Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Geoderma journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma
Classification and distribution of soils with lamellae in the USA J.G. Bockheim ⁎, A.E. Hartemink Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1299, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 3 January 2013 Received in revised form 1 April 2013 Accepted 14 April 2013 Available online 24 May 2013 Keywords: Argillic horizon Natric horizon Kandic horizon Alfisols Ultisols Argids
a b s t r a c t Lamellae are thin, often discontinuous layers of clay-enriched material that are associated with iron oxides and may occur in Alfisols, Ultisols, Mollisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, or Spodosols. Our analysis of the SSURGO database revealed that there are 118 soil series with lamellae that represent six orders, 14 suborders, and 25 great groups, and 25 subgroups. In Soil Taxonomy, lamellae are identified at the subgroup level, and a horizon is classified as lamellic if the combined thickness of the lamellae is less than 15 cm. Lamellae occur primarily in soils with a mixed mineral class (73%), a sandy or sandy-skeletal textural class (59%), a frigid or cryic soil-temperature regime (59%), and a udic or ustic soil-moisture regime (89%). The lamella (Bt horizon) most commonly has a loamy sand (33% of total pedons), loamy fine sand (33%), or sandy loam (29%) texture and is usually one soil textural class finer than the interlamellae areas. Differences in clay content between the interlamellae areas and Bt average over 5%. Two or more lamellae are common in soils with lamellae, and the thickness of a single lamella commonly ranges between 6 and 22 mm. The depth to the surface of the first lamella averages 72 cm; the maximum depth exceeds 155 cm. The pedogenic origin of lamellae involves clay movement (argilluviation), with clays bridging and coating sand grains and the eventual formation of micro-laminae in response to a varying wetting front. In the USA, soils with lamellae cover 3.6 million ha and occur in 30 states. Lamellae play a role in the flux of water and nutrients in the soil, and have been used as soil stratigraphic markers and relative-age indicators in archeological and soil geomorphological studies. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Soils in many parts of the world contain fine-textured pedogenic layers that have been referred to as “fibers”, “clay bands” (Berg, 1984), “texture bands” (Hannah and Zahner, 1970; Kemp and McIntosh, 1989), “illuvial bands” (Prusinkiewicz et al., 1998), “textural subsoil lamellae” (Dijkerman et al., 1967; Miles and Franzmeier, 1981), “illuvial clay lamellae” (Johnson et al., 2008), and “lamellae” (Holliday and Rawling, 2006; Schaetzl, 1992). The lamellae definition is used in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2010), where soils containing lamellae are distinguished at the subgroup level. In Soil Taxonomy, a lamella is an illuvial soil horizon less than 7.5 cm thick that “contains an accumulation of oriented silicate clay on or bridging sand and silt grains” (page 18). Lamellae play an important role in the flux and retention of water and nutrients, especially in coarsetextured soils and, therefore, on plant growth (Hannah and Zahner, 1970). Lamellae have been used as soil stratigraphic markers and relative-age indicators in archeological and soil geomorphological studies (Gile, 1979; Holliday and Rawling, 2006; Miles and Franzmeier, 1981). One of the first studies on lamellae in the USA was that of Folks and Riecken (1956) in sandy soils of Iowa. They discovered that the ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 608 263 5903; fax: +1 608 265 2595. E-mail address:
[email protected] (J.G. Bockheim). 0016-7061/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.04.014
lamellae were enriched in clay and Fe; and they were able to produce lamellae in the laboratory. Thorp et al. (1959) described ribbons of dark brown clay along joints in the C horizon of a Miami silt loam (Oxyaquic Hapludalfs) in Indiana. Lamellae have been studied elsewhere in the USA, including the outwash plains and dunes of Michigan (Dijkerman et al., 1967; Hannah and Zahner, 1970; Schaetzl, 1992, 2001; Wurman et al., 1959), sand dunes in Illinois (Berg, 1984) and Indiana (Miles and Franzmeier, 1981), and the southern high plains (Gile, 1979; Gray et al., 1976; Holliday and Rawling, 2006). In his review Rawling (2000) suggested that lamellae have (i) a pedologic origin (argilluviation, neoformation, frost migration), (ii) a geologic origin (depositional), or (iii) formed as a result of both pedologic and geologic processes. In this study, we use the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SSURGO database to (i) delineate the classes in which lamellic soils occur; (ii) determine the distribution of soils with lamella in the USA, and (iii) identify the relative importance of the soil-forming factors on the occurrence and development of lamellae.
2. Data sources A list of soil series containing lamellae was prepared using the “Soil Classification Database” (Soil Survey Division, 2012a) and “Official Soil Descriptions” (Soil Survey Division, 2012b) functions of the NRCS. Our
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100 Table 1 Characteristics of lamellae from Official Soil Descriptions. Property
Mean
St. error
Minimum lamella thickness (mm) Maximum lamella thickness (mm) Depth to uppermost lamella (cm) Depth to lowermost lamella (cm) Thickness of lamellic zone (cm) Number of lamellae Proportion of OSD reporting clay bridging (%) Proportion of OSD reporting coated sand grains (%)
6.5 22 72 155 83 8 39 25
0.82 1.8 3.9 6.1 4.0 0.87 – –
analysis focuses on the upper 160 cm, which is the standard NRCS depth of soil examination. A map of soil series containing lamellae was prepared using the July 5, 2006 version of the Digital General Soil Map of the U.S. published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. This dataset consists of general soil association units created by generalizing more detailed soil survey maps. Since the taxonomic nomenclature for a map unit is recorded at the component level and a map unit is typically composed of one or more components, aggregation is needed to reduce a set of component attribute values to a single value that will represent the map unit as a whole. For taxonomic order, suborder and great group distribution maps, data were aggregated to the map-unit level using the “dominantcomponent-aggregation” approach. This approach returns the attribute value associated with the component with the highest percent composition in the map unit, which may or may not represent the dominant condition throughout the map unit. For taxonomic subgroup distribution maps, data were aggregated to the map-unit level using the “presence method”; that is, if any component attribute matched the taxonomic subgroup of interest then that map unit would be shown on the map regardless of its map unit composition. We also examined case studies from the literature. These publications were used in conjunction with official soil series descriptions to prepare a table summarizing the role of soil-forming in distribution and development of soil lamellae. Primary soil characterization data were obtained from Soil Survey Division (2012c). It should be noted that soils other than those in lamellic subgroups may contain lamellae, such as those in Alfic, Argic, and Ultic subgroups. However, in these cases the lamellae are thick enough to be classified as argillic horizons. Statistical comparisons between the interlamellar E and lamellar Bt horizons were made using pairwise t-tests (Minitab Inc., 2000). 3. Results 3.1. Characteristics of soils with lamellae Official Soil Descriptions distinguish lamellae from an interlamellar horizon in several ways: (i) as “E and Bt” or “E & Bt” horizons, (ii) as
93
an E/Bt, or (iii) as being contained within a Bt horizon. The interlamellae zone is referred to as E horizon whereas the lamella is the Bt part of the E and Bt horizons. Based on data from 118 pedons, the average thickness of an individual lamella commonly varied from 6 to 22 mm (Table 1). The mean depth to the first lamella was found to be at 72 cm, and the mean depth to the lowermost lamella exceeds 155 cm, yielding an average thickness of over 83 cm for the lamellic zone. However, the total thickness of the lamellae was less than 15 cm as required for the soil to be classified as lamellic and not cambic or argillic. The number of lamellae normally in the upper 160 cm ranged from 1 to 16 and averaged 8. Lamellae may also occur at depth in excess of 160 cm. Lamellae were often continuous but may exist discontinuously as segments; they may have wavy, irregular, or broken boundaries. In Figs. 1 and 2 we show two soil series from Wisconsin, USA, containing lamellae. Lamellae in the Spinks soil series were found at 40 cm until 200 cm depth. The soil is a sandy, mixed, mesic lamellic Hapludalfs (Fig. 1). The lamellae at 40 to 50 cm were less than 2 mm thick and slightly finer than the interlamellae soil textures. Lamellae in the Oshtemo soil series occurred below 185 cm depth (Fig. 2). The soil is a coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic typic Hapludalfs. The lamellae at that depth were several centimeters thick and slightly finer than the interlamellae soil textures. The total thickness of the lamellae exceeded 15 cm so that the soil was classified as typic rather than lamellic. The lamellae (Bt portion of horizon) of the NRCS-SSURGO Official Soil Descriptions most commonly have a loamy sand (33%), loamy fine sand (33%), or sandy loam (29%) texture and are usually one textural class finer than the associated E part of the horizon (Table 2). Clay bridging of sand grains was reported in 46 (39%) of the Official Soil Descriptions with lamellae, and argillans were recorded in 29 (25%) of the pedons (Table 1). The mean clay concentrations for the Bt lamellae and E interlamellae were 8.6 and 2.8%, respectively (Table 3). The cationexchange capacity and extractable Fe were greater in the Bt than in the E, the organic C and pH were higher in the E than in the Bt, and the base saturations were comparable between the two horizons (Table 3). There were insufficient data to statistically compare other physical and chemical properties of the lamellar and interlamellar horizons.
3.2. Classification of soils with lamellae Based on an analysis of information in the SSURGO database, 118 soil series were found to have lamellae. They occur in six orders: Entisols (40 soil series; 34% of total), Alfisols (39 series; 33%), Inceptisols (25 series; 21%), Spodosols (9 series; 7.6%), Ultisols (4 series; 3.3%), and Mollisols (1 series; 0.4% of total area) (Table 4). These soils represent 14 suborders, 25 great groups and subgroups. Lamellic soils primarily have a mixed mineralogy (73%), are in sandy or sandy-skeletal textural
Fig. 1. Lamellae in the Spinks soil series at 40 cm (L) and 100 cm (R) depth. The soil is a sandy, mixed, mesic lamellic Hapludalfs under mixed deciduous and coniferous forest in northeast Dane County in Wisconsin, USA. The lamellae at 40 to 50 cm were less than 2 mm thick and slightly finer than the interlamellae soil textures. Below 100 cm the lamellae were thicker (1–2 cm) and had sandy loam textures, whereas the interlamellae matrix was loamy sand.
94
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
Fig. 2. Lamellae in the Oshtemo soil series below 185 cm depth. The soil is a coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic typic Hapludalfs under jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forest in Adams County in Wisconsin, USA. The lamellae at that depth were several cm thick and slightly finer than the interlamellae soil textures. The lamellae are not described in the Official Soil Series Description of USDA-NRCS but commonly associated soils (Coloma series) have lamellae below 99 cm.
classes (59%), and have a cryic or frigid soil temperature regime (59%) and an udic or ustic soil-moisture regime (89%; Fig. 3).
4. Discussion 4.1. Factors influencing the development of lamellae
3.3. Distribution of soils with lamellae Soils in lamellic subgroups comprise a total area of 3.6 million ha in the USA (Table 4) and are found in 30 states (Fig. 4). The primary regions include glacial outwash and dunes of the Great Lakes region (43% of the total area of soils with lamellae), the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains (23%), residual and colluvial surfaces from coarsetextured materials in the Rocky Mountains (14%), the sandy high plains of south central USA (11%), and floodplain deposits from Glacial Lake Missoula in northwestern USA (9%). Our map is fairly comparable to that prepared 45 yr ago by Dijkerman et al. (1967) from consultations with NRCS soil scientists. The main differences between our map and that of Dijkerman et al. are that we report more soils with lamellae in Colorado and Texas (Panhandle), and none in Nebraska or western Iowa. Our map suggests that soils with lamellae are less common in Wisconsin than previously reported and now are mapped in Louisiana and northwestern Alabama. It is of interest that no mapped soil series with lamellae have been identified in the Nebraska Sand Hills.
Table 2 Frequency distribution of textural classes of E part and Bt part of lamellic (E & Bt) horizons (adapted from Official Soil Series Descriptions of 118 pedons in lamellic subgroups). E parta
Bt partb
Number
%
S S S S LS LS LS SL SL SL L L L SiL SiCL No data
LS SL SCL S LS SL SCL SL SCL CL, C L SCL C SiL SiCL
32 8 2 1 7 18 7 13 8 3 1 1 1 6 1 9
27.1 6.8 1.7 0.8 5.9 15.3 5.9 11.0 6.8 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 5.1 0.8 7.6
a b
Analysis does not consider St, K, G Co and F modifiers. May have changed from CoSL to FSL or GSL to SL.
Based on the SSURGO database, we investigate the factors affecting the formation and distribution of soils with lamellae in the USA. Firstly, it should be noted, that lamellae are an example of “pedogenic equifinality”, which means that the same form may have formed in different ways (Rawling, 2000). Our analysis shows that there is some hierarchy in the factors that induce its formation. Parent material largely determines the presence or absence of lamellae (Table 5), since nearly two-thirds of the soil series in lamellic subgroups in the USA have sandy or sandy-skeletal soil textural classes. Nearly all of the 18 case studies of lamellae in the literature included soils developed in sandy materials (Table 6). In particular, stratified sandy materials and those with textural discontinuities are more likely to contain lamellae. It should be pointed out that there are many examples of sandy soils lacking lamellae, particularly in the Udipsamment and Haplorthod great groups. The reason for the absence of lamellae in these soils is not known but may be related to the size of the sand separates, the lack of stratification of the sands, the lack of clay, and the stability of the landform (see below). Kemp and McIntosh (1989) suggested that lamellae may reflect concurrent deposition of sand as well as pedogenesis. Alternatively, the sandy parent materials may have been stratified into sand fractions, which would influence water movement and deposition of clay weathering products due to pore size discontinuities. Bouabid et al. (1992) hypothesized that differences in pore size distribution initially present in the sands caused changes in soil hydraulic properties that may have been responsible for the formation of lamellae in a Minnesota soil. Deposited sand may undergo chemical weathering, particularly the weathering of feldspars (Miles and Franzmeier, 1981). Although the minimum and maximum thicknesses of lamella were not correlated with soil textural class, the surface and basal depths and thickness of the lamellic zone (E & Bt) were strongly related with soil texture (p b 0.003) (Table 7). Soils with loamy and silty texture classes and soils with xeric moisture regimes may also contain lamellae (Fig. 3). The time factor is germane in studies of lamellae development. Whereas Berg (1984) and Johnson et al. (2008) suggested that at least 2.3 kyr was required for lamellae to form, Holliday and Rawling (2006) found lamellae in soils less than 1 kyr and proposed that they may form in hundreds of years (Table 5). In soil chronosequences derived from dune sands, the abundance, thickness, and clay content of lamellae increase with time (Berg, 1984; Holliday and Rawling, 2006; Miles and Franzmeier, 1981). The lack of
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
95
Table 3 Properties of selected soils with lamellae (source: NRCS). Horizon
Depth
Clay
Silt
Sand
VCS
CS
MS
FS
VFS
OC
(cm)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
pH
4.9 16.4 21.4 23.6 0.1 28.5
31.6 25.4 24.3 28.6 13.6 32.1
37.3 26.0 16.4 20.0 77.6 17.3
7.6 6.4 2.2 2.5 4.5 2.3
0.6 0.1 0.2 2.6 0.0 2.7
5.4 6.3 7.0 8.2 7.8 8.4
5.6 6.5 6.5 5.3 3 1.4 0.9
44.1 42 42.5 37.2 34.6 30.9 29.7
36.8 35.4 36.3 43.3 47.9 53.7 56.8
4 4 3.4 6.6 9.6 9.2 3.4
0.37 0.14 0.1 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.06
7.0 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.0
Spinks: sandy, mixed, mesic lamellic Hapludalfs (Pedon S10MI117001) Ap 0–28 3.9 10.7 85.4 4.0 Bw 28–50 3.8 11.5 84.7 10.2 B/E (Bt part) 50–83 10.6 4.9 84.5 20.2 B/E (E part) 50–83 2.2 5.4 92.4 17.3 E & Bt 83–190 1.8 2.3 95.9 0.1 C 190–200 0.6 4.6 94.8 14.5 Coloma: mixed, mesic Ap E1 E2 E3 E4 E & Bt (E part) E & Bt (Bt part)
lamellic Udipsamments (Pedon 93IN039015) 0–30 3.7 5.1 91.2 30–51 4.2 6.5 89.3 51–69 3.5 5.6 90.9 69–94 2.5 3.9 93.6 94–119 1.9 2.6 95.5 119–203 1.6 3.1 95.3 119–203 8.1 0.9 91
0.7 1.4 2.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2
CEC
Base sat.
CDB Fe
(cmolc/kg)
(%)
(%)
0.3 1.7 4.9 0.8 1.3 0.5
100 59 100 100 100 100
0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1
2.5 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.4
100 100 79 83 78 56 65
15.3 6.2 3.0 4.2 2.1 3.9 2.7 2.4 5.5 2.3 6.0 3.0
57 32 30 28 38 46 52 54 62 65 58 57
0.63 0.42 0.42 0.56 0.42 0.63 0.49 0.42 0.84 0.49 0.91 0.56
Colonie: mixed, mesic lamellic Udipsamments (Dijkerman et al., 1967) Ap 0–23 4.6 46.2 49.2 Bw1 23–38 2.4 25.6 72.0 Bw2 38–71 1.5 25.7 72.8 Bt1 71–76 1.9 27.7 70.4 E1 76–107 0.5 30.4 69.1 Bt2 107–114 3.8 21.4 74.8 E2 114–147 1.0 19.9 79.1 E3 147–201 0.6 16.2 83.2 Bt3 201–203 9.3 11.4 79.3 E4 203–229 0.4 16.4 83.2 Bt4 229–234 9.8 14.5 75.7 BC 234–269 1.9 15.1 83.0
1.42 0.31 0.09 0.1 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02
Lamellic Haplorthods? A E E & Bt (E part) E & Bt (Bt part) C
(Coen et al., 1966) 0–25 25–70 70–165 70–165 165
1.89 0.27 0.2 0.21 0.37
5.8 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.6
14.1 5.7 8.4 12.8 20.4
50 29 49 57 72
0.82 0.70 1.02 1.37 2.29
Lamellic Haplorthods? A AE E E & Bt (E part) E & Bt (Bt part) C
(Coen et al., 1966) 0–25 25–50 50–81 81–175 81–175 175
1.52 0.54 0.23 0.18 0.39 0.14
5.5 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.8
11.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 12.0 5.5
30 35 19 28 48 35
0.64 0.63 0.54 0.70 1.19 0.70
Lamellic Haplustepts? AE E E & Bt (E part) E & Bt (Bt part) C
(Coen et al., 1966) 0–10 10–25 25–115 25–115 115
2.34 0.44 0.31 0.43 0.07
6.4 6.3 6.1 5.9 6.4
18.7 10.3 14.9 18.3 5.0
71 56 72 76 42
1.67 1.08 1.73 2.66 1.06
Zimmerman: mixed, frigid lamellic Udipsamments (Schaetzl, 1992) Ap 0–21 4.3 5.3 90.4 Bs1 21–37 2.6 3.9 91.5 Bs2 37–79 2.0 6.0 92.0 E & Bt (E part) 79–160 1.6 2.9 95.5 E & Bt (Bt part) 79–160 2.7 1.6 95.7
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
6.0 4.7 3.2 2.9 3.7
68.3 73.8 64.4 73.6 75.9
16.1 15.0 24.4 19.0 16.3
0.052 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
5.6 5.9 6.0 6.3 5.8
Coloma: mixed, mesic lamellic Udipsamments (Wurman et al., 1959) E1 63 2.7 1.9 95.4 Bt1 (lamella) 65 9.9 1.3 88.8 E2 73 2.6 1.3 96.1 Bt3 (lamella) 76 10.0 0.9 89.1 E3 95 2.4 1.1 96.5 Bt4 (lamella) 101 8.4 1.3 90.3 E4 106 2.2 1.3 96.4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.1 1.7 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.9
6.5 6.0 4.3 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.0
67.0 64.9 70.8 61.7 69.8 71.6 68.0
18.8 16.2 19.9 24.1 19.1 15.5 21.5
0.10 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.11
7.5 6.5 5.5 5.5 6.2 5.5 6.0
0.7 3.2 0.7 3.7 0.5 3.1 0.5
100 41 79 72 30 60 40
0.35 0.63 0.35 0.63 0.28 0.56 0.28
20.0 18.2 23.8 24.8 24.9 26.4
30.9 26.1 29.3 32.2 28.9 35.3
26.6 29.3 21.0 23.2 20.0 23.4
6.1 6.3 5.1 4.1 4.3 2.7
0.47 0.11
8.4 6.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 8.9
4 4.2 5.6 2 4.2 2.9
100 100 100 100 100 100
0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6
Marina: mixed, thermic lamellic Xeropsamments (Torrent A1 0–26 2.7 13.2 Bt1 (E part) 108–109 6.8 12.6 Bt1 (Bt part) 108–109 7.4 12.5 Bt2 (E part) 116–157 5.0 9.7 Bt2 (Bt part) 116–157 10.6 10.9 Bt5 (E part) 286–356 4.7 6.1
et al., 1980) 84.1 0.5 80.6 0.4 80.1 0.9 85.3 1.0 78.6 0.5 89.2 1.4
0.02 0.01 0.01
(continued on next page)
96
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
Table 3 (continued) Horizon
Depth
Clay
Silt
Sand
VCS
CS
MS
FS
VFS
OC
(cm)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
28.7 26.6 29.6 34.2 39.9
31.8 33.7 30.8 36.9 32.8
18.6 24.2 20.8 21.0 16.7
2.7 4.3 3.3 1.4 2.0
42.8 45.5
11.7 10.6 10.9 10.6 25.5 12.6 25.3 12.9 19.9 8.1 11.1 9.0 16.9 11.4 10.6
Marina: mixed, thermic lamellic Xeropsamments Bt5 (Bt part) 286–356 12.5 Bt6 (E part) 356–415 0.7 Bt6 (Bt part) 356–415 8.1 C3 (interlamella) 500–555 0.2 C3 (lamella) 500–555 3.4
(Torrent 3.6 8.6 4.0 4.7 3.2
et al., 1980) 83.9 2.1 90.7 1.9 87.9 3.4 95.1 1.6 93.4 2.0
Derby-like: mixed, thermic lamellic Haplustalfs (Gray et al., 1976) A 0–20 2.5 3.0 66.5 E 20–124 2.5 12.7 84.8 E & Bt (E part) 124–155 10.7 10.6 78.7 E & Bt (Bt part) 2.5 5.6 91.7 Bt & E1 (Bt part) 155–183 9.4 8.8 81.8 Bt & E1 (E part) 2.5 8.8 88.5 Bt & E2 (Bt part) 183–254 9.5 8.9 81.8 Bt & E2 (E part) 2.6 8.6 88.6 Bt & E3 (Bt part) 254–376 10.0 9.6 80.4 Bt & E3 (E part) 2.4 6.7 90.7 C1 (lamella) 376–457 9.0 15.3 75.7 C1 (interlamella) 0.9 11.3 87.2 C2 457–458 8.0 6.8 85.2 X = Bt 8.6 6.7 84.7 X=E 2.8 9.0 88.1
2.7 2.2
13.2 12.6
19.0 20.7
pH
0.56 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.09 0 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.2
CEC
Base sat.
CDB Fe
(cmolc/kg)
(%)
(%)
6.5 9.4 9.1 8.5 6.4
4.3 1.6 3.6
100 100 100
0.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3
5.0 6.8 7.2 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.2 6.6 7.1
4.6 1.8 6.3 1.7 5.9 1.7 5.9 1.8 6.9 2.0 7.4 1.1 4.5 4.6 2.0
42 88 79 83 93 93 93 93 95 100 89 100 100 81.2 81.6
0.52 0.45 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.30 0.75 0.47 0.75 0.47 0.99 0.49 0.88 0.7 0.4
Table 4 Classification of soils with lamellae in Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2010). Great group
Subgroup
Alfisols Haplocryalfs
Lamellic
10
Hapludalfs
Lamellic
10
Paleudalfs Haplustalfs
Lamellic Lamellic
1 10
Paleustalfs Haploxeralfs
Lamellic Lamellic
3 5
Entisols Cryorthents Lamellic Cryopsamments Lamellic Quartzipsamments Lamellic
Udipsamments
Lamellic Ustic Lamellic
Ustipsamments Xeropsamments
Lamellic Lamellic
No. soil series Soil series
4 1 10 1 11 7 6
Inceptisols Dystrocryepts Haplocryepts
Lamellic Lamellic
3 9
Humicryepts Dystrudepts Eutrudepts Haplustepts Haploxerepts
Lamellic Lamellic Lamellic Lamellic Lamellic
2 2 4 4 1
Bendemeere, Hyannis, Origo, Pineguest, Sanford, Siebert, Tex, Tonahutu, Troutville, Yochum Anoka, Arkport, Artnoc, Bloomfield, Brice, Crash, Crystalex, Drammen, Muscoda, Spinks Flo Deza, Espanola, Fern Cliff, Fuera, Kettle, Palon, Pimsby, Pratt, Sabe, Turon Aluf, Aquilla, Faula Caboose, Flemingcreek, Garey, Pausant, Wishbone
Comad, Nanita, Ovando, Rusbach Pyle Alpin, Candler, Catpoint, Duffern, Evesboro, Hainesville, Penney, Runclint, Vanderlip, Windward Tenneycanyon Chelsea, Coloma, Colonie, Eagleview, Faunce, Gerrish, Graycalm, Grettum, Lakin, Millrock, Zimmerman Circleback, Derby, Eda, Langdon, McCaffery, Ruiz, Woodgulch Angle, Dick, Elmira, Marble, Marina, Oceano
Billycreek, Mammoth, Ohman Basincreek, Blackleed, Bullwark, Elkner, Evaro, Ligget, Meadowlake, Newcomb, Osditch Bryan, Suttler Biwabik, Tatches Drexel, Lantern, Selway, Winfall Ambrant, Entente, Wildgen, Winkler Dubay
States
CO, NM, WY, CA
387,643
TX ID, CA, WA Total
50,234 12,890 874,482
MT, ID, CO, NM ID NC, SC, FL, AL, VA, TX, NJ, DE, LA, MD, PA, WV, WI UT WI, MN, IA, IL, IN, MI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, KY, WV, VA TX, OK, KS, WY, MT, ID WA, ID, CA
16,750 20,006 722,022
WY, CO MT, CO, ID, WY, NV ID, CO MN, MI MT MT MT
Lamellic
1
Ade
Spodosols Haplorthods
Lamellic
8
Lamellic Oxyaquic
1
Benona, Benzonia, Blue Lake, Islandlake, Lindquist, McMillan, MI, WI Mollineaux, Zandi Chinwhisker WI, MI
Lamellic
4 118
Betis, Colmesneil, Flomaton, Henlopen
IL, IN
TX, LA, AL
Area (% of total)
29,212
MN, MI, OH, NY, ID, IN, IL, WI, MT LA, TX AZ, NM, CO, KS
Mollisol Argiudolls
Ultisols Paleudults Total
Area (ha)
6194 388,309
24.0
3364 916,835 337,556 53,465 2,069,998
56.8
18,842 44,051 41,028 4150 27,678 188,220 745 324,714
8.9
18,010
0.5
224,843 9782 234,625
6.4
119,456 3.3 3,641,285 100
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
97
Fig. 3. Distribution of family classes of soils in lamellic subgroups (total = 118 series).
pedoturbation may be important to the development of textural bands (Johnson et al., 2008; Kemp and McIntosh, 1989) but they may also degrade with time due to pedoturbation or changes in the biogeochemistry in the soil profile. Topography is of regional importance in the occurrence and formation of lamellae. In Iowa, lamellae are found predominantly in
areas with b 10% slopes, and depressions in the landscape may have thicker and shallower lamellae than upland areas in the middleAtlantic states (Folks and Riecken, 1956). Whereas Robinson and Rich (1960) reported that lamellae in Virginia soils do not conform to the surface relief, Folks and Riecken (1956) and Coen et al. (1966) showed that they do mirror surface relief in Iowa and Alberta,
Fig. 4. Distribution of soils with lamellic horizons in conterminous USA. This map is based on soil series containing lamellae and was prepared using the July 5, 2006 version of the Digital General Soil Map of the U.S. published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
98
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
Table 5 Relation of soil-forming factors and lamellae development. Area
Soil taxa
Role of soil-forming factor
Citation
Organisms New Zealand dunes; Iowa till
Udipsamments, Hapludalfs
Lack of bioturbation enables lamellae to form
Kemp and McIntosh (1989), Johnson et al. (2008)
SMR: depth & thickness of E & Bt: udic > ustic, xeric STR: depth & thickness of E & Bt: hyperthermic, thermic > mesic > cryic, frigid
[This study] [This study]
Berg (1984), Dijkerman et al. (1967), Hannah and Zahner (1970), Holliday and Rawling (2006) Schaetzl (1992, 2001), Wurman et al. (1959) Dijkerman et al. (1967) Kemp and McIntosh (1989) Schaetzl (1992)
Climate
Parent material Illinois, Michigan & Texas dunes
Udipsamments,
Sandy materials favor lamellae formation
Michigan outwash New Zealand dunes Michigan outwash
Udipsamments Hapludalfs Udipsamments, Haplorthods
Michigan outwash
Udipsamments, Haplorthods
Stratification of sands may enhance lamellae formation Lamellae reflect concurrent sand deposition and pedogenesis Pedons with more fine sand & silt than clay had deeper & thicker lamellae Textural discontinuous favor lamellae formation
Quartzipsamments (typic)
Lamellae deeper where soil is level as opposed to sloping
Robinson and Rich (1960)
Udipsamments Udipsamments, Haplustepts? Quartzipsamments (typic)
Lamellae found primarily in areas with 5–10% slopes Lamellae conform to surface relief Lamellae do not conform to surface relief
Folks and Riecken (1956) Coen et al. (1966), Folks and Riecken (1956) Robinson and Rich (1960)
Udipsamments, Haplorthods
Pedons in depressions had thicker and less deep lamellae
Schaetzl (1992)
Time Illinois dunes
Udipsamments
Illinois dunes Iowa till Texas dunes Poland dunes
Udipsamments Udipsamments Udipsamments Udipsamments
Abundance, thickness & clay content of lamellae increase with time At least 2300 yr to form At least 2200 yr to form May form in b1000 yr May form in b4700 yr
Berg (1984), Holliday and Rawling (2006), Miles and Franzmeier (1981) Berg (1984) Johnson et al. (2008) Holliday and Rawling (2006) Prusinkiewicz et al. (1998)
Relief Atlantic coastal plain, VA Iowa till Iowa till, Alberta Atlantic coastal plain, VA Michigan outwash
Canada (Table 5). It appears that topography plays a hard to define role in the presence and formation of lamellae. Climate is important in the development of soils with lamellae and the depth and thickness of the lamellic zone more or less follows: udic > ustic, xeric; and hyperthermic, thermic > mesic > frigid, and cryic (Fig. 3). It is of interest that none of the 118 soil series in the
Schaetzl (1992)
USA with lamellae had an aquic soil-moisture regime, which suggests that downward movement of water is essential for its formation and that poor drainage conditions do not favor lamellae formation. Sixty-four percent of the 118 pedons were excessively or somewhat excessively drained, 52% were well drained and only 2% were well drained. No lamellae were found in soils that were less well-drained.
Table 6 Some case studies of pedogenic lamellae. Location and parent material
Soil series
Great soil group
Reference
Illinois dunes, USA Michigan outwash, USA
Chelsea Coloma Arkport Graycalm Blue Lake Chelsea Bloomfield Chelsea Zimmerman Marina Coloma Circleback? Otama – Chelsea Lakelanda Kershawa Coloma Derby Tivolia –
Udipsamments Udipsamments Hapludalfs Udipsamments Haplorthods Udipsamments Hapludalfs Udipsamments Udipsamments Haploxeralfs Udipsamments Ustipsamments Hapludalfs Udipsamments? Udipsamments Quartzipsamments Quartzipsamments Udipsamments Ustipsamments Ustipsamments Haplorthods? Haplustepts?
Berg (1984) Dijkerman et al. (1967)
Michigan outwash, USA Iowa sandy till, USA Indiana dunes, USA Michigan outwash, USA California alluvium, USA Michigan outwash, USA Texas dunes, USA New Zealand dunes Poland dunes Iowa dunes, USA Virginia coastal plain, USA Michigan dunes, USA Oklahoma sandy terrace, USA Texas dunes, USA Alberta outwash, Canada a
Not officially recognized as lamellic.
Hannah and Zahner (1970) Johnson et al. (2008) Miles and Franzmeier (1981) Schaetzl (1992) Torrent et al. (1980) Wurman et al. (1959) Holliday and Rawling (2006) Kemp and McIntosh (1989)_ Prusinkiewicz et al. (1998) Folks and Riecken (1956) Robinson and Rich (1960) Schaetzl (2001) Gray et al. (1976) Gile (1979) Coen et al. (1966)
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100 Table 7 Relation between soil taxa criteria and characteristics of lamellae and the E & Bt horizona. Soil taxa criteria
Texture class Loamy Silty Sandy P value Soil-moisture regime Udic Ustic Xeric p Value Soil-temperature regime Frigid Cryic Mesic Thermic Hyperthermic p Value Soil order Alfisols Entisols Inceptisols Spodosols Ultisols p Value
Number Min. of pedons thick.
Max. thick.
Depth Depth surface base
Thick.
Lamella Lamella E & Bt (mm) (mm) (cm)
E & Bt (cm)
E & Bt (cm)
49 7 71
7a 4a 6a 0.711
18b 34a 23b 0.036
55b 35c 87a b0.001
126b 89c 180a b0.001
71b 54a 94a 0.003
57 33 11
6a 7a 5a 0.83
22a 19a 28a 0.31
79a 64a 59a 0.1
170a 133b 149ab 0.02
91a 69b 90ab 0.04
40 37 28 17 3
7a 5a 6a 7a 3a 0.769
25ab 13b 26a 20ab 14ab 0.059
70bc 41d 81b 105ab 140a b0.001
149b 113c 171ab 208a 231a b0.001
79b 71ab 90ab 103a 91ab 0.089
39 40 25 9 4
8a 7a 4a 3a 7a 0.285
28a 24a 10b 15ab 29ab 0.004
59b 84a 54b 106a 120a b0.001
133b 177a 123b 227a 198ab b0.001
74b 93ab 69b 121a 78ab 0.007
a Values within a class-column with differences in small-case letters are statistically different based on pairwise t-tests.
4.2. Genesis of lamellae Lamellae may be of geological origin when they do not roughly parallel the surface, occur as lenses rather than laminae, and lack argillans (Rawling, 2000). Only 30% of the official soil series descriptions in the SSURGO database provided information about clay films and bridges and only 18% gave estimates of the difference in clay concentration between the E and Bt components of the E & Bt horizons (Table 2). Clearly, this is insufficient to document the pedogenic origin of lamellae. It can be argued that lamellae, where they are pedogenic, are a precursor to the argillic horizon. Indeed there are soils with thick lamellae that are classified in Alfic, Ultic, or Argic subgroups. For example, the Montcalm series (coarse-loamy, mixed, semiactive, frigid, Alfic Haplorthods), which occupies 188,000 ha in Michigan, contains an E & Bt horizons from 84 to 152 cm with lamellae that exceed a total thickness of 15 cm and is classified as part of an argillic horizon. However, the notion that lamellae eventually coalesce and form continuous argillic horizons needs further research. Several laboratory experiments have been conducted to investigate the processes involved in development of lamellae. Bond (1986) was able to produce a clay-enriched lamella by leaching a fine sand containing b 1% clay. By alternately leaching with percolate from a leaching column and drying with a water aspirator, artificial clay skins were produced in “unweathered” loess material (Buol and Hole, 1961). Dijkerman et al. (1967) conducted a series of experiments showing the importance of drying, gravitation, and pore sieving on clay dispersion, movement, and accumulation in sandy materials. Three mechanisms are important to form a lamellic as well as an argillic horizon: dispersion, translocation, and accumulation (Eswaran and Sys, 1979). Dispersion involves the leaching of carbonates in calcareous parent materials where lamellae may eventually form (Berg, 1984; Wurman et al., 1959). Translocation is reflected by the fact that lamellae are dominantly found (89%) in soils with udic and ustic soil-moisture regimes, because more water is available for argilluviation (Fig. 3).
99
Coatings on sand grains and bridging of sand grains reflect accumulation of clay and other fine materials in the lamellae. Wurman et al. (1959) suggested that clays moving downward in the profile may accumulate as a result of drying induced by uptake of moisture by plants. However, the wetting-front hypothesis may not explain multiple lamellae and lamellae occurring to depths of nearly 500 cm. Several investigators have suggested that the bands may be flocculated by Fe oxyhydroxides (Berg, 1984; Dijkerman et al., 1967). Although we have sketched here the boundary conditions under which lamellae are formed in the USA, it must be realized that soils in other than lamellic subgroups may contain lamellae. The Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2010) definition requires that the sum of the lamellae thicknesses must not exceed 7.5 cm in a regolith greater than 50 cm thick or 15 cm overall. Therefore, many soils containing lamellae that are thick enough and contain enough translocated clay are classified in Alfic, Argic, and Ultic subgroups. 5. Conclusions The NRCS SSURGO database contains 118 soil series in lamellic subgroups, which represent six orders, 14 suborders, 25 great groups, and 25 subgroups. The lamellae occur primarily in soils with a mixed mineral class (73%), a sandy or sandy-skeletal textural class (59%); a frigid or cryic soil-temperature regime (59%), and a udic or ustic soil-moisture regime (89%). The thickness of individual lamella ranges between 6 and 22 mm. The depth to the first lamella averages 72 cm; the maximum depth of lamellae exceeds 155 cm. Lamellae commonly have a sandy loam or loamy sand textural class that is one textural class finer than the interlamellar areas. The pedogenesis of lamellae involves clay translocation, involving clay bridging and coating sand grains. Eventually micro-laminae are formed in response to variations in the wetting front. In the USA soils with lamellae cover 3.6 million ha and occur in 30 states. They also occur in many other parts of the world, such as New Zealand, Poland, and South Africa. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate public access to the NRCS SSURGO database. Fig. 4 was drafted using STATSGO data by Adolfo Diaz, a NRCS MLRA GIS Specialist located in Madison, Wisconsin. References Berg, R.C., 1984. The origin and early genesis of clay bands in youthful sandy soils along Lake Michigan, U.S.A. Geoderma 32, 45–62. Bond, W.J., 1986. Illuvial band formation in a laboratory column of sand. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50, 265–267. Bouabid, R., Nater, E.A., Barak, P., 1992. Measurement of pore-size distribution in a lamellar Bt horizon using epifluorescence microscopy and image-analysis. Geoderma 53, 309–328. Buol, S.W., Hole, F.D., 1961. Clay skin genesis in Wisconsin soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 25, 377–379. Coen, G.M., Pawluk, S., Odynsky, W., 1966. The origin of bands in sandy soils of the stony plain area. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 46, 245–254. Dijkerman, J.C., Cline, M.G., Olson, G.W., 1967. Properties and genesis of textural subsoil lamellae. Soil Science 104, 7–16. Eswaran, H., Sys, C., 1979. Argillic horizon formation in low activity clay soils, formation and significance to classification. Pedologie 29, 175–190. Folks, H.C., Riecken, F.F., 1956. Physical and chemical properties of some Iowa soil profiles with clay-iron bands. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 20, 575–580. Gile, L.H., 1979. Holocene soils in eolian sediments of Bailey County, Texas. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 994–1003. Gray, F., Meksopon, B., Peschel, D., 1976. Study of some physical and chemical properties of Oklahoma soil profile with clay-iron bands. Soil Science 122, 133–138. Hannah, P.R., Zahner, R., 1970. Nonpedogenetic texture bands in outwash sands of Michigan: their origin, and influence on tree growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal 34, 134–136. Holliday, V.C., Rawling III, J.E., 2006. Soil-geomorphic relations of lamellae in eolian sand on the High Plains of Texas and New Mexico. Geoderma 131, 154–180. Johnson, D.L., Johnson, D.N., Benn, D.W., Bettis III, E.A., 2008. Deciphering complex soil/site formation in sands. Geomorphology 101, 484–496. Kemp, R.A., McIntosh, P.D., 1989. Genesis of a texturally banded soil in Southland, New Zealand. Geoderma 45, 65–81.
100
J.G. Bockheim, A.E. Hartemink / Geoderma 206 (2013) 92–100
Miles, R.J., Franzmeier, D.P., 1981. A lithochronosequence of soils formed in dune sand. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45, 362–367. Minitab Inc., 2000. Minitab Statistical Software (release 13), http://minitab.com. Prusinkiewicz, Z., Bednarek, R., Kogkot, A., Szmytt, A., 1998. Paleopedological studies of the age and properties of illuvial bands at an archaeological sites. Quaternary International 51 (52), 195–201. Rawling III, J.E., 2000. A review of lamellae. Geomorphology 35, 1–9. Robinson, G.H., Rich, C.I., 1960. Characteristics of the multiple yellowish-red bands common to certain soils in the south-eastern United States. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 24, 226–230. Schaetzl, R.J., 1992. Texture, mineralogy, and lamellae development in sandy soils in Michigan. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56, 1538–1545. Schaetzl, R.J., 2001. Morphologic evidence of lamellae forming directly from thin, clayey bedding planes in a dune. Geoderma 99, 51–63. Soil Survey Division, 2012a. Soil Classification Database. USDA — Natural Resources Conservation Service ([Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/ classification/scfile/index.html).
Soil Survey Division, 2012b. Official Soil Series Descriptions. USDA — Natural Resources Conservation Service ([Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/ classification/osd/index.html). Soil Survey Division, 2012c. Soil Laboratory Data. USDA — Natural Resources Conservation Service ([Online WWW]. Available URL: http://ncsslabdatamart.sc.egov.usda.gov). Survey Staff, Soil, 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th edition. USDA, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Thorp, J., Cady, J.G., Gamble, E.E., 1959. Genesis of Miami silt loam. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 23, 156–161. Torrent, J., Nettleton, W.D., Borst, G., 1980. Clay illuviation and lamella formation in a Psammentic Haploxeralf in southern California. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44, 363–369. Wurman, E., Whiteside, E.P., Mortland, M.M., 1959. Properties and genesis of finer textured subsoil bands in some sandy Michigan soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 23, 135–143.
