Textbook Interpreting Soil Test Results What Do All The Numbers Mean 3Rd Edition Pam Hazelton Ebook All Chapter PDF

Interpreting Soil Test Results What Do
All the Numbers Mean 3rd Edition Pam

Hazelton
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/interpreting-soil-test-results-what-do-all-the-numbers-
mean-3rd-edition-pam-hazelton/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
What is a human? : what the answers mean for human

rights 1st Edition Evans
https://textbookfull.com/product/what-is-a-human-what-the-
answers-mean-for-human-rights-1st-edition-evans/
Social Work Evaluation: Enhancing What We Do 3rd

Edition James R. Dudley
https://textbookfull.com/product/social-work-evaluation-
enhancing-what-we-do-3rd-edition-james-r-dudley/
Where Do Numbers Come From T. W. Körner
https://textbookfull.com/product/where-do-numbers-come-from-t-w-
korner/
Pam the Jam The Book of Preserves Pam Corbin
https://textbookfull.com/product/pam-the-jam-the-book-of-
preserves-pam-corbin/
What Do We Know and What Should We Do About ... ? :
Inequality Mike Brewer
https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-
we-do-about-inequality-mike-brewer/
What Do We Know And What Should We Do About Internet

Privacy? Paul Bernal
https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-
we-do-about-internet-privacy-paul-bernal/
What Do Philosophers Do?: Skepticism and the Practice

of Philosophy 1st Edition Penelope Maddy
https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-philosophers-do-
skepticism-and-the-practice-of-philosophy-1st-edition-penelope-
maddy/
Do Numbers Exist?: A Debate about Abstract Objects 1st

Edition Van Inwagen
https://textbookfull.com/product/do-numbers-exist-a-debate-about-
abstract-objects-1st-edition-van-inwagen/
Partial solutions to Where do Numbers Come From Thomas

William Korner
https://textbookfull.com/product/partial-solutions-to-where-do-
numbers-come-from-thomas-william-korner/
INTERPRETING
SOIL TEST RESULTS
WHAT DO ALL THE NUMBERS MEAN?
THIRD EDITION
pH 4.70
SAR 8
Ca2+
Na+
15%
cmol(+)/kg
PAM HAZELTON PBC

ppm
AND BRIAN MURPHY

INTERPRETING
SOIL TEST RESULTS
This page intentionally left blank
INTERPRETING
SOIL TEST RESULTS
THIRD EDITION
SAR 8
pH 4.70
Ca2+ Na+
15%
cmol(+)/kg
PBC
ppm
PAM HAZELTON AND BRIAN MURPHY

© Pamela Hazelton and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2016
All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 and
subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, duplicating
or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Contact CSIRO Publishing for all
permission requests.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry
Hazelton, P. A. (Pamela Anne), author.
Interpreting soil test results : what do all the numbers mean? / Pam Hazelton and Brian Murphy.
Third edition.
9781486303960 (paperback)
9781486303977 (epdf)
9781486303984 (epub)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Soils – Analysis.
Soils – Testing.
Murphy, B. W. (Brian William), author.
631.42
Published by
CSIRO Publishing
Locked Bag 10
Clayton South VIC 3169
Australia
Telephone: +61 3 9545 8400
Email: publishing.sales@csiro.au
Website: www.publish.csiro.au
Front cover illustration © Tarapong Siri/Shutterstock
Set in 10.5/12 Minion and Stone Sans
Edited by Adrienne de Kretser, Righting Writing
Cover design by James Kelly
Typeset by Thomson Digital
Printed in China by 1010 Printing International Ltd
CSIRO Publishing publishes and distributes scientific, technical and health science books, magazines
and journals from Australia to a worldwide audience and conducts these activities autonomously from
the research activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those
of, and should not be attributed to, the publisher or CSIRO. The copyright owner shall not be liable for
technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and
responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from
using this information.
Original print edition:
The paper this book is printed on is in accordance with the rules of
the Forest Stewardship Council®. The FSC® promotes environmentally
responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management
of the world’s forests.
Foreword
At the University of Adelaide (and I imagine it is the same at all Australian universities) we
get regular requests from students and others (mainly advisers and consultants in soil
management) for advice on how to interpret soils data. Typically we get inquiries about
soil-test results from fertiliser companies, engineering reports on clay reactivity, heavy-
metal concentrations in municipal waste products, bore and dam water analyses, soil water
contents and hydraulic conductivities. The units accompanying such data invariably
appear as a dog’s breakfast of the Systeme International mixed with colloquial names
dating back to the early 20th century (e.g. bags, bushels, quintals, milliequivalents, etc).
Naturally, people ask whether a good Australian textbook exists ‘to guide us through the
minefield of numbers we face out there’. Well, here it is – a friendly book containing
exemplar tables and units with plenty of explanatory text to guide you through the
quagmire of colloquial terms in soil science that we need to extricate ourselves from. The
omnibus reference-text falls between a classical methods manual and a book of results
with typical generalisations to be drawn from them. It gives users of soil data some yard-
sticks against which the significance or importance of the numbers they obtain in standard
soil tests can be assessed. For many users of Australian soils data this book will come as a
lifeline, and we will certainly add it to the reading lists for our students.
Drs Cameron Grant and Jock Churchman

Australian Society of Soil Science Inc. Publications Committee
v
Contents
Foreword v
About the Authors ix
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xii
Introduction xiii
1 Soil sampling issues: aspects of design and implementation

of soil investigations 1
1.1 The fundamental problem of sampling to test soils 1
1.2 Purposes of soil sampling 2
1.3 Specialised sampling methodologies for soils 4
1.4 Statistical requirements for sampling 4
1.5 Sampling for soil mapping 4
1.6 Assessment of soil health, soil quality, soil condition or soil capability 8
1.7 Investigations for landscape design and development: some guidelines 8
2 Soil physical properties 11

2.1 Particle size distribution 11
2.2 Water-holding properties of soils 14
2.3 Hydraulic conductivity (K) 21
2.4 Bulk density and air porosity 26
2.5 Soil strength 32
2.6 Aggregate stability 34
2.7 Visual assessment of soil structure 38
2.8 Water repellence 39
3 Soil properties and soil behaviour for engineering 41

3.1 Unified soil classification system (USCS) 41
3.2 General levels of interpretation for plastic limit, liquid limit and plasticity index 47
3.3 Earthworks 48
3.4 Expansive soils 56
3.5 Engineering interpretation of soil strength 58
3.6 Soil factors that can affect the resistance of concrete and steel pipes to corrosion 60
4 Soil erodibility and erosion hazard 63

4.1 Erosion types 63
4.2 Erosion hazard 63
4.3 Soil erodibility for water erosion 65
4.4 Soil erodibility for wind erosion 70
vii
viii Interpreting Soil Test Results
5 Soil chemical properties 73

5.1 Soil acidity 73
5.2 Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations 80
5.3 Nitrogen (N) in soil 84
5.4 Phosphorus (P) in soil 87
5.5 Potassium (K) in soil 91
5.6 Sulfur 92
5.7 Nutrients in plants 92
5.8 Trace elements and micronutrients 93
5.9 Nutrients removed in farm products 93
5.10 Salinity 95
5.11 Soil sodicity 106
5.12 Fertilisers and soil ameliorants 114
5.13 General fertility rating of soils in NSW 118
5.14 Acid sulfate soils 119
6 Organic matter content of soils 125

6.1 Soil organic matter 125
6.2 Estimating carbon densities for greenhouse sinks 128
7 Application of wastewater and waste materials 131

7.1 Water quality properties relevant to soils: effluent, runoff and groundwater quality 131
7.2 Quality of wastewater for irrigation 136
7.3 Site selection for the irrigation and disposal of wastewater 139
7.4 Application of biosolids to agricultural soils 141
8 Soil contamination: some considerations 145

8.1 Introduction 145
8.2 General assessment of soil contamination and determination of critical levels 145
8.3 Concentrations of heavy metals in soils 148
8.4 Heavy metals and trace elements as nutrients 153
8.5 Key references in relation to soil contamination 153
9 Units and conversions 155

9.1 SI units 155
9.2 Other units and conversions 156
10 General and technical suggested references 161

References 163
Appendix 1 183
Index 185
About the Authors
Dr Pam Hazelton has worked as a soil scientist for over 35 years. She graduated in Science
from the University of Sydney, then gained a Diploma of Education from the University of
New England and a PhD from the University of NSW for her research on the morphology
and genesis of scald soils in arid regions. She is an experienced pedologist, having produced
many of the Western Division Land System maps and soil landscape maps in the south-
eastern areas of New South Wales. In recent years her interests have been in urban and
coastal soils with an emphasis on environmental engineering. She lectures in the Faculty
of Engineering and IT in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the Uni-
versity of Technology Sydney and is a visiting lecturer at the Grand Ecole EPF School of
Engineers, Sceaux, France.
Dr Brian Murphy has worked as a soil scientist for over 30 years with a strong focus on
applied soil science. He graduated in Agricultural Science from the University of Sydney in
1973, and obtained his Masters in 1986 and his PhD in 1999 for his work on soil structure
in cropping systems. As a practising soil scientist Dr Murphy has had a strong focus on the
application of soil science to urban land use, agriculture, carbon sequestration, hydrology
and salinity. He is an experienced pedologist (having produced several soil maps) and an
experienced researcher with numerous published scientific papers, and provides day-to-
day advice on the management of soils for a range of natural resource issues. He has also
been an editor of a successful, widely used textbook on the characterisation and manage-
ment of soils.
ix
Preface
The first edition of this text, titled What do all the Numbers Mean?, was written specifi-
cally for officers in the then Soil Conservation Service of NSW. These advisory officers
were expected to interpret and provide advice on a wide variety of soil management issues
that occurred in their areas. There was no comprehensive text available that could help
them with that task. In the second edition, Interpreting Soil Test Results: What Do All the
Numbers Mean?, the data in the original publication was reviewed and revised and addi-
tional test results were included that were more wide-reaching than in the first edition.
The text became, therefore, useful for a wider range of professionals from agriculturists to
engineers, highlighting the large volume and diversity of information needed by all profes-
sionals who endeavour to provide advice on natural resource management. In this third
edition the previous data has been revised and additional information has been included.
The interpretations and values in this text provide a general background on the type of
soil tests available and how the results from these tests may be interpreted. They are not
intended for specific advice on particular problems or issues. A reading list has been
included for those professionals who need further clarification when working in specific
subject areas.
Disclaimer
The interpretations of soil test results in this book are to be used as a general guide only.
They are not to be used in relation to any specific site. An individual site can only be
assessed following investigation and interpretation of the soil tests relating to that site. The
State of New South Wales, the NSW Department of Natural Resources and the University
of Technology Sydney, and their employees, officers, agents or servants, are not responsible
for the result of any actions taken on the basis of the information in this book, nor for any
errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this book. The State of New South Wales, the NSW
Department of Natural Resources and the University of Technology Sydney, and their
employees, officers, agents or servants, expressly disclaim all and any liability and respon-
sibility to any person in respect of anything and of the consequences of anything done or
omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the
information in this book.
xi
Acknowledgments
The editors wish to thank: Dr Greg Bowman for proof-reading and helpful comments,
Dr Peter Bacon (Woodlots and Wetlands Pty Ltd), Chris Conoley (Environmental and
Earth Sciences), John Lawrie, Simon Leake (SELS Australia), Dr David McKenzie
(McKenzie Soil Management Pty Ltd) and Mark Stuckey (Environmental and Earth
Sciences) for their contributions and interest in the revision of this third edition.
xii
Introduction
Soils are a valuable resource and a critical component in many of the environmental and
economic issues facing society today. Understanding soil properties and soil behaviour
and interpreting soil data are especially relevant for many environmental and land manage-
ment issues facing the community. These issues include urban development, control of
salinity, clearing of native vegetation, prevention of land degradation, control of water and
wind erosion, irrigation development, the management of effluent disposal, contamina-
tion and the management of acid sulfate soils.
Soil science, a specialised field, can be complex. When writing or examining land
assessment or environment reports, it is often difficult and time-consuming to find inter-
pretation of the soil data. These guidelines were compiled to assist in overcoming this
problem and are designed for workers in all categories of land use management. The infor-
mation in this book was collated from a wide range of reference material.
The interpretations and values provided in this text are not intended for specific advice
on particular problems or issues, but provide a general background on the soil tests available
and how the results from these tests maybe interpreted. The information provided in this
text is not intended to be used as a replacement for specific professional advice.
xiii
1
Soil sampling issues: aspects of design

and implementation of soil investigations
1.1 The fundamental problem of sampling to test soils

A fundamental reality facing soil testing is that the amount of soil in 1 ha of soil to a
depth of 10 cm is 1400 tonnes. A 50 ha paddock can have 70 000 tonnes of soil to 10 cm.
For a soil test, as little as 0.5 g or 1.0 g of soil may be tested in the laboratory (Price 2006).
Therefore it is essential that every effort is made and precaution is taken to ensure that the
small amount of soil that is tested is representative of the 70 000 tonnes of soil in the
paddock or assessment area. If adequate procedures are undertaken, this can usually be
done (Price 2006).
To characterise soils at a site, a suitable sampling design is required. Sampling design
depends on the:
● landscape or location from which samples are being taken;
● purpose for which samples are being taken;
● resources available to take and test the samples.
The basic questions to be considered are:
● When is the best time to sample?
● Where should the soil be sampled?
● How many samples are required?
● What spatial pattern should be used to take the samples?
● What depths should be sampled?
For general sampling purposes, the basis for making these decisions is discussed in
Petersen and Calvin (1986), Beattie and Gunn (1988), Rayment and Higginson (1992),
McBratney (1993), Brown (1999), Price (2006), NEPC (2013a), McKenzie et al. (2008).
Another difficulty in sampling is the problem of temporal variability, where results for
samples or measurements taken at one time may be different from results for samples or
measurements taken at another time. Some obvious examples are:
● measuring infiltration in a tilled paddock – the infiltration is much higher before
rainfall compacts the soil and crusts the surface;
● measuring salinity on a site after a large rainfall event – the soil solution may be
diluted, compared with the solution measured after a dry period;
● sampling soils immediately after addition of fertiliser or soil ameliorants such as
lime or gypsum;
● sampling soils in paddocks in which sheep and cattle graze, resulting in change in
nutrients over time.
1
2 Interpreting Soil Test Results
These difficulties need to be considered when sampling soils or making measurements

on soils and in interpreting the results of any tests carried out. Sampling through time is
required, or, alternatively, the conditions when measurements are made or samples are
taken should be standardised (or at least recorded).
When interpreting soil test results it is necessary to consider the origin and nature of
the samples of soil being taken and the purpose for which interpretations are being made.
For example, often a soil sample that is sent for analysis can include a relatively large
volume of soil of 1 kg size or larger. Such a sample includes a large range of soil materials
on the scale of a plant root. A plant root is often of the order of 1 mm in size or less. There
may be microenvironments within the soil that have quite different chemical and physical
properties from the bulked soil property measured during analyses. Hence plant root
behaviour or plant growth may not always directly reflect the soil properties measured by
a large sample. A typical example of this is the comparison of the dispersion behaviour of
small aggregates (often 5–10 mm) to the bulk soil properties of exchangeable sodium per-
centage. At the microscale of soil structural units there may be considerable variation in
exchangeable sodium percentage and dispersion behaviour. This microvariation can be
masked by the measurement of bulked soil properties. This emphasises the need for
adequate sampling of soils and the risks of relying on a single sample to make
recommendations.
1.2 Purposes of soil sampling

Soils at a site are sampled and tested for a wide variety of reasons including:
● diagnosis of soil constraints for agricultural production, often in a specific paddock
for a specific crop;
● diagnosis of plant nutrition problems and formulation of fertiliser and soil amelio-
ration programs;
● monitoring changes or trends in soil chemical properties including pH, aluminium
levels, nutrients, salinity and soil organic carbon concentrations;
● soil testing for engineering and soil stabilisation purposes before the construction
of buildings and infrastructure;
● testing of soils for the occurrence of contamination and identification of the type
and concentration of contamination;
● estimation of soil carbon stocks for the purpose of determination of potential
carbon credits;
● characterisation of soils for mapping and the identification of general soil proper-
ties for natural resource management and assessment of land and soil capability and
suitability.
Each of these circumstances can result in a different set of requirements for a sampling
pattern, intensity of sampling, and accuracy and degree of confidence expected in the
results from the soil testing program. The sampling program can include the following
fundamental patterns (NSW EPA 1995a; Laslett and McBratney 1995; Brown 1999;
McKenzie et al. 2008; NEPC 2013a):
● judgemental – selection of sample sites is based on prior knowledge of the site and
professional judgement. There is a risk that sampling using this method can be
1 – Soil sampling issues: aspects of design and implementation of soil investigations 3
subject to bias, even if unintentional, reducing the confidence in any statistical

analysis using these results. However, it can be a very efficient method for sampling
and minimising costs of analysis. Much depends on the experience and knowledge
of the person taking the samples. This can be most useful in preliminary and
exploratory investigations;
● systematic – selection of sample sites is based on regularly spaced sites on a grid or
transect. Various patterns of transects may be used including:
➤ zig-zag patterns or herringbone patterns which can ensure adequate spatial
coverage of the target area and minimise the likelihood of ‘hot spots’. The inten-
sity of sampling depends on the purpose of the sampling. For example, to obtain
an estimate of the need for liming on a paddock, the sampling intensity needs to
be sufficient to obtain an overall estimate of the soil pH. In investigating poten-
tial soil contamination, the sampling intensity must ensure that any ‘hotspots’
are detected;
➤ series of transects within a paddock or assessment area;
➤ transects are based on strata defined as;
● stratified – the assessment area is separated into non-overlapping sub-areas or strata
from which a planned number of samples are taken. Within the strata, the sampling
locations are often chosen at random to give a stratified random sampling pattern.
The strata are sometimes chosen so that the area within the strata may have some
degree of uniformity. Alternatively, the strata may be derived by simply dividing the
assessment area into equal area strata (Brus et al. 1999).
If it is desirable to undertake statistical analysis on the samples, it is necessary that
there is a randomised element to the selection of the sampling sites (Laslett and McBratney
1995; McKenzie et al. 2008).
Once collected, samples for nutrient analyses may be bulked to give a composite sample.
Generally, bulking should be done only when the samples come from a relatively uniform
area, or what is thought to be a relatively uniform area. Petersen and Calvin (1986), Tiller
(1992), McBratney (1993) and Laslett and McBratney (1995) discuss the limitations of
bulking samples and the recommended procedures to follow. Brown (1999) provides the
following guidelines for bulking:
● the population of soil samples to be bulked are from a uniform population, i.e. all
the subsamples are taken from a uniform part of the assessment area. The subsam-
ples do not come from, say, a creek flat and also a hilltop, or from parts of a paddock
with different soil types;
● uniform amounts from each subsample contribute to the composite sample
analysed;
● standard sampling depth and equipment are used for each subsample contributing
to the composite sample;
● no interactions occur that would affect the results;
● the only objective is to obtain a single, unbiased mean value of the soil property
being analysed.
Bulking can be a helpful and cost-saving method of obtaining useful information
on soil properties across a large area, but needs to be used carefully to ensure reliable
results.
1.3 Specialised sampling methodologies for soils

When soils are to be tested for specific purposes or specific problems, often it is necessary
to use specialised sampling methodologies. For example, specialised sampling methodolo-
gies are required for the following:
● for best practice sampling procedures for acid sulfate soil refer to Dear et al. (2014);
● sampling soils for contaminated sites need to follow guidelines set out in standard
procedures (see NSW EPA 1995a; Ministry for the Environment 2010; NEPC 2013a;
Murphy and Hazelton 2014);
● in sampling soils to estimate soil carbon stocks to determine carbon credits there
are set guidelines (Department of Environment 2014a,b; Chappell et al. 2013;
Murphy et al. 2013);
● protocols for the identification of biophysical strategic agricultural land for planning
purposes in NSW require specific guidelines to be followed, as set out in the pub-
lished document (NSW Government 2013);
● sampling soils for rapidly metabolised chemical species such as nitrate (NO3–) (see
Peverill et al. 1999).
1.4 Statistical requirements for sampling

Sampling soils for many purposes requires that statistically based inferences be made from
the data produced from the sampling and analysis (Brus et al. 1999; McKenzie et al. 2008;
NEPC 2013a; Department of Environment 2014a,b; Chappell et al. 2013). In these cir-
cumstances, it is essential that the sampling program meets the basic guidelines of:
● effective spatial coverage of the area to be investigated (Brus et al. 1999);
● the selection of sampling sites is randomised in some way to ensure that standard
statistical procedures can be applied to the data and results. The sampling patterns
may be completely randomised or a stratified randomisation pattern be used, but
the selection of sites must be randomly selected in some way. The operator cannot
subjectively select the site in the field. The object is to avoid bias in the selection of
sampling sites, even if unintentional;
● if the sampling program has effective spatial coverage and is randomly based, valid
values of the mean, variance, standard deviation, standard errors and confidence
intervals for the results can be estimated (Henderson et al. 2008).
1.5 Sampling for soil mapping

1.5.1 The number of samples required to produce a soil map
The number of samples or ground observations needed to produce a soil map or to under-
take an investigation will vary with the local characteristics of the site. Factors that influ-
ence the number of samples required include:
● geology;
● landform;
● land use history;

● purpose for which the investigation is carried out.
There are general guidelines on the number of samples required to produce a reliable
map (Reid 1988; Schoknecht et al. 2008; Chapman and Atkinson 2007). It should be
remembered that these are general guidelines and their applicability will be influenced by
the factors outlined in this chapter. The number of samples required is usually expressed
as the number of samples or observations per cm2 of the map.
Table 1.1 is a general guide to the minimum number of samples required for 1 ha or
1 km2 of land at different map scales. These can be converted to a sampling intensity of
observations or samples per ha or per km2 (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2). When developing a soil
map, different types of soil observations are made with different levels of information and
rigour (DLWC 2000; Schoknecht et al. 2008) (see Table 1.3). For soil mapping, some
observations can be quite brief and will collect minimum data, but other observations are
rigorous, collecting the maximum amount of soil information including obtaining samples
for laboratory analysis. The proportion of different kinds of observations will vary with
the scale of mapping and the purpose for developing the soil map.
The relationship between soil survey effort and map scale has been derived by Dent
and Young (1981), and Gunn et al. (1988) estimates the effort required in days in the field
to develop a soil map at different scales (Table 1.4). The estimates by Schoknecht et al.
(2008), a more recent reference, are substantially less. These more recent estimates possibly
take account of modern methods of soil survey using remote sensing and geographic
information systems. The actual effort will vary depending on such factors as existing
information, the complexity and predictability of the soil patterns and difficulties of
access. These estimates also do not consider the purpose for which a soil map is being
developed. They are intended to indicate the effort required for a detailed soil map at the
appropriate scale and thus represent a maximum value. Therefore, these are only broad
guidelines.
Table 1.1. Number of observations recommended for a published soil map given in number per km2
(1000 m × 1000 m) unless otherwise specified
Minimum
Recommended range acceptable range
At density of At density of At density of
1 observation 0.5 observations 0.25 observations
Scale per cm2 of map per cm2 of map per cm2 of map
1:5000 4/ha 2/ha 1/ha
1:10 000 1/ha 0.50/ha 0.25/ha
1:25 000 16 8 4
1:50 000 4 2 1
1:100 000 1 0.5 0.25
1:250 000 0.16 0.08 0.04
1:500 000 0.04 0.02 0.01
Source: Reid (1988) and see Schoknecht et al. (2008).
Table 1.2. Soil map types based on scale and sampling intensity
Intensity Sampling
level Description Scale density Purpose
Very high Intensive 1:2500 >4 per ha Site planning,
engineering, precision
agriculture
High Intensive 1:10 000 0.8–4 per ha Intensive agriculture,
urban land, engineering
works
Moderately Detailed 1:25 000 4–20 per km2 Field/paddock scale
high planning, detailed project
planning
Moderate Detailed 1:50 000 1–5 per km2 Farm level planning,
district level planning
Low Semi-detailed 1:100 000 0.25–1 per km2 Extensive land use,
project feasibility, district
level planning, land
inventory
Very low Reconnaissance 1:250 000 <1 per km2 National land inventory,
regional planning,
extensive land use
Source: Adapted from Rossiter (2000) and Gallant et al. (2008).
Table 1.3. Recommended intensities of investigation based on map scale

Area
shown Site and full Profiles with
by 1 cm2 Typical land Site and soil soil profile laboratory
Scale of map use types observations descriptions analyses
1:100 000 100 ha = Land capability 0.5–1.0 per km2 0.1–0.2 per km2 0.2–1.0 per
1 km2 and planning/ 25 km2
identifying
areas of major
soil limitations
1:50 000 25 ha Land capability 2–4 per km2 0.5–1.0 per km2 0.04–
and planning/ 0.20 per km2
identifying
areas of major
soil limitations
1:25 000 6.25 ha Agriculture/ 6–18 per km2 1.5–3.0 per km2 0.1–
broad-scale 0.5 per km2
planning
1:10 000 1.0 ha Intensive 0.5–1.0 per km2 10–20 per km2 0.5–
agriculture/low 4.0 per km2
intensity urban
1:5000 0.25 ha Intensive 2–4 per ha 0.5–1.0 per ha 0.04–
agriculture/ 0.20 per ha
moderately
intensive urban
1:1000 100 m2 Intensive 50–100 per ha 10–20 per ha 0.5–4 per ha
agriculture and
urban
development
Source: DLWC (2000).
Table 1.4. Soil survey effort as minimum number of days in the field for different scales
Time taken to develop map
Man field days for a
Scale and source Man field days/km2 100 km × 100 km region
1:10 000 detailed mapping
Dent and Young (1981) 13.5 135 000
Gunn et al. (1988) 13.5 135 000
Schoknecht et al. (2008) 2.5 25 000
1:25 000 semi-detailed mapping
Dent and Young (1981) 3.2 32 000
Gunn et al. (1988) 3.2 32 000
Schoknecht et al. (2008) 0.48 4800
1:50 000 semi-detailed mapping
Dent and Young (1981) 1.1 11 000
Gunn et al. (1988) 1.078 10 800
1:250 000 reconnaissance mapping
Dent and Young (1981) 0.1 1000
Gunn et al. (1988) 0.086 860
1:500 000 reconnaissance/overview
Dent and Young (1981) na na
Gunn et al. (1988) 0.029 290
1.5.2 Sampling density and frequency for mapping acid sulfate soil
The number of soil sampling locations required will depend on the nature, depth and
size of the disturbance proposed. Determination of the sampling strategy will depend on
the future land use and development stages (DSE 2010; Tulau 2007; Dear et al. 2014).
The number of sampling points needs to be sufficient to generate a detailed map of soil
net acidity and stratigraphy at a better than 1:10 000 scale, which is considered adequate to
accurately and efficiently plan engineering works and manage the disturbance of acid
sulfate soil (DSE 2010; Tulau 2007; Dear et al. 2014).
1.5.3 Use of technology in soil mapping: digital soil mapping

Soil mapping can be achieved using computer technology and remotely sensed data
such as digital elevation models, satellite imagery and radiometric data. This data is
often used to predict the spatial distribution of individual soil properties (McBratney
et al. 2003; Minasny and McBratney 2016) and has been used to develop a global soil
map of individual soil properties (Arrouays et al. 2014; Grundy et al. 2015). Digital
soil mapping can develop outcomes more rapidly than conventional mapping methods
but the quality and reliability of the outputs for a specific area are dependent on the
availability of data.
1.6 Assessment of soil health, soil quality, soil condition or soil

capability
In some circumstances it may be desirable to assess the overall soil health, soil quality, soil
condition or soil capability. Several schemes provide a list of soil properties to be used in
the assessment of the overall quality or condition of soils. These can also relate to soil
security (McBratney et al. 2014) or land and soil capability (OEH 2012) but several
schemes also use specific sets of soil properties to assess soil quality. Numerous systems of
assessing soil health/soil quality/soil condition are available (Karlen et al. 2003; MacEwan
2007). These include those of Crawford et al. (2015) for tilled soils and more generally
Palm et al. (2007) to assess the capacity of soil to provide ecosystem services and Sanchez
et al. (2003) for the fertility of tropical soils. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
(OEH 2012) also has a list of land and soil attributes that are used to assess the land and
soil capability at a site.
1.7 Investigations for landscape design and development:

some guidelines
Landscape design and development is undertaken where there is substantial site distur-
bance or land requires rehabilitation for stabilisation. The soils formed in landscape design
are anthropic or man-made soils:
Landscape soil is an anthropic soil profile that is modified from a natural ‘in situ’ soil
or manufactured and installed using artificial components for the purpose of
sustaining vegetation chosen for landscape design or land rehabilitation (Leake and
Haege 2014).
Clear specifications are needed for the most common types of soil investigations, soil
reconstruction processes and constructed soil specifications used in landscape design
projects. Soil management guidelines also need to be established for the implementation of
the design and its long-term success. These specifications and guidelines are summarised
in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5. Common soil types and construction management used in landscape design projects
Specification
(number and title) Description Application
Part I The use of soil survey in land Where site soil is present
Site investigation/ development projects
analysis
Part II Specifications for soil stripping Where site topsoil and/or subsoil
Preparatory works and stockpiling and preparation is available
of subsoils and subgrades
Part III A list of 13 landscaping soils and Target values for soil preparation
Performance their target ‘performance’
specifications specifications
Table 1.5. (Continued)
Specification
(number and title) Description Application
C Soils for turf and lawns Example of landscape
C1 Passive amenity turf Low-level commercial and Residential lawn, low-use park
domestic turfing grass
C2 Active high-traffic Moderate public open space and General parks and general sports
turf high-traffic turfed areas fields
C3 Sports field turf Moderate to high-traffic natural High-use sports fields and parks
turf sportsfields
D Soils for gardens and mass planting
D1 Mass planting soil Low-maintenance plantings and Roadside planting, naturalistic
environmental restoration revegetation
D2 Garden bed Soil properties for moderate- General garden beds
planting soil fertility perennial gardens
D3 Display bed soil High-fertility display, annual Vegetable garden beds, annual
bedding and vegetable soil displays
D4 Advanced tree and A two-layered topsoil/subsoil Trees in street verges and
vault soils system for planting of specimen medians, trees with restricted
trees in urbanised spaces root zones
E On slab media
E1 On slab soil media A Artificial soil media ‘topsoil’ in Topsoil for containers, pots,
horizon containers and on-slab rooftop and on-slab
E2 On slab soil media B Artificial soil media ‘subsoil’ in Subsoil for containers, pots,
horizon containers and on-slab rooftop and on-slab
E3 Low-density Artificial container soil media Rooftop or on-slab gardens and
container and roof where weight restrictions apply containers
F Specialist soils
F1 Structural support Modified CU Soil™* system of Under pavement or road in
soils (SSS) aggregate-based soil for tree built-up urban hard-surfaced
planting in hard-scapes areas
F2 Rain-gardens and Soil media for stormwater Planting in swale areas,
stormwater filtration filtration systems according to landscape filtration or rain-
soils the FAWB (2009) and derivatives garden landscapes
Part IV Compliance validation and
Validation certification quality control
specifications
* CU-Structural Soil™ (also known as CU-Soil™) developed at Cornell University as a way to safely bear pavement loads
after compaction yet still allow root penetration and vigorous tree growth. It was patented and trademarked under the
name CU-Soil™ to ensure quality control.
Note that with each of the specifications in Part III acidic or alkaline variants can be chosen to adapt the soil to the cho-
sen vegetation type. For the garden and container soils, a low P variant can be chosen for planting schemes containing
phosphorus-sensitive plants.
Source: After Leake and Haege (2014, ch. 6); FAWB (2009).
Another major consideration for landscape designers and ecological planners is under-
standing the soil requirements of different vegetation types. Table 1.6 summarises the
most important soil properties that vegetation planners must consider when planning
revegetation or specifying soil types.
Table 1.6. Basic vegetation/soil preferences

Vegetation
characteristic Soil chemistry characteristics Notable plant family/genera
Iron-inefficient Acid soil generally pH 5.2–6.5, Thecacea (Camellia)
(acid-loving) plants some plants are tolerant of pHs Ericaceae (Azalea, Rhododendron)
prone to Fe and Mn <5.2 Rutacea (Citrus, Murraya,
deficiency in neutral Boronia), Gardenia
to alkaline soils
Iron-efficient Neutral to alkaline soil pH 7.0–8.7 Many Fabaceae
(alkali tolerant) Geraniaceae
Some Mimosaceae
Some Myrtaceae
Vitaceae
Oleacea
Phosphorus- Low to very low total and available Proteacea (most Banksia, all
sensitive plants phosphorus levels Grevillea, all Hakea)
Very sensitive <50 mg/kg TP Some Fabaceae
Sensitive 50–150 mg/kg TP Some Mimosaceae
Sometimes iron-inefficient as well Some Rutaceae
Source: After Leake and Haege (2014).
2
Soil physical properties
Soil physical fertility or soil structure can have as large an impact on plant growth as
chemical fertility, as well as on the capability of the soil to resist degradation from proc-
esses such as compaction, surface sealing and erosion under land management. Several
suggested critical values for soil physical properties are presented in this section, but
further discussion of soil physical fertility and soil structure is presented in Cass (1999)
and Geeves et al. (2007a)
2.1 Particle size distribution

2.1.1 Relationship between field texture and particle size
Particle size distribution describes the relative amounts of gravel, sand, silt and clay-sized
particles within the soil. These are the building blocks for the soil and can have a large
effect on the soil properties. The sizes of the particles and their surface areas are given in
Table 2.1. Clays have a high surface area of 5–750 m2/gm depending on clay type, and can
have a high chemical and physical activity. Sands have much smaller surface area (0.01–
0.10 m2/gm) and are less chemically and physically active (McKenzie et al. 2004).
A guide to the general abundance of the different particle sizes in soils is given in
Table 2.2.
Field texture is a commonly used soil property that provides an assessment of the
relative amounts of particle sizes in a soil. The field texture of a soil reflects the dominant
particle sizes in the soil (see Table 2.3). A procedure for determining the field texture of a
soil is provided in Appendix 1. There is an approximate relationship between field texture
and particle size distribution, as shown in the soil texture triangle (see Fig. 2.1).
Table 2.1. Particle size of different soil components and the estimated surface areas
Particle Size (mm) Size (µm) (10 −6 m) Likely surface area m2/gm*
Clay <0.002 2 5–750
Silt 0.002–0.02 2–20 1.0
Fine sand 0.02–0.2 20–200 0.1
Coarse sand 0.2–2 200–2000 0.01
Fine gravel 2–6 2000–6000 <0.01
Coarse gravel >6 >6000 <<0.01
This particle size scale is equivalent to the International Scale for particle size description.
Note that in the US system, silt is defined as 0.02–0.05 mm and fine sand as 0.05–0.20 mm.
* Data from McKenzie et al. (2004).
11
Table 2.2. General abundance of different particle size
Percentage of particle (e.g. clay, sand or silt) Description of size fraction or particle in soil
<10 Very low
10–25 Low
25–40 Moderate
40–50 High
>50 Very high
Examples: <10% clay = very low level of clay; >50% silt = very high level of silt.
100
Key
symbol Texture
90
C Clay
S Sand
80 Z Silt
L Loam
ZC Silty clay
70 ZCL Silty clay loam
ZL Silty loam
CL Clay loam
60 LS Loamy sand
SC Sandy clay
Clay (%)
C SCL Sandy clay loam

50 ZC SL Sandy loam
40 SC
ZCL
30 CL
SCL
20
L
ZL SL
10
LS
S
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sand (%)
Figure 2.1. Soil texture triangle (adapted from University of Sydney 1991). This triangle is
effectively equivalent to that in McDonald et al. (1994) but is easier to use because there are only
two variables. This simplification is possible because clay + silt + sand always add to 100%. For
example, 20% clay and 67% sand will give a loam texture. The textures based on this triangle
approximate those in McDonald et al. (1994).
To estimate field texture grade from laboratory measurements:
Step 1. Add fine and coarse sand fraction.
Step 2. Construct a line at right angles to % sand line (% sand).
Step 3. Construct a line at right angles to % clay line (% clay).
Step 4. The point where the lines intersect gives the approximate texture group.
2 – Soil physical properties 13
There are several interpretations of the relationship between field texture and estimated
clay content. An interpretation suggested by Northcote (1979) is shown in Table 2.3 and a
more recent one suggested by McDonald et al. (1994) is shown in Table 2.4. Where sand is
recorded in a texture the dominant sand size is defined as ‘fine’ when it is in the size range
0.02–0.20 mm, or ‘coarse’ when it is in the size range 0.2–2.0 mm. Coarse sand grains are
visible with the naked eye in the soil sample. Fine sand is not visible with the naked eye
and its presence is detected by feel and a grinding sound when texturing the soil.
Table 2.3. Estimated contents of different soil components based on field texture
Texture group Texture grade Estimated clay content (%)
1. Sands Sand <10 and commonly <5
Loamy sand 5–10
Clayey sand 5–10
2. Sandy loams Sandy loam 10–15
Fine sandy loam 10–20
Light sandy clay loam 15–20
3. Loams Loam ~25
Fine sandy loam ~25
Silt loam ~25, with >25% silt
Sandy clay loam 20–30
4. Clay loams Clay loam 30–35
Silty clay loam 30–35, with >25% silt
Fine sandy clay loam 30–35
5. Light clays Sandy clay 35–40
Silty clay 35–40, with >25% silt
Light clay 35–40
Light medium clay 40–45
6. Medium–heavy clays Medium clay 45–55
Heavy clay >50
Source: Northcote (1979).
Table 2.4. Estimated contents of different soil components based on field texture
Texture grade Estimated clay content (%)
Sand Commonly <5
Loamy sand ~5
Clayey sand 5–10
Sandy loam 10–20
Loam ~25
Silty loam ~25, with >25% silt
Sandy clay loam 20–30
Clay loam 30–35
Clay loam, sandy 30–35
Silty clay loam 30–35%, with >25% silt
Light clay 35–40
Light medium clay 40–45
Medium clay 45–55
Medium–heavy clay >50
Heavy clay >50
Source: McDonald et al. (1994).
2.1.2 Particle size range in the Unified Soil Classification System

In the assessment of soils for engineering purposes, the Unified Soil Classification Scheme
(USCS) uses a different particle size range from those commonly used in soil science
(Hicks 2007). The size 0.074 is considered a critical size for the USCS, as particles with a
diameter <0.074 mm are considered fines for engineering purposes. The USCS range defi-
nitions are:
● fines (silts and clays) ≤0.074 mm;
● fine sand >0.074–0.42 mm;
● medium sand >0.42–2.00 mm;
● coarse sand >2.00–4.76 mm;
● fine gravel >4.76–20 mm;
● coarse gravel >20–75 mm.
2.1.3 Key references

Northcote (1979); McDonald et al. (1994); Cass (1999); Geeves et al. (2007a); Hicks (2007).
2.2 Water-holding properties of soils

2.2.1 Definitions and units
Gravimetric moisture content

Moisture is expressed as weight of water per weight of oven dry soil, usually as g/g (θg) or
as g water per 100 g of oven dry soil (%). The equation to describe this is:
θg = mass of water / mass of oven dry soil..................Eqn 2.1
Volumetric moisture content

Moisture is expressed as the volume of water per total volume of soil (θv). The equation to
describe this is:
θv = volume of water / total volume of soil......................Eqn 2.2
where:
Volume of water = mass of water × density of water = mass of water × 1.00
Density of water = 1.00 g/cm3 between 0 °C and 32 °C and 0.99 g/cm3 between 32 °C
and 40 °C.
Total volume of soil = volume of air-filled pores + volume of water + volume of soil
solids..........Eqn 2.3
This converts to depth of water per depth of soil for a unit area. It can be expressed as
centimetre of water per centimetre of soil or, more conveniently, millimetres of water per
centimetre of soil, or millimetres of water per metre of soil. Hence a volumetric moisture
content of 0.30 cm3 per cm3 of soil is equivalent to 3 mm of water depth per cm of soil over
an area of 1 cm2. This converts to 30 mm of water over a depth of 10 cm or is equivalent to
0.3 ML of water over 1 hectare. 1 ML will cover 1 hectare to a depth of 10 cm.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of H.P. Lovecraft,
an evaluation
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: H.P. Lovecraft, an evaluation
Author: Joseph Payne Brennan
Release date: November 1, 2023 [eBook #72004]
Language: English
Original publication: New Haven, CT: Macabre House, 1955
Credits: Bob Taylor, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from images made available by the HathiTrust
Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK H.P.

LOVECRAFT, AN EVALUATION ***
H. P. LOVECRAFT, AN
EVALUATION
by
Joseph Payne Brennan
Copyright 1955
by
Joseph Payne Brennan
MACABRE HOUSE
55 Trumbull St.
New Haven 10
Connecticut
Since the publication of my “H. P. Lovecraft: A Bibliography” (Biblio
Press, 1952), I have been repeatedly urged to write out my opinion
of Lovecraft’s work. I have been kept from doing so by the pressure
of a full-time library job, plus my own creative work in the diverse
fields of the horror story, the western story, and poetry, as well as the
semi-annual publication of ESSENCE and other time-consuming
activities such as an unending struggle against censorship groups
which are violating Constitutional rights on both a local and national
level.
The following brief essay is an admittedly hurried and incomplete
attempt to meet demands for a Lovecraft critique. An entire book,
requiring many months of uninterrupted work, could be devoted to
the project and I sincerely regret that circumstances do not permit
me to undertake such a task. But I hope that my comments, in spite
of their brevity, will be of some interest.
Nearly twenty years have passed since Lovecraft’s death, but,
unfortunately, a final evaluation of the man and of his work is still not
possible. His collected poems, though due to appear shortly, have
not yet been published. His letters, either selected or collected, have
not appeared. Probably some of the pieces which he contributed
under pseudonyms to “little” magazines have never been reprinted.
And of course no complete and carefully written biography of the
man has ever been published.
With the important exception of the poems and letters however, all
of Lovecraft’s work of any significance has been in print for some
years. It seems doubtful, therefore, that an evaluation of his work, at
this time, will be seriously qualified by future publication.
In his essay on Lovecraft, “Tales of the Marvellous and the
Ridiculous”, which originally appeared in “The New Yorker” and was
later reprinted in his book, “Classics and Commercials”, Edmund
Wilson states flatly: “Lovecraft was not a good writer.” (Before
Lovecraft admirers reach for their shotguns, I might point out that
Edmund Wilson also refers to no less a literary figure than Somerset
Maugham as “second-rate” and “a half-trashy novelist.”) Even
though his criticism is far too severe—too much of a generalization—
Wilson does call attention to two Lovecraft faults which I must
reluctantly acknowledge: his frequent prolixity and his tendency to
lean on shopworn adjectives such as “terrible”, “horrible”, “hellish”,
etc. to achieve eerie effects. In a good horror story, adjectives such
as this are best omitted or at least introduced very sparingly. Beyond
these criticisms, Wilson emphasizes the essential weakness and
lack of verisimilitude of the “Cthulhu Mythos” episodes. With this, too,
I must grudgingly agree. And at this point I would like to call attention
to the fact that the two specific faults mentioned immediately above
—prolixity and adjectivitus—are more frequently encountered in the
“Mythos” stories than in any others.
The “Cthulhu Mythos” has raised a great commotion. Over a
period of years, enthusiastic collaborators, imitators, friends and
admirers have elevated the Cthulhu myth to a pedestal of
importance which it scarcely deserves. The “Mythos” did indeed
become the frame for Lovecraft’s later tales, but they were not his
best tales. Lovecraft also amused himself by employing Cthulhu
terminology in some of his huge correspondence, but it now seems
doubtful that he attached as much importance to the “Mythos” as do
some of his disciples!
Many of the Cthulhu stories, such as “The Dunwich Horror” and
“The Whisperer in Darkness”, are actually tedious. They are too
long; our interest is apt to flag; our “willing suspension of disbelief”
may not hold to the final page. All too often we read on without
compulsion, without belief, without very much actual enthusiasm.
Lovecraft often seems so intent on introducing and exploiting the
“Mythos”, he loses sight of some of the basic elements which are
essential in a good short story: economy of wordage, verisimilitude,
mounting suspense sweeping to a single climax followed quickly by
the final denouement.
Referring to the “Mythos”, Edmund Wilson concluded: “It is all
more amusing in his letters than it is in the stories themselves.” Of
course it was not intended to be amusing in the stories, but I think
Wilson’s meaning is clear.
When it still possessed the freshness of novelty, the Cthulhu
Mythology afforded a vast amount of entertainment. But with the
passage of time the novelty has evaporated and the myth has
become threadbare. Lovecraft used it in story after story and his
disciples have exploited it since his death and it now seems wrung
nearly dry of interesting effects.
It remains, of course, an integral part of the bulk of Lovecraft’s
work. To attempt to dismiss it as incidental or unimportant would be
to close our eyes to the facts.
In my opinion however, Lovecraft’s future reputation as a writer of
fine horror stories will rest on a very few of his early tales in which
the Cthulhu Mythos is either entirely absent or at most still in its
formative stages in Lovecraft’s own mind. These early stories which I
mean to mention were published prior to the appearance of the first
generally accepted “Mythos” story: “The Call of Cthulhu” (WEIRD
TALES, February, 1928)
These stories are: “The Hound” (WEIRD TALES, February, 1924);
“The Rats in the Walls” (WEIRD TALES, March, 1924); “The Music of
Erich Zann” (WEIRD TALES, May, 1925); “The Outsider” (WEIRD
TALES, April, 1926); “Pickman’s Model” (WEIRD TALES, October,
1927)
Of these I think the best of all is “The Music of Erich Zann.” This
piece, which might have been written by Poe, has everything which
many of the “Mythos” tales lack: compression, sustained and rising
suspense culminating in a powerfully effective climax followed
almost immediately by the end of the story. Stylistically and
structurally, I think Lovecraft never surpassed it. I think it probable
that the old German mute will go on sawing his accursed viol in that
ghoul-infested garret long after great Cthulhu has lapsed into
silence! This story, like Poe’s masterpiece, “The Cask of
Amontillado”, seems literally above criticism. There are no wasted
words. The brief story unfolds with a remorseless inevitability.
Nothing could be omitted, nothing added, nothing changed which
would improve its quality. In its particular genre it remains a pure
masterpiece.
After “The Music of Erich Zann”, I would cite “The Rats in the
Walls.” Actually, I very nearly voted it first place because it achieves
a pitch of sheer grisly horror which exceeds the taut terror of “The
Music of Erich Zann.” On the other hand, it does not possess quite
the same degree of purity and compression. But it is a masterpiece
of its type, and again I can think of no Lovecraft story after “The
Music of Erich Zann” which equals it. As a matter of fact, one almost
feels that Lovecraft has gone too far in this particular story.
Something inside one rebels as the ghastly eldrich grottos reveal
their loathsome secrets. Perhaps it is simply that one instinctively
refuses to believe that homo sapiens could ever descend to such a
hellish sub-level. But this is a philosophical comment, not a criticism
of the story.
“The Rats in the Walls” begins in the somewhat leisurely manner
which has come to be associated with rather old-fashioned gothic
ghost stories, and for some little time nothing really hair-raising
happens. But once the full horror comes to light, it simply
overwhelms us. We see at once that the leisurely start was intended
to lull us a little. Certainly it kept us interested enough to continue,
and we did perhaps expect some pretty formidable horrors—but
nothing like what we finally encounter! For sheer inhuman horror
those twilit grottos under the evil foundations of Exham Priory have
yet to be surpassed.
In his introduction to “Best Supernatural Stories of H. P. Lovecraft”,
August Derleth states: “It has been said of “The Outsider” that if the
manuscript had been put forward as an unpublished tale by Edgar
Allan Poe, none would have challenged it.” Perhaps this is not
literally true, but I agree with the spirit of it. “The Outsider” is one of
Lovecraft’s finest stories. It possesses the merit of compression; with
rising intensity it achieves its single shuddery effect—and ends.
Some aspects of this story call to mind Poe’s “The Masque of the
Red Death”; both stories achieve their effects with a minimum of
wordage, both linger in the mind.
“Pickman’s Model” is one of Lovecraft’s strongest stories. It has
unity of effect, suspense, a highly original plot idea, and a climax
which neatly and forcefully ends the story. It is not quite as tightly knit
as “The Music of Erich Zann” or “The Outsider”, but it is still
Lovecraft writing at his top-level best. The “nameless blasphemy with
glaring red eyes” gnawing at a human head would probably feel at
home in one of those unspeakable grottos under the infamous walls
of Exham Priory!
I have mentioned Lovecraft’s “The Hound” because it has
remained in my mind after I first read it many years ago. Its structure
is somewhat slight and it does not have the power of Lovecraft’s very
best tales, but it has splendid atmosphere and, again, brevity and
unity of effect. It might have been written by the early Poe. But I cite
it primarily because it has lingered long in my mind.
The limitations of this little critique do not permit me to touch on
many other good Lovecraft stories. I have mentioned only five which
I think are the best. I am merely expressing a personal opinion—a
personal taste—and I am more than willing to admit of other opinions
—no matter how they may differ from my own. Time alone will decide
who is right!
I have not yet seen all of Lovecraft’s poetry, but I think I have seen
enough to comment briefly. Much of the poetry falls into two main
categories: deliberately archaic work imitative of eighteenth-century
verse, and a group of weird sonnets known as “Fungi from Yuggoth.”
The imitative verse is interesting and often competent, but I think the
“Fungi” sonnets are far more arresting and effective. A few of the
very best of them may survive.
Any criticism of Lovecraft’s work, no matter how brief, would be
incomplete if it omitted mention of his famous essay, “Supernatural
Horror in Literature.” Even Edmund Wilson concedes that the essay
is “a really able piece of work.” In my pamphlet, “H. P. Lovecraft: A
Bibliography”, I commented: “The background and evolution of the
horror tale—a “must” for anyone seriously interested in the genre.”
The comment still holds. Apart from the letters, I think it is probably
the finest piece of non-fiction which Lovecraft ever wrote.
Judging from the few letters and extracts from letters which are in
print, Lovecraft’s “Selected Letters” (or “Collected”) will definitely
enhance his reputation. It is probable that their publication will revive
and intensify interest in both the man and his work. Lovecraft’s
erudition, humor and style is such that it is even possible they will
eventually tend to eclipse his other work! At this point we can only
wait and see.
Lovecraft’s final place in American literature has not yet been
determined. It is too early for that. But it seems certain that the very
best of his work will endure, that it will remain important in the
particular field which he chose. If he did not reach the summits
attained by Poe, or Bierce, at his best he scaled some dizzy heights.
This is an edition of 75 copies.
This is copy number:
30
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK H.P.
LOVECRAFT, AN EVALUATION ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

Textbook Interpreting Soil Test Results What Do All The Numbers Mean 3Rd Edition Pam Hazelton Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Interpreting Soil Test Results What Do All The Numbers Mean 3Rd Edition Pam Hazelton Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpreting Soil Test Results What Do

All the Numbers Mean 3rd Edition Pam

What is a human? : what the answers mean for human

Social Work Evaluation: Enhancing What We Do 3rd

Where Do Numbers Come From T. W. Körner

Pam the Jam The Book of Preserves Pam Corbin

What Do We Know And What Should We Do About Internet

What Do Philosophers Do?: Skepticism and the Practice

Do Numbers Exist?: A Debate about Abstract Objects 1st

Partial solutions to Where do Numbers Come From Thomas

PAM HAZELTON PBC

AND BRIAN MURPHY

PAM HAZELTON AND BRIAN MURPHY

Drs Cameron Grant and Jock Churchman

1 Soil sampling issues: aspects of design and implementation

2 Soil physical properties 11

3 Soil properties and soil behaviour for engineering 41

4 Soil erodibility and erosion hazard 63

5 Soil chemical properties 73

6 Organic matter content of soils 125

7 Application of wastewater and waste materials 131

8 Soil contamination: some considerations 145

9 Units and conversions 155

10 General and technical suggested references 161

Soil sampling issues: aspects of design

1.1 The fundamental problem of sampling to test soils

These difficulties need to be considered when sampling soils or making measurements

1.2 Purposes of soil sampling

subject to bias, even if unintentional, reducing the confidence in any statistical

1.3 Specialised sampling methodologies for soils

1.4 Statistical requirements for sampling

1.5 Sampling for soil mapping

● land use history;

Table 1.3. Recommended intensities of investigation based on map scale

1.5.3 Use of technology in soil mapping: digital soil mapping

1.6 Assessment of soil health, soil quality, soil condition or soil

1.7 Investigations for landscape design and development:

Table 1.5. (Continued)

Table 1.6. Basic vegetation/soil preferences

Soil physical properties

2.1 Particle size distribution

Table 2.2. General abundance of different particle size

C SCL Sandy clay loam

2.1.2 Particle size range in the Unified Soil Classification System

2.1.3 Key references

2.2 Water-holding properties of soils

Gravimetric moisture content

Volumetric moisture content

Title: H.P. Lovecraft, an evaluation

Author: Joseph Payne Brennan

Release date: November 1, 2023 [eBook #72004]

Original publication: New Haven, CT: Macabre House, 1955

Credits: Bob Taylor, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK H.P.

Joseph Payne Brennan

This is an edition of 75 copies.

This is copy number:

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

START: FULL LICENSE

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: