Table Of ContentDevelopments in Soil Science 19
SOIL MICRO-
MORPHOLOGY:
A BASIC AND
APPLIED SCIENCE
Edited by
LOWELL A. DOUGLAS
Rutgers University, Department of Soils and Crops,
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, U.S.A.
Proceedings of the VIIIth International Working Meeting
of Soil Micromorphology, San Antonio, Texas - July 1988
Sub-Commision of Soil Micromorphology of
International Society of Soil Science
ELSEVIER
Amsterdam - Oxford - New York - Tokyo 1990
ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V.
Sara Burgerhartstraat 25
P.O. Box 211,1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Distributors for the United States and Canada:
ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY INC
655, Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10010, U.S.A.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
International Working-Meeting or, Soil Micromorphology l8tn : 1988
San Aq:zn;C, ?EX.)
Soil micromorphology a basic and applied science 1 edited by
Lowell A. Douglas.
p. cm. -- (Developments in soil science ; 19)
"Proceedings of the VIIIth International Working Meeting of Soil
Micromorphology. San Antonio, Texas. July 1988."
"Sub-commission of Soil Micromorphology of International Society
of Soil Science."
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-444-88302-9
1. Soil oicromorphology--Congressesss. I. Douglas. Lowell A.
:I. Internation21 Soclety of So;] Science. Sub-csnni~ission of Sol1
M:crorrorphclogy. 111. Title. IV. Series.
S593.2.158 1986
635.4 5;-0:22 89-7834.
CIP
ISBN 0-444-88302-9
0 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1990
All rights reserved. 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 or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V./
Physical Sciences & Engineering Division, P.O. Box 330,1000 AH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A. - This publication has been registered with the Co-
pyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC ), Salem, Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from
the CCC about conditions under which photocopies of parts of this publication may be made in
the USA. All other copyright questions, including photocopying outside of the USA, should be
referred to the copyright owner, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., unless otherwise specified.
No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property
as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any
methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Printed in The Netherlands
V
Co-Sponsors for IWMSM-88
The following agencies provided financial assistance
for the publication of these Proceedings:
Soil Science Society of America
USDA - Agricultural Research Service
USAID - Soil Management Support Services
Texas A&M University System
Other sponsors:
International Society of Soil Science
USDA - Soil Conservation Service
Organizing Committee
Chairman L.P. Wilding Texas A&M University
Program M.C. Rabenhorst University of Maryland
M.L. Thompson Iowa State University
Editorial L.A. Douglas Rutgers University
Local Arrangements M.H. Milford Texas A&M University
Field Trips B.L. Allen Texas Tech University
C.T. Hallmark Texas A&M University
Financial Arrangements E.C.A. Runge Texas A&M University
Secretary & Publicity L.R. Drees Texas A&M University
Commercial Exhibits L.D. Norton USDA-ARS Soil Erosion Lab
L.T. West University of Georgia
Spouses’ Program Melinda Hallmark Texas A&M University
USDA-SCSL iaison R.W. Arnold Washington, D.C.
USAID-SMSS Liaison H. Eswaran Washington, D.C.
Geol. SOC.A m. Liaison V.T. Holliday University of Wisconsin
ISSS Liaison W.G. Sombroek Wageningen, The Netherlands
VII
PREFACE
It is most fitting that the Proceedings of this VIII International Work-
ing Meeting on Soil Micromorphology commemorates the pioneering efforts of
the late Professor W.L. Kubiena, Father of Micromorphology. Fifty years
ago, his classic text, 'Micropedology,' was published at Iowa State Univer-
sity. This text was the first to introduce U.S. soil scientists to soil
micromorphology. The advances in application of micromorphology and submi-
croscopy to meet the challenges of earth and extraterrestrial science dis-
ciplines of the next decade are in striking contrast to Kubiena's primary
focus on pedology.
Micromorphology is the science that studies microfabrics of undisturbed
soil materials by microscopic (light optical and less frequently by submicro-
scopic) methods, commonly using thin-section techniques. Micromorphology,
as used in the U.S., is a tool - not a discipline. It is a means to an end
and not an end in itself. The detail, significance, and interpretation of
features observed micromorphically are lost if not set in context with soil
as a natural landscape body. Thus, micromorphology is commonly applied to
obtain specific microfabric information supplemental to the physical set-
ting, macromorphological features, and physical, chemical, mineralogical,
biological, and submicroscopy databases. It is a powerful intermediate
resolution tool to refine macromorphological observations and generalize sub-
microscopic observations. It serves to bridge the telescoping array of ob-
servations from the visible range (low resolutionlhigh field of view) to the
submicroscopic range (high resolutionllow field of view).
Historically, micromorphology has evolved from the late 30's and early
40's in the U.S. through early efforts of Kubiena (1938) and associates at
Iowa State University (Cady et al, 1986). Collectively, these pioneers ob-
served microfabrics of soil we would consider today as Mollisols, Alfisols,
and Inceptisols. While noting many pedological features in thin section,
they suggested micromorphology may become a promising soil correlation tool.
In the late 40's and ~O'S,f ive papers were published in major scientific
outlets by Cady, Frei, Cline, Grossman, Buol and Hole (Wilding and Flach,
1985). This was the formative period for development of the 7th Approxima-
tion, (Soil Survey Staff, 1960) in the U.S.. Most micromorphology studies
of this period were on Alfisols, Mollisols, Spodosols and Inceptisols in the
North Central and Northeastern regions of the U.S.. Emphasis was on
VIII
fragipans, argillic horizons, mineral transformations in rock weathering and
composition of ped surfaces relative to ped interiors. From the 60's to the
mid ~O'S,4 0 papers were published in U.S. journals with emphasis on the
diagnostic horizons and their definitions as criteria for Soil Taxonomy
(Soil Survey Staff, 1975). It was also the period when implications of
micromorphology to soil/plant/root relationships were developed and micromor-
phology work extended to all regions of the nation. Brewer's (1964) text
was published to provide a systematic framework to describe and integrate
micromorphology with pedogenesis. From the mid 70's to date, a dynamic
growth and changing focus in the use of micromorphology has evolved. The
thrust switched from a descriptive science to a problem-solving one and from
a pedological oriehtation to multidisciplinary utilitarian applications. Ex-
amples are micromorphology as a tool for: 1) tracing pathways of water move-
ment and pollutants in soils; 2) the degradation of soil structure with con-
sequent formation of crusts and tillage pans; 3) micromorphic evidence of
soil failure and faulting; and, 4) utilization of micromorphology as an ar-
cheological/paleopedological tool. During this period, the coupling of
micromorphology and submicroscopy occurred. The publication of Soil
Micromorphology and Soil Classification (Douglas and Thompson, 1985) il-
lustrated the application of micromorphology in developing class differen-
tiae for Soil Taxonomy.
Micromorphology terminology in the U.S. has been steeped for nearly 25
years in Brewer's legacy and that of Kubiena before Brewer. The ISSS ter-
minology (Bullock et al., 1985) is only beginning to gain acceptance. It
will take time for conversion and adoption. The ISSS system is received
with mixed enthusiasm by most U.S. scientists using micromorphology. This
system is well-illustrated, provides for international reference and in-
cludes an excellent chapter on organic components. However, many will argue
that this system is tedious, difficult to apply, sometimes confusing and
time-consuming. A future goal for this Working Group is to continue to
strive for greater simplicity in micromorphology communication with allied
earth scientists.
A few micromorphology challenges are offered for the future. Micromor-
phology needs better application and utilization in teaching. Students need
to see the architecture of the 'real soil world' which can only be ap-
preciated in microfabrics. Micromorphology offers the teacher an excellent
visual aid to demonstrate fundamental properties and constraints of soil sys-
tems. Another niche for micromorphology is to help develop better natural
resource inventories. Micromorphology provides a tool to critically
IX
evaluate models of landscape evolution and soil patterns. Once validated,
these models permit soil scientists to make more rapid and accurate soil sur-
veys. The end product is better interpretations of soil resources for use
management and environmental quality control assessments. The Interna-
tional Geosphere Biosphere Program is a vehicle through which such contribu-
tions could be made globally. Another area is the quantification of
microfabrics by image analysis. This endeavor is still in a state of flux.
Two schools of thought are prominent: 1) let the eye be the integrator and
use image analysis to quantify visual entities of importance; and 2) let
image analysis equipment do the entire task of identification, classifica-
tion and quantification. This dilemma does not appear to be near resolution
and would serve as a fruitful area for future research and dialogue.
The diverse program of the VIII International Working Meeting on Soil
Micromorphology, from which papers in this Proceedings are taken, address
multifaceted and multidisciplinary, current micromorphic activities. They
emphasize: 1) soil and ecological conditions of the arid and semiarid
regions of the world (Aridisols, Vertisols, soils enriched with carbonates,
gypsum and salts); 2) hydromorphic or wetland conditions); 3) current and na-
tional/international research priorities (soil erosion and degradation,
water quality and conservation and waste disposal); 4) applications of
micromorphology to agronomic and earth scientists (soil/root interface, soil
structure and porosity, water movement and retention, and mineral degrada-
tion and synthesis); 5) education/technology transfer); 6) micromorphic tech-
niques (new differential dissolution procedures, quantification of micromor-
phology, submicroscopy, and dye stains for component identification); and 7)
applications to other disciplines (geology, paleopedology and extrater-
restrial sciences).
Thanks are extended to all cosponsors of the IWMSM-88, to the Organiza-
tion Committee and to the Field-Trip Tour leaders. Special recognition go
to the extraordinary efforts of the SecretarylPublicity Chairperson (Dr.
L.R. Drees), the Local Arrangements Chairperson (Dr. M.H. Milford) and the
Mid-Conference and South Texas Tour Chairperson (Dr. C.T. Hallmark).
Without their continual assistance and encouragement this Working Meeting
could not have been hosted in such a professional manner. Finally, we are
all indebted to Dr. L.A. Douglas, who has served as Editor-in-Chief of the
Proceedings. All the papers were refereed by members of the Working Group.
Dr. Douglas' dedication in bringing this publication to fruition is most
meritorious and notable.
X
REFERENCES
Brewer, R., 1964. Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Bullock, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., Tursina, T., and
Babel, U., 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description, Waine
Research Publications, Mount Pleasant, UK, p. 152.
Cady, J.G., Wilding, L.P., and Drees, L.R., 1986. Petrographic microscope
techniques. In: A. Klute (ed.), Methods of Analyses, Part 1, 2nd ed.
Agronomy, 9: 185-218.
Douglas, L.A. and Thompson, M.L., 1985. Soil micromorphology and soil
classification. In: SSSA Special Pub. No. 15, Soil Sci. SOC. America,
p. 216.
Kubiena, W.L, 1938. Micropedology, Collegiate Press, Ames, Iowa.
Soil Survey Staff, 1960. Soil classification, a comprehensive system.
In: 7th Approximation, USDA-SCS, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classi-
fication for making and interpreting soil surveys, USDA-SCS, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Wilding, L.P. and Flach, K., 1985. Micropedology and soil taxonomy.
In: L.A. Douglas and M.L. Thompson (eds.), Micromorphology and Soil
Classification, Spec. Pub. No. 15, Soil Sci. SOC. Am..
Larry P. Wilding
Soil & Crop Sciences Dept.
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843
1
THE FUTURE OF SOIL MICROMORPHOLOGY
M.J. KOOISTRA
Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, P.O. Box 98, 6700 AB Wageningen (The
Netherlands)
ABSTRACT
The future of soil micromorphology can only be grasped properly if the scope
of soil micromorphology is clearly defined. Looking at the definitions of soil
micromorphology and submicroscopy the conclusion has to be drawn that soil
micromorphology is not a science in itself; it is a scientific activity to
obtain specific information. This information has to add real extra value to the
research concerned, not only at feature level, but expressed as processes and
their implications, and needs to be available within the limitations of costs
and time. Micromorphological research, however, is a specialist's job because
specialized knowledge is required to select the appropriate methods and
techniques to obtain the required information, and to identify features and
processes and to quantify them and their effects.
In practice, this level of extra information is rarely reached. In the
successive steps of a micromorphological study, there are several weak point:;
which need improvement. The most obvious technical points are: inadequate
sampling procedures, restricted knowledge of available techniques of light
microscopy and submicroscopy, and lack of reliable quantitative analyses. In
micromorphological research itself, the level of interpretation is often t.oo
low, because diagnostic criteria for different processes and their magnitude are
not sufficiently known, and syntheses of micromorphological results with results
from other fields of research are not stressed sufficiently.
Historically, micromorphology was applied to the genesis and classification
of soil. In the last decade, more fields of application have emerged, st-imulated
by new developments in light microscopy and submicroscopy, microchemical
analysis and quantitative approaches. Examples of these new fields are: the
relations between biotic and abiotic processes; the effects of different land
uses including agricultural practices; the reconstruction of past. environments
and of human-induced events in sedimentology and archaeology. If the weak points
of micromorphology are improved and the level to which micromorphologists are
trained is increased substantially, micromorphology will enlarge its scope
further and its future will be promising.
1 INTRODUCTION
At the International Working Meeting on Soil Micromorphology a workshop/panel
discussion was organized on the future of soil micromorphology. A short
introduction was prepared to focus attention on this topic and to provide a
framework for the discussion. This paper reflects the content of that
introduction, augmented by important remarks from the panel members and the
audience. The panel members were: Dr. H.J. Altemuller, F.A.L., Braunschweiy,
2
B.R.D.; Dr. L.M. Bresson, 1.N.A.-Grignon, France, and Dr. G. Stoops, R.U. Gent,
Belgium.
2 SCOPE OF SOIL MICROMORPHOLOGY
To be able to consider the scope of soil micromorphology, some basic
definitions must first be given. For a start, the concept of soil
micromorphology has to be defined. It can be formulated as follows:
"Soil micromorphology is the study of undisturbed materials, viz. soils,
sediments, unconsolidated rock, generally in thin sections, with light and
submicroscopic techniques".
This definition immediately leads to the formulation of a second definition, for
submicroscopy: "Submicroscopy is the study of undisturbed materials, whether or
not hardened or processed into thin sections with instruments which analyse
emitted radiation of wavelengths smaller than visible light (Bisdom/Kooistra)".
From these two definitions it must be concluded that soil micromorphology in
itself is not a science but a scientific activity using specific techniques.
Figure 1 gives an overview of the procedure and kind of specific information
obtained by a micromorphological study. The features observed are translated
into processes, whose strengths and interrelations can be identified and used
(often in combination with other analytical data) on a higher level, for
extrapolations, explanations, models and predictions.
identification 1
ELJ location observations
distribution &
r- interrelations description/
quantification tables etc.
reflect
3
identification
strength/frequency
interrelations
actuality
result in
extrapolation/
generalization
synthesis
models
predict ions
Fig. 1. Overview of the procedure and use of specific information obtained by
micromorphological research.
3
Micromorphology can be applied to a wide range of sciences. At the moment the
main ones are soil science, geology, physical geography, agricultural sciences,
biology, archaeology and engineering. Consequently, the strength of
micromorphology is that it adds new information unobtainable from the research
approaches of other scientific fields. Micromorphology in itself, however, is a
specialist's job, because it requires ample knowledge of identification of
features, processes, quantitative analyses and their implications, as well as a
thorough knowledge of methods and techniques. On the basis of this conclusion
the fundamental requirements of a micromorphological study can be formulated:
- Adequate information must be produced: it must be valuable not only at feature
level, but be expressed as processes and effects for higher level
applications. This information needs to be available within the constraints of
finances and time.
-
The results must be easy to incorporate in the field of science concerned.
This implies: simple terminology, adequate quantitative data and clear
interpretations.
The scope of micromorphological research implies that a micromorphologist can
rarely work in isolation, because cooperation with other specialists will often
be required. The micromorphologist also needs to have an open mind, to pick up
demands for research and to translate them into micromorphological research
which really does provide essential extra information (Fig. 2).
3 THE SCREENING PROCEDURE IN MICROMORPHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Below, the consequences of the abovementioned scope of soil micromorpholoqy
for the successive steps in the research procedure are considered. The procedure
chosen is first to formulate the general practice and then to formulate future
requirements. The latter are not necessarily already avajlable. For certain
steps, much research needs to be done before application can be realized. The
intention is to sketch the main lines for future development. This may stimulate
reflections and actions to improve and develop new approaches.
The procedure of a micromorphological study can be split up in the following
steps, which are all of basic importance and determine the ultimate quality of
the research performed:
1 sampling,
2 preparation of sections,
3 techniques,
4 presentation of data,
5 interpretation,
6 synthesis.
These items will now be considered in turn.
