Search

The overview of publications on soil cartography in “Pochvovedenie”/“Eurasian Soil Science” journal for the period 1899–2020 demonstrates a high diversity of themes and certain trends in the number and dynamics of papers. Their total number (365), calculated per 5-year-long intervals, was distributed rather evenly among these 121 years: approximately 10–15 papers in each interval, although three maximums are rather clear. The first one fell on the post-war interval and was followed by 1965–1970 and 2010–2015 maximums. Discussion of large-scale maps dominated the early publications, many of them tackled soil surveys and applied problems; in the mid-century papers, soil maps of various regions of the country were described since it was time of extensive terrain investigations; numerous were also papers concerning methodology of soil mapping. New approaches and technique were actively discussed in the papers at the turn of centuries, such as remote sensing or digital soil mapping. Along with map compilation issues, there are publications on applying information provided by soil maps for both traditional and novel purposes: schemes of zoning in the former case and development of prognostic maps or assessment of pedodiversity in the latter case. The majority of papers on zoning, concern soil-geographical (later soil-ecological) schemes, whereas the derived types of zoning, for example, ameliorative or erosional, are discussed in few papers. The performed overview may be regarded as summing up the results of traditional soil mapping development with emphasizing its most valuable achievements, as well as indicating the initial signs of new trends.

A digital version of the soil map of the Russian Federation, scale 1 : 2.5 M, is being prepared based on the analysis of the attributes of polygons with peat soils in the West-Siberian taiga and sub-taiga zones. The correction was perfomed in 795 polygons (with the total area of 179 483 km2) out of 1 711 polygons considered (with the total area of 262 204 km2). The currently formulated idea of the dominance of oligotrophic bogs in the West Siberian taiga region of mires served as the basis for suggestion to replace the mesotrophic peat soils by oligotrophic ones in 598 polygons of the total area of 87 250 km2. Similarly, the polygons of microcatenas comprising oligotrophic and mesotrophic peat soils (57 polygons, total area of 38 405 km2) were modified: only oligotrophic peat soils were considered to be the dominant ones there. At the same time, a number of polygons with prevailing oligotrophic soils, confined mainly to the sub-taiga zone were proposed to be replaced by polygons with mesotrophic peat soils. The thermokarst pools in ridge-hollow mire complexes that were shown on the soil map of Russia beyond the permafrost zone were eliminated from the map database; the mapping of destructive peat soils was rearranged in accordance with the new interpretation of this taxon in the Russian soil classification. This work should improve the quality of research in the field of assessing the resource potential of peat soils in West Siberia.

We summarized the results of studies of pedodiversity and contrast and variability of soil properties based on the analyses of soil maps of different scales for the republics of Karelia and Dagestan and the Moscow region. We used fragments of the Soil Map of the Russian Federation on a scale of 1 : 2 500 000 as a small-scale map and three different medium-scale maps (from 1 : 300 000 to 1 : 500 000). Large-scale maps (1 : 10 000) were compiled for representative plots within the studied territories specifically for the study of pedodiversity. All the maps were digitized, map legends were converted to the new Russian soil classification system and to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), and Shannon–Wiener diversity indices were calculated. Comparison of indicators revealed the dependence of the values of the diversity indices on the map scale. The indicators for the large-scale map were relatively low and did not differ much when using Russian and international classification. We concluded that for the successful assessment of soil diversity at different scales, it is important to use several large-scale maps that reflect the heterogeneity of regional soilscapes. Natural boundaries between soilscapes and soil regions can be found using the pedodiversity index map. In almost all cases, maps with a WRB-based legend had lower indicators of pedodiversity than maps with a legend based on the Russian soil classification. This confirms the fact that the international classification is less detailed than the Russian national classification, which was originally intended for large-scale mapping of soils.

Soils of Bykovo lacustrine-like floodplain section have a complicated landuse history: alternation of meadows, suburban farming, cropland with partial land leveling and local drainage, now – 10 years-old layland. The effects of these events along with manifestations of fluvial pedogenesis were studied in thin sections. Well-known micromorphological features of alluvial soils have been confirmed, specific properties related to the position of soils in lacustrine-alluvial landscape have been revealed. Fluvial fabric elements are rather mitigated, since flooding of this section was weak and irregular; topsoils are similar in natural and post-arable soils and have no traces of agrogenic degradation. The layland regime contributes to soil regradation: higher pedality and pedofauna activity were recorded. Artificial drainage is recognized in thin sections by changes in iron (hydr)oxide pedofeatures vs. the natural gley soils, namely, iron segregations and nodules in the former soils (Fluvic Mollic Gleysols), and iron coatings, zones of complete bleaching alternating with strong impregnations in the latter. Soil on the terrace outlier was identified as a truncated texturally differentiated soil, which upper part was removed during leveling, then a new layer was placed on BT (argic) horizon: (Terric Anthrosol (Loamic, Gleyic, over buried Retisol)). Filled layers may contain blocky subangular peds of BT horizon, partially assimilated in the soil mass. These peds serve as micromorphological markers for reconstructing soil history owing to their easily recognizable particular properties: blocky subangular microstructure, speckled b-fabric, clay (hypo)coatings.

The Soil Map of the Russian Federation, 1 : 2.5 M scale (1988) requires updating to include soil data that have been accumulated in the past decades, reflect real changes in the soil cover, including anthropogenic transformation, and ensure precise localization of soil objects and correspondence of the map to satellite data with the use of digital soil mapping technologies. The substantive-genetic classification system of Russian soils (2004, 2008) provides the conceptual basis for this updating. The conversion of soil information from the initial map of 1988 into the new classification system is being performed for each polygon of the digitized map. It is based on the analysis of a vast body of diverse information and includes both the search for analogues of the names of mapping units in the new classification system (renaming of the soils) and the correction of the composition of soils in the polygons: new natural soils, cultivated soils (agrosoils), and urban soils are added to the attribute database. The largest number of new natural soils has appeared in legend sections “Soils of tundra” and “Soils of taiga and broadleaved forests”. Anthropogenic soils (119 legend units) that are shown on the map for the first time, have their maximum representation (36 units) in the section “Soils of steppes”; it is close to the number of natural soils (37 units) in this zone. A considerable percent of anthropogenic soils (> 50% of the natural soils) is also typical of legend sections “Soils of broadleaved forests and forest-steppes,” “Soils of dry steppes and semideserts,” “Salt-affected and solonetzic soils”. The total number of natural and anthropogenic soil units (425) in the new legend is more than twice as large as the initial number of natural soil units in the base map (205). The results of the renaming and updating of soils for each soil polygon are fixed in a separate section of the attribute database to the map and will be used for generating the new map by the methods of digital soil mapping.

In the course of updating the soil map of the Russian Federation, 1 : 2.5 M scale (1988), Moscow oblast was chosen as a model object for testing the approaches to revise the map legend, which should be converted into the new Russian soil classification system, where much attention is paid to soils changed by human activities. This choice was made because of its rather simple natural soil cover (Albic Retisols predominate) along with high diversity and frequent occurrence of human-modified soils that should be shown on the map. Updating of the map database concerning natural Albic Retisols—soddy-podzolic soils was insignificant: few changes were introduced at the level of diagnostic properties, hence, subtypes. Arable soddy-podzolic soils were qualified for agro-soddy-podzolic soils if they occupy even surfaces, and they were named textural-differentiated agrozems if they are confined to slopes; the initial subtype diagnostics was mostly preserved. Soils of other land use categories—orchards, old estates, villages, dachas, urban-type settlements, were qualified for prograded or turbated agrozems, and intensely cultivated soils—for dark-humus stratozems; urban soils were referred to urbostratozems, ekranozems and diverse intergrades between these and natural soils. Deciphering of the space image of a model polygon located in a rather urbanized part of Moscow oblast permitted to identify soil associations for most common land-use types. However, introduction of all soils—ingredients of such associations—into the legend is limited by the small scale of the map, whereas introduction of the types of associations could contribute to a more adequate image of the soil cover in urbanized territories.

A series of maps in the second edition of the Ecological Atlas (2017) characterizes several aspects of the ecological situation in Russia and prerequisites of its formation; the maps were compiled basing on the soil map and other thematic maps. In terms of the methods of their compilation, the maps may be grouped into factual and interpretational, the former being directly based on cartographic and analytical data, while the latter were compiled by means of targeted interpretation of information obtained from other maps (primarily, from the soil map). This information concerns soil profiles and particular properties of soil units in the legend of the basic soil map, which is also included in the atlas. The experience in compilation of the series of maps in the atlas enabled us to introduce new elements in the methodology of creating interpretational maps, which is being developed within the framework of the soil-landscape-geochemical approach suggested by M.A. Glazovskaya. The innovative maps in the series are the following: Ecological Functions of Soils, Red Data Soil Book, and Soil and Landscape-Geochemical Processes. As compared to the National Soil Atlas of Russia, the set of soil maps and their contents are rather different owing to the ecological orientation of the atlas.

Based on published data and experiments performed by the authors, the paper analyzes experimental methods for assessing the cellulosolytic activity of soils and calculating the measurement results thereof. A brief overview of factors and dynamics of this phenomenon, including its seasonal changes, is presented, as well as information on its geographic variability. These materials may be helpful in research on soil genesis and considering certain methodological aspects for reliable results and adequate interpretations.

The level of genus in the “Classification and diagnostics of soils of the USSR”, 1977 is discussed as applied for diverse purposes. It was very often required in soil surveys to indicate details of soil processes, current or inherited features when compiling small- and medium-scale soil maps. In the recent classification of Russian soils, genus level is mostly used for the analytical characteristics of soils, whereas its former functions were transferred to the subtype level; for example, red color of parent material corresponds to “red-profile” subtype. In the updated classification system of soils of Russia, it is proposed to expand the sphere of the genus level application over a broader set of phenomena, to update the criteria for different genera, and to arrange genera in groups like those for genetic properties, which serve as criteria to identify subtypes. The following preliminary groups of genera may be specified: analytical including genera related to chemical soil pollution, lithological (particular parent materials), temporal for ephemeral features, pedogenetic – disclosing or indicating mechanisms of soil processes.

Using the latest version of the international soil classification (WRB 2014/2015) and the classification of soils of Russia (2004/2008), the authors attempted to demonstrate how specific profiles of urban soils in green massifs are classified at different taxonomic levels. The soil profiles were shown in the excursions of the 9th International Conference “Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic, Mining and Military Areas” and were discussed by the representatives of national scientific schools. The diversity of the soils studied is determined primarily by the technology of their creation or by the nature of human impact, soil age, properties of the soil-forming rock, and, to a lesser extent, by the type of artificial phytocenosis. By the properties of their profiles, soils are qualified as ones on technogenic deposits (artificial buildings or displaced natural grounds with fragments of soil horizons), buried agrozems and cultural layers. The comparison of two classification systems showed their similarity with respect to the taxonomic level. One can note a similarity of the main solution: are the soils natural or anthropogenic, although the degrees of “anthropogeneity” given in their names may not coincide. The existing differences in the sets of characteristics–qualifiers reflect the genetic trend in the Russian soil classification and strict following the rules in the WRB system.

Methodological basics of the study and quantitative assessment of pedodiversity are discussed. It is shown that the application of various indices and models of pedodiversity can be feasible for solving three major issues in pedology: a comparative geographical analysis of different territories, a comparative historical analysis of soil development in the course of landscape evolution, and the analysis of relationships between biodiversity and pedodiversity. Analogous geographic concepts of geodiversity and landscape diversity are also discussed. Certain limitations in the use of quantitative estimates of pedodiversity related to their linkage to the particular soil classification systems and with the initial soil maps are considered. Problems of the interpretation of the results of pedodiversity assessments are emphasized. It is shown that scientific explanations of biodiversity cannot be adequately applied in soil studies. Promising directions of further studies of pedodiversity are outlined. They include the assessment of the functional diversity of soils on the basis of data on their properties, integration with geostatistical methods of evaluation of soil variability, and assessment of pedodiversity on different scales.

Classification of surface bodies on technogenic parent materials is rather disputable. On one hand, the technogenic surface bodies (TSB) are predecessors of soils, on the other hand - they are made by humans, hence, differ of the natural soils by their origin. In the Russian soil classification system (versions of 2004 and 2008), the TSBs are subdivided by the kinds of human activities responsible for their formation. Moreover, the taxonomy of TSBs is a separate system beyond the soil classification, and the names of its objects are artificial and deliberately cumbersome in order to emphasize their “non-soil” essence. This system was invented by Valentin Tonkonogov, and it comprises two hierarchical levels, namely, groups and subgroups. In accordance with this system, an attempt was made to classify TSBs on coal dumps and iron ore mine tailings located in two landscape zones: forest-steppe and aspen-fir taiga in Kemerovo oblast. A third taxonomic level - “triba” - is proposed, with chemical and morphological properties of technogenic materials as differentiating criteria.

Morphological description of the soil profile must provide further hierarchical morphogenetic analysis and adequate diagnostic and classification of soil in any substantive-genetic taxonomic system. In a brief taxonomy-oriented description, priority should be given to soil properties having diagnostic significance; they may be different for different horizons, and those discriminating similar horizons should receive special attention. It is proposed to compile an updated field handbook for soil morphological description, supporting the recent classification system of soils of Russia.

The principles of typological soil-genetic zoning based on the substantive-genetic classification of Russian soils (2004) and realized for the State Soil Map of Russia on a scale of 1 : 1 M are considered. Three categories of characteristics are applied to the system of zoning units: taxonomic, process-based, and landscape- indicative characteristics. The relationship between them changes in dependence on the taxonomic level of the zoning unit; at the lower level, the spatial (landscape-indicative) criterion plays the major role. This criterion is also important in the delimitation of soil groups (soil communities) serving as the central taxonomic unit of the zoning. At this level, all the three groups of characteristics are equally important. The definitions of the taxonomic units of the soil-genetic zoning are given, and their characteristic features are described. An algorithm of the zoning procedure is illustrated by the example of the maps developed for the Privolzhskii federal okrug. It is suggested that the soil-genetic zoning can be used as one of the ways to update the State Soil Map.

An analysis of the contents and legends of soil maps (basic and soil-related ones) in the national atlases published in the last 25–30 years was performed. Only national atlases as integral cartographic products of high scientific level implementing the recent soil–geographic and classification concepts were considered. These were atlases of thirty countries, mainly of the European ones, published in traditional and electronic formats. Soil classifications used for the basic soil maps comprise the national classifications, sometimes with the synonyms of the FAO Soil Map legend or the World Reference Base, and rarely with those from American Soil Taxonomy. In most atlases, only dominant soils are shown on soil maps, sometimes soil-forming rocks are mentioned, and rarely natural zones are. Along with the basic soil maps, there are supplementary ones containing data on soil properties and regimes, as well as diverse maps compiled for agricultural and ecological purposes; in terms of methodology, the maps may be qualified as interpretation and factual ones. The integrity of all these maps provides a comprehensive insight into the ecological functions of the soils.

Two classification systems under comparison differ in objects, terminology, hierarchical levels, and approaches to identify soils. However, they have some common features: both systems are oriented to soil properties and apply the pedogenetic concepts, on one hand; on the other hand, the results, namely, some of the soil taxonomic units are similar. The second-level units of WRB, representing the classification rather than the reference base, display a certain correlation with the subtype level in the Russian soil classification system. This level in two systems may be qualified as a really active, and it contains the most complete genetic characteristic of a soil; moreover, there is a similarity in criteria for qualifiers in WRB and genetic features (producing subtypes) in the Russian system. The difference between two classification systems is manifested in the number and essence of diagnostic horizons because they perform different functions. In the International system, they mainly serve for recognition of soils (in the key), while they directly identify genetic soil types in the Russian system.

An overview of soil objects from different regions and of different categories that are listed in the Red Book of Russian Soils is presented. Most of these objects are soils that support the existence of rare plant and animal species; the number of reference and zonal soils is almost equal and sufficient attention has been paid to soils that are used for scientific and training purposes. Semidesert soils are represented best; less focus is given to steppe soils; podzols and podzolic soils of Siberia have been given fairly limited consideration. To describe Russian soils in their real diversity makes it necessary to include new reference (cryozems and svetlozems) and rare (granuzem and cryoaridic) soils in the Red Book.

Under consideration are typical profiles of podzolic loamy soils described in many publications on the soils of Komi Republic with respect to their diagnostics in national and international classifica-tion systems. It is argued that the podzolic soils should be preferably recognized at the type level with numerous subtypes to reflect the variations in the profile drainage conditions. In terms of the international soil classifications (FAO/WRB) the podzolic soils may be correlated with the former Podzoluvisols and recent Retisols better than with the Albeluvisols of the intermediate versions.

The analysis of the responses of users of the substantive-genetic Russian soil classification system revealed some problems concerning the genetic (diagnostic) horizons. Applying horizons is essential since soil diagnostics are based on their identification and their combinations in soil profiles. In the recent Russian system, there are many diagnostic horizons, and their recognition is not always easy. This review is aimed at displaying the main elements and the genetic essence of the horizons, as well as the reasons to choose the diagnostic criteria and parameters for most of them. The horizons are grouped into genetic sets, and the specific properties of the horizons are emphasized, as well as the differences between the horizons and the feasibility to introduce new horizons. A rough comparison of the diagnostic horizons in the Russian and WRB systems revealed the considerable similarity of the taxa, whose definitions depend on the presence of the diagnostic horizons: these are the orders and soil reference groups, respectively.

The analysis of the taxonomy of the soils and soil-forming rocks of Moscow city was performed in view of the compatibility of the taxonomy proposed with the new classification system of the soils of Russia. The common platform, which determines the possibility to incorporate the taxonomy of urban soils into the new classification system, is the principle of the priority of the diagnostic horizons, which provides the properties-oriented conceptual background of the compared systems. It was shown that the considered classification developments do not have any fundamental differences either in ideology or in concrete manifestations. Some contradictions in place can be eliminated by respective discussions and agreements.

The work of the Dokuchaev Soil Institute site on soil classification during the last three years is analyzed. The main subject of the discussion is the Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of Russia (2004) as compared to the classification of 1977. The website’s visitors, mainly soil scientists performing survey under contracts or involved in organizing environmental monitoring consult the diagnostics and names of their objects according to the new classification. The principles and structure of the classification system and criteria for distinguishing the basic taxa are accepted by practically everybody; the proposals on the correction of the diagnostics of soil horizons and their characteristics are made for a wide spectrum of soils. Many of the suggestions were taken into account by the authors in the last edition of this classification (2008). The users of the site are especially interested in anthropogenically modified soils, primarily in urban soils and soils disturbed by mining operations. Among the site’s visitors are many students and postgraduates, who are especially active during the examination periods.

The development of soil classification in China has progressed in a rather complicated way; to a great extent, it has depended on the state policy. The former classifications had a zonal-factor trend: the first Chinese classification system was an analogue of the American classifications of the middle American period; in 1954–1984, the Soviet system was used, where names of the soils did not differ from those accepted in the USSR. In 1994, the Chinese Soil Taxonomy was created, which replicated the American classification in the structure, principles and terminology but emphasized some Chinese specificity. In the next variant of the Chinese system of 2001 (the object discussed in this paper), some elements of the International System (WRB) appeared, and the process-genetic approaches are displayed rather distinctly.

The comparative analysis of small-scale maps of the USSR has revealed the characteristics of their contents, concepts, and ways of compilation and cartographic representation. The facies-zonal concept is reflected both in the map legends and the patterns of the mapping units. The differences between the maps reflect the time of their creation: the degree of knowledge on the soils, the contribution of the geographic forecast, and the objective of the maps and their scale. Especial importance in soil cartography and geographic education belongs to the map of 1954 compiled by Rozov. Forty years later, it was replaced by a map of similar purpose, scale, and mapped area. This map was compiled at the Faculty of Geography (Moscow State University), and it has inherited many features of its predecessor—the map of Rozov.

The factors of soil formation are not directly taken into account in the new profile-genetic Russian soil classification system; they are not reflected in the names and diagnostics of the soils. At the same time, as well as in many other modern soil classification systems, including the American Soil Taxonomy and the WRB system, the choice of the diagnostic criteria, the establishment of the relationships between them, and the setting of the quantitative boundaries between the soil taxa are based on our perception of soil geneses with due account for the factors of soil formation. In contrast to the ecological-genetic soil classification system of 1977, information on the factors of soil formation in the new system is encoded in the properties of the soil horizons. In some cases, this is insufficient for the definite geographic localization of soils and complicates the practical application of the new classification system. In this context, information on the ecological niches of soil types was included in the field manual on soil correlation-an abridged version of the soil classification system published in 2008—in the form of special tables developed for native and agrogenic soils. The analysis of these tables made it possible to outline certain geographic regularities in the distribution of soil types belonging to the trunk of postlithogenic soils.

The first version of the profile-genetic classification system of the soils of Russia published in 1997 was discussed by soil scientists and verified in different ways. As a result, a number of changes and additions were made in the new version of 2004. Many comments concerning this version were obtained from the regional divisions of the Dokuchaev Society of Soil Scientists, as well as from specialists (papers in Eurasian Soil Science and discussion on the Internet). The authors of the classification system consider it reasonable to analyze the results of the discussion concerning both the principles and nomenclature and some groups of soils.

The function of micromorphology is perceived as the interpretation of phenomena and aid in recognizing diagnostic horizons in the major soil classification systems of the world. The micromorphological contribution to the diagnostics of the horizons in soil classification comprises the complementary characteristics and/or confirmation of the genetic implications on a horizon, the clarification and identification of the horizon with its differentiating criteria. Hence, the application of micromorphology to soils of (sub) arid regions is promising in discriminating the pedogenic properties from the inherited ones, assessing the development and degradation of structure, the re-arrangement of soil solids by pedofauna and other agents, explaining the nature of clay-enriched subsoil, as well as the behavior of carbonates and gypsum. These functions are helpful in solving problems related to aridic soils, whose diagnostics comprises the identification of yermic, takyric, cambic, calcic, (paleo) argic horizons and features derived from accumulation of salts.