soil cover at the landscape scale, in
the form of progress or maturation toward zonal or mature, climax
soils. Recognition that divergent evolution also occurs has had dra-
matic impacts on soil formation theory, and soil geography and geo-
morphology (e.g., Richter and Yaalon, 2012; Toomanian, 2013;
Šamonil et al., 2014; Schaetzl and Thompson, 2015; Temme et al.,
2015; Ibàñez and Pérez-Gómez, 2016). These expanded views
have even greater relevance in the context of increased interest in the
coevolution of soils, ecosystems, and landforms; and in the response of
these environmental systems to climate and other environmental changes.
Convergence, divergence, and complexity also have recursive
importance for chronosequence studies. On one hand, explicit atten-
tion to changes in complexity in chronosequences holds great prom-
ise for addressing the evolution of complexity in soils. On the other
hand, appreciation of various theoretical frameworks that accommo-
date both convergence and divergence is critical for chronosequence
interpretations (Sauer, 2010; 2015).
Convergence, Divergence, and Complexity
Pedogenesis may be convergent or divergent. This review empha-
sizes evidence of divergent evolution of the soil cover, but this is
in counterbalance to many others indicating convergence. Much of
the work cited herein indicates both, or either of, convergent and
divergent pedogenesis.
Convergence and divergence may vary according to what aspects
or properties of soils are considered, as well as the spatial and tem-
poral scale. Certainly progressive, proanisotropic divergence could
be dominant at the profile-pedon level, coupled with convergence
at the landscape scale—this is the view implied in traditional views
of pedogenesis. However, this is only one possibility. One relatively
common finding is that divergence at more local scales may be
coupled with convergence (or at least strongly constrained diver-
gence) at broader regional scales (e.g., Phillips, 2001c; 2013a;
Phillips and Marion, 2007). The same soil or soil system might be
divergent or convergent at different periods and undergo change-
overs between the two modes (e.g., Johnson et al., 1987; Phillips,
2014; Maurer and Gerke, 2016).
Pedology and Complexity Theory
Much of the work on complexity in pedology and related fields is
strongly linked to the study of complex nonlinear dynamical sys-
tems. Particularly early on, many of the associated methods and con-
cepts were imported from mathematics, systems theory, and physics.
Compared with pedology more generally, this work was more
abstract and mathematical. However, as has been the case in
pedometrics and quantitative soil geography, soil scientists quickly
adapted and developed methods and concepts for complex nonlinear
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
dynamics specifically tailored to soils and grounded in pedology.
Concurrently, phenomena associated with nonlinear dynamics such
as deterministic chaos were more directly linked to divergent pedo-
genesis and field evidence. This is revealed in the methodological
review here. Richness-area analysis, for instance, arose directly from
emerging concepts of pedodiversity. A subset of those methods were
adapted specifically to separate intrinsic complexity from that con-
trolled by SFF.
Graph theory methods are quite broadly applied across the sci-
ences, and their increased application in environmental sciences
was inevitable. Many applications to soils, particularly of spatially
explicit approaches, diffused into pedology naturally via pedometrics
and landscape ecology. Structural graph methods, based on algebraic
and spectral graph theory, still borrow heavily from mathematics
and from applications in systems theory and engineering. However,
since 2013, several graph and network techniques have been devel-
oped that arise directly from pedological problems rather than graph
theory (e.g., Phillips, 2013b; 2015; 2016a; Daněk et al., 2016).
Chronosequences have been an important component of pedol-
ogy and plant ecology for at least a century, and it was straightfor-
ward to deploy them to investigate convergent and divergent trends
in pedogenesis. Indeed, some of the earliest pedology-based (rather
than grounded in, e.g., chaos theory or fractal geometry) studies of in-
stability and chaos in soils were based directly on chronosequences.
Nearly 20 years ago, Huggett's (1998) synthesis of soil chronosequence
studies concluded that soils “may progress, stay the same, or retro-
gress, depending on the environmental circumstances.” Further
progress is contingent on attention to spatial variability within time
increments in chronosequences.
Pedological indicators have also long been central to soil science,
in soil descriptions, taxonomy, and mapping, as well as in paleopedology,
soil geomorphology, and soil stratigraphy. The use of indicators to
assess convergent and divergent trends is thus a direct link between
soil complexity studies and field pedology. Monosequence ap-
proaches are also clearly linked to traditional pedology, based on a
straightforward notion of the relative variability of soil properties re-
lated to variability of environmental controls.
Consideration of the effects of disturbances in pedology parallels
thinking in disturbance ecology (Huggett, 1998). In both fields, this
led naturally to debates about stability, multiple versus single recov-
ery pathways, and convergence/divergence. Disturbances also pro-
vide opportunistic “experiments” to examine pedological recovery
trajectories with an eye toward convergent and/or divergent trends.
In the 1980s and 1990s, soil and geoscientists commonly complained—
with justification—that notions of environmental complexity asso-
ciated with emerging ideas in complexity theory were difficult to
link to empirical observations and more often derived from abstract
complexity theory rather than pedology, ecology, and geosciences.
Although studies of soil complexity continue (as they should) to en-
gage with complexity science more broadly, they are now firmly
grounded in pedology.
Changes in Complexity
“Complexity” is often conflated with a view of complexity science
that focuses on nonlinear dynamics, coupled interactions over a broad
range of scales, and emergent or self-organized behavior. However,
both complexity concepts and the sources of complexity in soils and
other Earth systems are much broader (Phillips, 2016b) than the no-
tions typically associated with contemporary complexity science.
This is reflected in the pathways to increasing or decreasing soil
complexity discussed here. Those pathways indeed reflect changes
associated primarily with complex soil system dynamics. However,
they also include trajectories determined by environmental controls
and pathways that reflect a combination of external forcings (distur-
bances) and intrinsic pedological dynamics.
Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis
CONCLUSIONS
Complexity may apply to a number of different dimensions, per-
spectives, and aspects of soils. Here, the attention is mainly on the
complexity of soil types within soil landscapes. Soil complexity is
intertwined with spatial and temporal variability, pedodiversity, con-
ceptual models of pedogenesis and soil geography, and representa-
tions of soil information.
Increases and decreases in soil complexity are directly related to
divergent and convergent pedogenesis, which are in turn closely re-
lated to dynamical stability and chaos in soil systems. Thus, there is
a strong link between contemporary complexity science and nonlinear
dynamical systems and the study of soil complexity. However, both
the sources and concepts of soil complexity are much broader than
the perspectives typically encompassed by the term complexity science.
Traditional theories and conceptual models of soil formation have
focused on convergence of the soil cover at the landscape scale in
form of progress toward zonal or mature climax soils. Although soil
scientists long recognized that divergent evolution also occurs, a
view of divergence as a common occurrence, rather than an occa-
sional, atypical aberration, is more recent. It is now clear that soil
complexity may decrease, increase, or remain roughly constant over
time and that none of these is necessarily “normal” or abnormal. The
answer to the question of whether pedogenesis is convergent or di-
vergent is either, neither, or both.
Measurement and analysis of (changes in) soil complexity—even
from nonlinear dynamical or complexity science perspectives—is
now firmly linked to empirical field pedology. In addition to strong
methodological links to pedometrics and soil geography, standard
tools for assessing complexity include chronosequences and other
historical approaches, relationships between soil properties and soil
forming factors, and use of pedological indicators.
A typology of eight generic pathways to changes in soil complex-
ity can be identified. Three are based on changes in environmental
controls (soil forming factors) that may affect soil complexity. These
may result in increasing or declining complexity, depending on
whether the SFF themselves are converging or diverging, and the
relative magnitudes of soil and state factor divergence. Three addi-
tional pathways are linked to local soil disturbances. If these occur
less frequently than the relaxation time for soil responses, and if in-
ternal pedological dynamics are stable, then the disturbance-induced
complexity is reduced over time. Otherwise, divergence and increas-
ing complexity occurs. Two additional pathways are directly related
to dynamical stability of intrinsic pedological processes, which may
result in decreasing (in the case of stability) or increasing complex-
ity, either in concert with or independently of environmental controls
or disturbances.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Daniel Gimenez for suggesting the review and
Dan Richter, Juanjo Ibàñez, and an anonymous reviewer for the
constructive comments.
REFERENCES
Bárány-Kevei I. 1998. Geoecological system of karst. Acta. Carsologica.
27:13–25.
Barrett L. R. 2001. A strand plain soil development sequence in northern
Michigan, USA. Catena. 44:163–186.
Barrett L. R., and R. J. Schaetzl. 1993. Soil development and spatial variability
on geomorphic surfaces of different age. Phys. Geog. 14:39–55.
Biber P., S. M. Seifert, W. Zaplata, H. Schaaf, H. Pretzsch, and A. Fischer.
2013. Relationships between substrate, surface characteristics, and vege-
tation in an initial ecosystem. Biogeoscience. 10:8283–8303.
Borujeni I. E., J. Mohammadi, M. H. Salehi, N. Toomanian, and R. M. Poch.
2010. Assessing geopedological soil mapping approach by statistical and
geostatistical methods: a case study in the Borujen region, central Iran.
Catena. 82:1–14.
www.soilsci.com 125
Phillips
Botha G., and N. Porat. 2007. Soil chronosequence development in dunes on
the southeast African coastal plain, Maputaland, South Africa. Quat.
Internat. 162–163:111–132.
Caldwell T. G., M. H. Young, E. V. McDonald, and J. Zhu. 2012. Soil hetero-
geneity in Mojave desert shrublands: biotic and abiotic processes. Water
Resour. Res. 48:W09551. doi: 10.1029/2012WR011963.
Caruso T., and M. C. Rillig. 2011. Direct, positive feedbacks produce instabil-
ity in models of interrelationships among soil structure, plants, and
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43:1198–1206.
Chandran P., S. K. Ray, T. Bhattacharya, P. Srivastava, P. Krishnan, and D. K.
Pal. 2005. Lateritic soils of Kerala, India: their mineralogy, genesis, and
taxonomy. Austral. J. Soil Res. 43:839–852.
Chesworth W. 1973. The parent rock effect in genesis of soil. Geoderma.
10:215–225.
Crowther J. 1987. Ecological observations in tropical karst terrain. West
Malaysia. III. Dynamics of the vegetation-soil-bedrock system. J. Biogeog.
14:157–164.
Da Costa P. Y., J. P. Nguetnkam, C. M. Mvoubou, K. A. Togbe, J. B. Ettien,
and A. Yao-Kouame. 2015. Old landscapes, pre-weathered materials, and
pedogenesis in tropical Africa: how can the time factor of soil formation
be assessed in these regions? Quat. Int. 736:47–74.
Daněk P., P. Šamonil, and J. D. Phillips. 2016. Geomorphic controls of soil
spatial complexity in a primeval mountain forest in the Czech Republic.
Geomorphology. 273:280–291.
Daryanto S., D. J. Eldridge, and L. X. Wang. 2013. Spatial patterns of infiltra-
tion vary with disturbance in a shrub-encroached woodland. Geomor-
phology. 194:57–64.
D'Odorico P. 2000. A possible bistable evolution of soil thickness. J. Geophys.
Res. 105B:25927–25935.
Dubroeucq D., and B. Volkoff. 1998. From Oxisols to Spodosols and
Histosols: evolution of soil mantles in the Rio Negro basin (Amazonia).
Catena. 32:245–280.
Eppes M. C., and J. B. Harrison. 1999. Spatial variability of soils developing
on basalt flows in the Potrillo volcanic field, southern New Mexico: pre-
lude to a chronosequence study. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 24:1009–1024.
Estrada-Medina H., R. C. Graham, M. F. Allen, J. J. Jiménez-Osornio, and S.
Robles-Casoico. 2013. The importance of limestone bedrock and dissolu-
tion karst features on tree root distribution in northern Yucatán, México.
Plant & Soil. 362:37–50.
Fridland V. M. 1976. The Pattern of the Soil Cover. Israel Program for Scien-
tific Translations, Jerusalem.
Furbish D. J., and S. Fagherazzi. 2001. Stability of creeping soil and implica-
tions for hillslope evolution. Water Resour. Res. 37:2607–2618.
Gares P. A., and K. F. Nordstrom. 1995. A cyclic model of foredune blowout
evolution for a leeward coast: Island Beach, New Jersey. Ann. Assoc.
Am. Geogr. 85:1–20.
Gracheva R. 2011. Formation of soil diversity in the mountainous tropics and
subtropics: rocks, time, and erosion. Geomorphology. 135:224–231.
Hackney C. T., S. Brady, L. Stemmy, M. Boris, C. Dennis, T. Hancock, M.
O’Byron, and C. Tilton and E Barbee E. 1996. Does intertidal vegetation
indicate specific soil and hydrologic conditions? Wetlands. 16:89–94.
Heckmann T., and W. Schwanghardt. 2013. Geomorphic coupling and sedi-
ment connectivity in an alpine catchment—exploring sediment cascades
using graph theory. Geomorphology. 182:89–103.
Heckmann T., W. Schwanghart, and J. D. Phillips. 2015. Graph theory—
recent developments and its application in geomorphology. Geomorphol-
ogy. 243:130–146.
Hole F. D., and J. B. Campbell. 1985. Soil Landscape Analysis. Rowman and
Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
Howard J. L., D. F. Amos, and W. L. Daniels. 1993. Alluvial soil chronosequence
in the inner coastal plain, central Virginia. Quat. Res. 39:201–213.
Huggett R. J. 1998. Soil chronosequences, soil development and soil evolu-
tion: a critical review. Catena. 32:155–172.
Ibáñez J. J., R. J. Ballesta, and A. G. Álvarez. 1990. Soil landscapes and drain-
age basins in Mediterranean mountain areas. Catena. 17:573–583.
Ibàñez J. J., J. Caniego, F. San Jose, and C. Carerra. 2005. Pedodiversity-area
relationships for islands. Ecol. Mod. 182:257–269.
Ibáñez J. J., S. De-Alba, F. F. Bermúdez, and A. García-Álvarez. 1995.
Pedodiversity: Concepts and Tools. Catena. 24:215–232.
Ibàñez J. J., and R. Pérez-Gómez. 2016. Diversity of soil-landscape relation-
ships: state of the art and future challenges. In: Zinck J. A., G. Metternicht,
G. Bocco, and H. F. Del Valle (eds.) Geopedology. An Integration of
Geomorphology and Pedology for Soil and Landscape Studies. Springer,
Berlin, pp. 183–191.
126 www.soilsci.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Science
Ibáñez J. J., R. Pérez-Gómez, and F. San José Martínez. 2009. The spatial dis-
tribution of soils across Europe: a fractal approach. Ecological Complex-
ity. 6:294–301.
Ibàñez J. J., A. Pérez -Gonzalez, R. Jimenez-Ballesta, A. Saldaña, and J.
Gallardo-Díaz. 1994. Evolution of fluvial dissection landscapes in
Mediterranean environments. quantitative estimates and geomorpho-
logical, pedological, and phytocenotic repercussions. Z. Geomorph.
38:105–109.
Ibàñez J. J., R. J. Vargas, and A. Vázquez-Hoehne. 2013. Pedodiversity state
of the art and future challenges. In: Ibàñez J. J., and J. G. Bockheim (eds.)
Pedodiversity. CRC Press, New York, pp. 1–28.
Johnson B. G., A. L. Layzell, and M. C. Eppes. 2015. Chronosequence devel-
opment and soil variability from a variety of sub-alpine, post-glacial land-
forms and deposits in the southeastern San Juan Mountains of Colorado.
Catena. 127:222–239.
Johnson D. L., J. E. Domier, and D. N. Johnson. 2005. Animating the biody-
namics of soil thickness using process vector analysis: a dynamic denuda-
tion approach to soil formation. Geomorphology. 67:23–46.
Johnson D. L., E. A. Keller, and T. K. Rockwell. 1990. Dynamic pedogenesis:
new views on some key soil concepts and a model for interpreting Qua-
ternary soils. Quat. Res. 33:306–319.
Johnson D. L., and D. Watson-Stegner. 1987. Evolution model of pedogene-
sis. Soil Sci. 143:349–366.
Johnson D. L., D. Watson-Stegner, D. N. Johnson, and R. J. Schaetzl. 1987.
Proisotropic and proanisotropic processes and pedoturbation. Soil Sci.
143:278–292.
Kelley J. A. 1990. Soil Survey of Pike County. Kentucky. U.S, Department of
Agriculture.
Kooch Y., S. M. Hosseini, B. C. Scharenbroch, S. M. Hojati, and J. Mohammadi.
2015. Pedodiversity in the Caspian forests of Iran. Geoderma Reg. 5:4–14.
Maurer T., and H. H. Gerke. 2016. Processes and modeling of initial soil and
landscape development: a review. Vadose Zone J. 15: doi:10.2136/
vzj2016.05.0048.
Miller S. T., P. J. Brinn, G. J. Fry, and D. Harris. 1994. Microtopography and
agriculture in semi-arid Botswana. 1. Soil variability. Agric Water Manag.
26:107–132.
Minasny B., and A. B. McBratney. 1999. A rudimentary mechanistic model
for soil formation and landscape development. Geoderma. 90:3–21.
Minasny B., and A. B. McBratney. 2001. A rudimentary mechanistic model
for soil formation and landscape development II. A two-dimensional
model incorporating chemical weathering. Geoderma. 103:161–179.
Montagne D., I. Cousin, O. Josiere, and S. Cornu. 2013. Agricultural drainage-
induced Albeluvisol evolution: a source of deterministic chaos. Geoderma.
193:109–116.
Nahon D. D. 1991. Self-organization in chemical lateritic weathering.
Geoderma. 51:5–13.
Orson R. A., and B. L. Howes. 1992. Salt marsh development studies at
Waquoit Bay Massachusetts: influence of geomorphology on long-term
plant community structure. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 35:453–471.
Nyman J. A., R. D. DeLaune, H. H. Roberts, and W. H. Patrick. 1993. Rela-
tionship between vegetation and soil formation in a rapidly submerging
coastal marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Series. 96: 264–279.
Osterkamp W. R., and C. R. Hupp. 1996. The evolution of geomorphology,
ecology, and other composite sciences. In: Rhoads B., and C. Thorn
(eds.) The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology. John Wiley, New York,
pp. 415–442.
Pachepsky Y., J. W. Crawford, and W. J. Rawls. (eds.) 2000. Fractals in Soil
Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Pawlik L. 2013. The role of trees in the geomorphic system of forested
hillslopes—a review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 126:250–265.
Petersen A., G. Gröngöft, and G. Miehlich. 2010. Methods to quantify the
pedodiversity of 1 km2 areas–results from African drylands. Geoderma.
155:140–146.
Peh Z., S. Miko, and O. Hasan. 2010. Geochemical background in soils: a lin-
ear process domain? An example from Istria (Croatia). Environ. Earth
Sci. 59:1367. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0125-2.
Phillips J. D. 1993a. Chaotic evolution of some coastal plain soils. Phys.
Geogr. 14:566–580.
Phillips J. D. 1993b. Progessive and regressive pedogenesis and complex soil
evolution. Quat. Res. 40:169–176.
Phillips J. D. 1993c. Stability implications of the state factor model of soils as
a nonlinear dynamical system. Geoderma. 58:1–15.
Phillips J. D. 1994. Deterministic uncertainty in landscapes. Earth Surf. Proc.
Landf. 19:389–401.
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Phillips J. D. 1995. Time lags and emergent stability in morphogenic/pedogenic
system models. Ecol. Mod. 78:267–276.
Phillips J. D. 1999. Earth Surface Systems. Complexity, Order, and Scale.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Phillips J. D. 2000. Signatures of divergence and self-organization in soils and
weathering profiles. J. Geol. 108:91–102.
Phillips J. D. 2001a. Inherited versus acquired complexity in east Texas
weathering profiles. Geomorphology. 40:1–14.
Phillips J. D. 2001b. The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic factors
in pedodiversity. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91:609–621.
Phillips J. D. 2001c. Divergent evolution and the spatial structure of soil land-
scape variability. Catena. 43:101–113.
Phillips J. D. 2004. Divergence, sensitivity, and nonequilibrium in ecosys-
tems. Geogr. Anal. 36:369–383.
Phillips J. D. 2006. Deterministic chaos and historical geomorphology: a re-
view and look forward. Geomorphology. 76:109–121.
Phillips J. D. 2008. Soil system modeling and generation of field hypotheses.
Geoderma. 145:419–425.
Phillips J. D. 2013a. Nonlinear dynamics, divergent evolution, and pedodiversity.
In: Ibàñez J. J., and J. Bockheim (eds.). Pedodiversity. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 59–82.
Phillips J. D. 2013b. Sources of spatial complexity in two coastal plain soil
landscapes. Catena. 111:98–103.
Phillips J. D. 2014. Thresholds, mode-switching and emergent equilibrium in
geomorphic systems. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf. 39:71–79.
Phillips J. D. 2015. The robustness of chronosequences. Ecol. Mod. 298:16–23.
Phillips J. D. 2016a. Identifying sources of soil landscape complexity with
spatial adjacency graphs. Geoderma. 267:58–64.
Phillips J. D. 2016b. Complexity of Earth surface system evolutionary path-
ways. Math. Geosci. 48:743–765.
Phillips J. D., and D. A. Marion. 2004. Pedological memory in forest soil de-
velopment. For. Ecol. Manage. 188:363–380.
Phillips J. D., and D. A. Marion. 2005. Biomechanical effects, lithological var-
iations, and local pedodiversity in some forest soils of Arkansas. Geoderma.
124:73–89.
Phillips J. D., and D. A. Marion. 2007. Soil geomorphic classification, soil tax-
onomy, and effects on soil richness assessments. Geoderma. 141:89–97.
Phillips J. D., D. Perry, K. Carey, A. R. Garbee, D. Stein, M. B. Morde, and J.
Sheehy. 1996. Deterministic uncertainty and complex pedogenesis in
some Pleistocene dune soils. Geoderma. 73:147–164.
Phillips J. D., W. Schwanghart, and T. Heckmann. 2015. Graph theory in the
geosciences. Earth-Sci. Rev. 143:147–160.
Phillips J. D., A. V. Turkington, and D. A. Marion. 2008. Weathering and veg-
etation effects in early stages of soil formation. Catena. 72:21–28.
Podwojewski P., S. S. Grellier, S. Mthimkhulu, and L. Titshall. 2014. How
tree encroachment and soil properties affect soil aggregate stability in an
eroded grassland in South Africa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78:1753–1764.
Price A. G. 1994. Measurement and variability of physical properties and soil
water distribution in a forest podzol. J. Hydrol. 161:347–364.
Puigdefabregas J., A. Sole, L. Gutierrez, G. del Barrio, and M. Boer. 1999.
Scales and processes of water and sediment re-distribution in drylands: re-
sults from the Rambla Honda field site in southeast Spain. Earth-Sci. Rev.
48:39–70.
Raab T., J. Krummelbein, A. Schneider, W. Gerwin, T. Maurer, and M. A.
Naeth. 2012. Initial ecosystem processes as key factors of landscape
development—a review. Phys. Geogr. 33:305–343.
Richter D. D., and L. I. Babbar. 1991. Soil diversity in the tropics. Adv. Ecol.
Res. 21:315–389.
Richter D. D., and D. Markewitz. 2001. Understanding Soil Change. Cambridge
University Press.
Richter D. D., and D. H. Yaalon. 2012. The “Changing Model of Soil”
revisited. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:766–778.
Roland C. A., S. E. Stehn, J. Schmidt, and B. Houseman. 2016. Proliferating
poplars: the leading edge of landscape change in an Alaskan subalpine
chronosequence. Ecosphere 7:article no. e01398, DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.1398.
Rosenstein M. T., J. J. Collins, and C. J. DeLuca. 1993. A practical method for
calculating largest Lyapunov exponents from small data sets. Physica D.
65:117–134.
Ryzhova I. M. 1996. Analysis of the feedback effects of ecosystems produced
by changes in carbon-cycling parameters using mathematical models.
Eur. Soil Sci. 28:44–52.
Saldaña A., and J. J. Ibàñez. 2004. Pedodiversity analysis at large scales: an
example of three fluvial terraces of the Henares River (central Spain).
Geomorphology. 62:123–138.
Soil Science • April 2017 • Volume 182 • Number 4
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis
Šamonil P., P. Daněk, R. J. Schaetzl, I. Vasickova, and M. M. Valtera. 2015.
Soil mixing and genesis as affected by tree uprooting in three temperate
forests. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66:589–603.
Šamonil P., K. Král, J. Douda, and B. Šebková. 2008. Variability in forest
floor at different spatial scales in a natural forest in the Carpathians: effect
of windthrows and mesorelief. Can. J. For. Res. 38:2596–2606.
Šamonil P., K. Král, and L. Hort. 2010. The role of tree uprooting in soil for-
mation: a critical literature review. Geoderma. 157:65–79.
Šamonil P., M. Valtera, S. Bek, B. Šebková, T. Vrška, and J. Houška. 2011.
Soil variability through spatial scales in a permanently disturbed natural
spruce-fir-beech forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 130:1075–1091.
Šamonil P., M. Valtera, R. J. Schaetzl, D. Adam, I. Vašíčková, P. Daněk, D.
Janík, and V. Tejnecký. 2016. Impacts of old, comparatively stable,
treethrow microtopography on soils and forest dynamics in the northern
hardwoods of Michigan, USA. Catena. 140:55–65.
Šamonil P., I. Vasickova, P. Daněk, D. Janik, and D. Adam. 2014. Distur-
bances can control fine-scale pedodiversity in old-growth forests: is
the soil evolution theory disturbed as well? Biogeosci. 11:5889–5905.
Sauer D. 2010. Approaches to quantify progressive soil development with
time in Mediterranean climate—I. Use of field criteria. J. Plant Nut. Soil
Sci. 173:822–842.
Sauer D. 2015. Pedological concepts to be considered in soil chronosequence
studies. Soil Res. 53:577–591.
Schaetzl R. J., and M. L. Thompson. 2015. Soils—Genesis and Geomorphol-
ogy. (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press.
Shankey J. B., S. Ravi, C. S. Wallace, R. H. Webb, and T. E. Huxman. 2012.
Quantifying soil surface change in degraded drylands: shrub encroach-
ment and effects of fire and vegetation removal in a desert grassland. J.
Geophys. Res–Biogeosci. 117:G02025. DOI: 10.1029/2012JG002002.
Shouse M. L., and J. D. Phillips. 2016. Soil deepening by trees and the effects
of parent material. Geomorphology. 269:1–7.
Sivakumar B. 2009. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos in hydrologic systems:
latest developments and a look forward. Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk
Assess. 23:1027–1036.
Sivakumar B. 2017. Chaos in Hydrology. Springer, Berlin.
Sondheim M. W., and J. T. Standish. 1983. Numerical analysis of a chronosequence
including an assessment of variability. Can. J. Soil Sci. 63:501–517.
Svoray T., and S. Shoshany. 2004. Multi-scale analysis of intrinsic soil factors from
SAR-based mapping of drying rates. Remote Sens. Environ. 92:233–246.
Targulian V. O., and S. V. Goryachkin S (eds.) 2008. Soil Memory. Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow: (in Russian with English summary).
Temme A. J., K. Lange, and M. F. Schwering. 2015. Time development of
soils in mountain landscapes—divergence and convergence of properties
with age. J. Soils Sed. 15:1373–1382.
Thompson C. H. 1983. Development and weathering of large parabolic dune systems
along the subtropical coast of eastern Australia. Z. Geomorph. suppl. 45:205–225.
Thompson C. H. 1992. Genesis of podzols on coastal dunes in southern
Queensland. 1. Field relationships and profile morphology. Austral. J Soil
Res. 30:593–613.
Toomanian N., A. Jalalian, H. Khademi, M. K. Eghbal, and A. Papritz. 2006.
Pedodiversity and pedogenesis in Zayendeh-rud Valley, Central Iran.
Geomorphology. 81:376–393.
Toomanian N. 2013. Pedodiversity and landforms. In: Pedodiversity. Ibanez
J. J., and J. Bockheim (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 133–152.
Turcotte D. L. 2012. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics. (2nd
ed.) Cambridge University Press, New York.
Twidale C. R. 1991. A model of landscape evolution involving increased and
increasing relief amplitude. Z. Geomorph. 35:85–109.
Twidale C. R. 1993. The research frontier and beyond: granitic terrains. Geo-
morphology. 7:187–223.
Ulanova N. G. 2000. The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial
scales: a review. For. Ecol. Manage. 135:155–167.
Vasenev I. I., and V. O. Targulian. 1995. A model for the development of sod-
podzolic soils by windthrow. Eur. Soil Sci. 27: 1–16.
Verboom W. H., and J. S. Pate. 2013. Exploring the biological dimensions to
pedogenesis with emphasis on the ecosystems, soils, and landscapes of
southwestern Australia. Geoderma. 211–212:154–183.
Wilkinson M. T., P. J. Richards, and G. S. Humphreys. 2009. Breaking ground:
pedological, geological, and ecological implications of soil bioturbutation.
Earth-Sci. Rev. 97:257–272.
Zilioli D. M., C. Bini, M. Wahsha, and G. Ciotoli. 2011. The pedological heri-
tage of the Dolomites (northern Italy): features, distribution, and evolution
of the soils, with some implications for land management. Geomorphol-
ogy. 135:232–247.
www.soilsci.com 127