Vol.

66

MARCHAPRIL 2002

No. 2

HISTORY OF SOIL SCIENCE

Historical Development of Soil and Weathering Profile Concepts from Europe to the United States of America
John P. Tandarich,* Robert G. Darmody, Leon R. Follmer, and Donald L. Johnson ABSTRACT
In the 1870s, agricultural geologists (pioneer pedologists) in Germany, Denmark, and Russia conceived of the soil profile. In more than a century since, pedologists have generally agreed on the reasons and purpose for using symbols such as A-B-C for the designations, but not on the definitions themselves or the assigned significance of the designations. In this paper, we submit that two seemingly conflicting classes of profile concepts evolved in the USA from European roots. The conflict stems historically from arbitrarily defined thin and thick profile concepts, often referred to as the soil or geologic weathering profiles, respectively. The pedologic or thin profile concept is depthrestricted when compared with the geologic thick weathering profile. The geologic profile concept was developed as a homologue of the pedologic profile and is considered to be the full or complete profile of weathering. Throughout the 20th century many variations of the concept of profile appeared, and all seem to have pedogeo conflicts, exemplified by the myriad C horizon definitions by soil scientists. Recent concepts, such as the pedoweathering profile, have integrated the terminology used by pedologists and geologists into a functional and useful classification for all horizons of complete profiles. Full 21st century understanding of soils beyond the historic 20th century needs of agriculture, increasingly requires a knowledge of soil properties to greater depth than merely the historic solum and upper C horizon, and makes understanding subsolum properties more critical than ever before.

s pedology and Pleistocene (or Quaternary) geology, have sprung from similar scientific roots, it is not surprising that they have developed homologous
J.P. Tandarich, Hey and Associates, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1015, Chicago, IL 60604; R.G. Darmody, Dep. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801; L.R. Follmer, Illinois St. Geol. Surv., 615 Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820; and D.L. Johnson, Dep. of Geography, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 607 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801. Received 5 June 2000. *Corresponding author (chicago@heyassoc.com). Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:335346 (2002).

profile concepts. This paper documents historical and geographic aspects of the evolution of these disciplines and their profile concepts from European sources to the USA. We emphasize the interdisciplinary communication between pedologists and Quaternary geologists that existed during and since the early 20th century, as both sciences evolved their unique identities and domains of study. As the 21st century unfolds, we see practitioners of both disciplines attempting to reopen this communication to the mutual benefit of both and the earth sciences in general. Both disciplines developed from pioneer geologist Abraham G. Werners geognosic concern with the surface of the earth of the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich, 1998). The agricultural purview of the developing science of geology became known as Agrikulturgeognosie, or agricultural geology (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich, 1998). When agricultural geologist Friedrich A. Fallou (1862) defined soil science that he called Naturwissenschaft Bodenkunde or Pedologie, as distinct from Sprengels (1837) Bodenkunde (soil knowledge), he stressed the need to study soil under one main concept (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; p. 7). We suggest that the concept for soil study, formulated as a response to Fallou, was the soil profile.

Evolution of The Soil or Pedological Profile

The terms soil horizon and soil profile are 20th-century additions to the glossary of soil science (Glinka, 1914; Marbut, 1927; Shaw, 1927). Before their inception, scientists used other terms to describe soil, including formation, soil layer or layer, vegetable mould, vegetable soil, stratum, substratum, and level. Werner, originator
Abbreviations: ASSA, American Soil Survey Association; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization.

335

336

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

of geognosy (modern geology) in the late 18th century, coined the term formation and used it to mean a discrete rock layer or stratum observable in the field (Ospovat, 1971; Laudan, 1987). Thus began a three-dimensional focus on layers or strata of rocks and soils by Werner and his academic successors in agricultural geology (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich, 1998). The three-dimensional view of a soil was called a soil section, cut, or vertical cut. German agricultural geologists such as Fallou (1862), J.R.L. von Libernau (1868), and Albert Orth (1873, 1875) recognized the third dimensional perspective of soil by the mid 19th century.

The Diverse European Origins of the A-B-C Soil Profile

It has been widely assumed that Vasilli V. Dokuchaev (1879a, 1879b) first conceived of and published the AB-C profile (Tandarich et al., 1988). More accurately, he synthesized and expanded upon existing concepts. Actually, Orth (see cover) promulgated the bodenprofil (soil profile) as an essential basis for geognosticheagronomische Kartirung (geologicalagronomic mapping) that had been initiated in 1868 (Orth, 1873, 1875) and, according to Mu ckenhausen (1997, p. 266), carried the soil profile down to the parent material. In addition, Orth (1875) developed soil groupings based on profile characteristics. Danish scientist Pieter E. Mu ller, who stated that he was influenced by Orths work, used the letters a, b, and c in soil profile diagrams (see cover) and analyses (Mu ller, 1878). His (Mu ller, 1878) designations were: a torf (turf), b bleisand (bleached sand), b rotherde (reddish earth), and c untergrunde (underground). However, the paper was not published until 9 yr later (Mu ller, 1887). In the meantime, Dokuchaev had published his concepts (Dokuchaev, 1879a, 1879b, 1883) and it is, therefore, Dokuchaevs name that has become associated with the soil profile and not Orths or Mu llers. Most soil scientists probably dont associate Charles Darwin with soils, but he made soil-biota process observations intermittently for over 40 yr, which culminated in his worm book (Darwin, 1881). Russian pedologist A.A. Yarilov (1936) even honored Darwin as the founder of soil science, adding that Rothamsted Research Station manager Edward J. Russell endorsed the book as the most interesting book ever written about soil (see also Johnson, 1999). A diagram in the book shows a soil profile with an A-B-C-D sequence of horizons or layers, with the A indicating sod, the B the main vegetable mould (topsoil), a C horizon representing a stone-line, and a D apparently representing bedrock (chalk). Dokuchaev (1879a, 1879b) credited Fallou and Orth as having influenced his own thinking. We suggest that, following on Fallous and Orths work, Dokuchaev (1879a, 1879b, 1883) crystallized the one main concept of the soil as an independent natural body, seen in a profile composed of horizons that facilitated soil to be systematically described, compared, and classified.

Dokuchaev (1879a, p. 2528), in his initial lectures of 1877 through 1878 on the Russian Chernozem pub` ge (aplished in French, formulated a concept of soil sie pearance) as a construction (arrangement) of trois nchantillons (layers): le premier de la couche [layer or e stratum] du sol [A, le second [B] de la couche transi` me [C] de la roche primitive [origitionaire, et le trosie nal rock]. Dokuchaev (1879a, p. 27) appears to use nchantillons and couches interchangeably. e In his first major work on soil published in Russian, Dokuchaev (1879b, p. 7071) used two phrases when he spoke of what is now known as the profile: (stroenie chernozem struc ture of the chernozem) and (zaleganiya chernozem stratification of the chernozem). The structure or stratification of the chernozem consisted ideally of an individual A, B, and C (ghorizont horizon, meaning layer or stratum). The phrase Dokuchaev (1879b, p. 71) used to describe the C horizon is (korennoyu porodoyu root rock). In the first Russian soil work published in English, Dokuchaev and Nikolai M. Sibirtsev (1893) introduced the A-B-C scheme into the USA at the 1893 Worlds Columbian Exposition in Chicago, IL (Tandarich et al., 1988; Simonson, 1989). Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev (1893, p. 4) described the concept of the soil cut, in which always and everywhere there could be distinguished by the three following levels: A.level of the soil; B.transitive level of the soil; C.primitive-rock (subsoil). The thickness of the soil was represented by A B (Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev, 1893, p. 7). However, neither the terms profile nor horizon was used in this publication. ` me des Dokuchaev (1900, p. 35) presented a syste zones verticales de sols . . . at the Universal Exposition ` Paris). of 1900 in Paris (Exposition Universelle de 1900 a He used the term lhorizon equivalently with zone vertical in his publication (Dokuchaev, 1900). The A-B-C profil de la coupe [scheme] des zones verticales des sols . . . also included a D horizon when necessary (Dokuchaev, 1900, p. 40). The D horizon was not defined only described as being below a C horizon. In Russia, Dokuchaevs profilehorizon concept evolved through application by his students, such as Sibirtsev (1900), S.A. Zakharov (1906), and Konstantin Glinka (1908, 1914, 1915). The Glinka (1914) profile became known in Germany through Glinkas collaboration with Orths student Hermann Stremme (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994), and consisted of an eluvial A, an illuvial B, and the parent rock or C horizon. Although the A-B-C profile was known in Europe through Mu llers (1887) work, it appears to have been used only in Russia (e.g., Sibirtsev, 1900; Zakharov, 1906; Glinka, 1908, 1915), and Germany (Ramann, 1911; Glinka, 1914) until about 1920.

The Soil Profile Concept in the United States of America

In the USA, agricultural geologist Nathaniel S. Shaler (see cover) (1890, 1891) described and illustrated dis-

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

337

tinct layers in forest soils: the true or upper soil (including the forest mould), and the false or under soil (also called the subsoil). This appears to be the first soil profile scheme promulgated by an agricultural geologist in the USA. By the date of publication, Shaler (1890, 1891) takes precedence over Eugene W. Hilgard, who did not publish his profile concept until 1906 (Hilgard, 1906; Jenny, 1961). George Coffey (1912, p. 8) considered the soil an independent, natural body, a bio-geological formation, consisting of a surface soil and a subsoil. The author of the U.S. Bureau of Soils (1914) Instructions to Field Parties (who Simonson [1987] believes was Curtis F. Marbut, Coffeys successor as head of the U.S. soil survey program) defined the soil section, composed of soil material, as including the topsoil, subsoil, and substratum layers. Marbut (1927) discovered the soil profile while translating Glinkas (1914) work during a 3-yr period (19141917). Marbut wrote in his personal papers that advancement of the Russian work was a politically sensitive issue because of the anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S. Bureau of Soils. He stated, I had to work in secret. I was called a Russian worshipper by my own men. Whitney had a reputation for getting rid of those who did not agree with him [e.g., Coffey]. I told him [Whitney] that I would follow his orders, but would think for myself (Lankford et al., 1985, p. 39, Folders 141144). Marbut had completed and prepared a limited number of carbon copies of the Glinka translation for circulation to a few selected persons by 1920 (Lankford et al., 1985, vol. 5, p. 40). However, it appears that he waited to have the translation published until the U.S. Bureau of Soils head Whitney was too ill to oppose it. The translation was finally published (albeit in mimeograph form) in conjunction with the First International Congress of Soil Science in 1927 (Marbut, 1927).

teract the growing influence of C.F. Marbut. Perhaps such resistance by some ASSA members to either Marbut or the use of the profile concept led to a statement by P.E. Brown of Iowa State University made at the 1923 ASSA meeting:
What has been the accomplishment to date in soil survey research? Little beyond the accumulation of knowledge of soil characteristics and a change of viewpoint. Both are most significant. Dr. Marbut in his discussion on soil classification at the Michigan meeting of the Association (Marbut, 1922) emphasized the fact that a beginning has just been made in soil science, by the gathering of facts. He also called attention to the changed views on the subject. It took a long time to bring about a conviction that soil mapping was not a geological operation and there are still some men in the field who see soils geologically rather than from a true soils viewpoint. The suggestions which Dr. Marbut made were timely and should lead to a different conception of soil survey in relation to soil science. The study of soil profiles, the sorting of the various factors serving to differentiate soils on the basis of profile characteristics and the gradual accumulation of a fund of soil information, from the soil and not the geological, agricultural, or botanical standpoint will certainly lead to a rapid development of soil science. It is not necessary to agree to all Dr. Marbuts premises, to accept his grouping system or to follow his ideas absolutely but he certainly offers suggestions which merit our careful consideration. (Brown, 1924, p. 22)

United States Soil Profile Evolution in the 1920s and 1930s

Marbut introduced the soil profile concept without using horizon designations at the American Association of Soil Survey Workers meeting in East Lansing, MI in 1921 (Marbut, 1922). Merris M. McCool and Jethro O. Veatch, also without horizon designations, did the first profile-oriented work in the USA, in Michigan in 1922. They presented their work at the American Soil Survey Association (ASSA) meeting held in Urbana, IL in 1922 (McCool and Veatch, 1923). Marbut touted the work as the first work of the kind to be done in the United States (McCool and Veatch, 1923, p. 165). At the 1922 meeting, it was recommended, that the Association encourage the more intensive work in the individual states regarding Characteristics of Soil Profile (ONeal, 1923, p. 173). The first person to publish the A-B-C designation system in the USA was Raymond S. Smith of Illinois, in a paper given at the 1923 ASSA meeting in Chicago (Smith, 1924). Simonson (1987, p. 13) has declared, without documentary evidence, that the ASSA was formed to coun-

Brown clearly represented a faction of ASSA members willing to evaluate and accept new ideas regardless of origin. His statement reflects an emphasis on the use of the profile as a concept for studying soils as independent entities, paving the way for the development in the USA of what is now known as pedology. Bridges (1997, p. 52) relates a personal communication from Simonson who stated that during 1924 a circular was issued which contained instruction on the use of the A-B-C designations; its anonymous author was Marbut. This explains how a symposium Profile Studies of Four Major Soil Groups could be organized at the 1924 ASSA meeting in Chicago. The presented papers, published later, used the A-B-C designations in a generally consistent way: J.C. Russell and E.G. Engle (1925) on the central prairies, H.H. Krusekopf (1925) on brown soils of the north central states, Earl Fowler (1925) on coastal plain soils, and Veatch (1925) on northern podsol soils. Charles F. Shaw (1925; see cover) also used the A-B-C designation in his report on Australian soils. Veatch (1925, p. 27) refers to the A-B-C profile as the Glinka scheme. This was 2 yr before the mimeographed Marbut (1927) translation of Glinka was available in the USA; carbon copies of the translation were circulating within the professional community. A symposium on Soil Profile Studies was held at the 1925 ASSA meeting. All of the presentations and subsequent publications featured the A-B-C system: Thomas D. Rice (1926) on prairie soils, Mark Baldwin (1926) on northern timbered soils, William Hearn (1926) on southern soils, and Macy H. Lapham (1926) on western soils.

338

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Table 1. Correspondences of soil horizon and layer concepts as given in Shaw (1927).
Soil horizon A (A1 ) eluvial horizon A2 Billuvial horizon Cunweathered parent material Soil layer Surface soil Subsurface Subsoil Substratum

National and International Profile Formalization

When Charles E. Kellogg (see cover) became the Chief of the Soil Survey after the death of Marbut in 1935, he defined the A and B horizons (the solum) for use in the national soil survey (Kellogg, 1936, 1937). While the emphasis on the A and B horizons has remained unchallenged to the present, the C horizons definition and application could be called inconsistent. Kellogg (1930, p. 35) initially described the C horizon as parent material that has been unaltered by soilbuilding forces. He (Kellogg, 1936) then called the C horizon weathered parent material. Later, he and the Soil Survey Staff characterized the C as little altered by pedological processes (Soil Survey Staff, 1951, 1962). This ambiguous C concept became dogma. This dogmatic C horizon became part of the theoretical base of pedology through Roy W. Simonsons work. He (Simonson, 1959, p. 152) proposed that it had an indefinite lower boundary. According to Simonson and David R. Gardner (1960, p. 128), the pedon concept would . . . [extend] downward far enough to include the full set of genetic horizons. The lower boundary [of the C horizon] cannot be defined clearly, nor can it be established conclusively in many instances by direct observation. It must remain somewhat vague, as does the lower boundary of the soil itself. On an international level, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (1977, p. 18) stated in its horizon designation guidelines that the C . . . should not be labeled as [a] soil horizon but as [a] layer, since [its] characteristics are not produced by soil forming factors. However, the FAO also declared that the C horizon does not show properties of any other master horizons (FAO, 1977, p. 20). We have listed subsolum horizons and their definitions in Table 2. In most instances the designations were assigned to intervals between the solum and unweathered material or bedrock.

In 1926 Shaw, who was serving as chairman of the ASSA Committee on Terminology, proposed a terminology glossary (Shaw, 1927). Here, for the first time, definitions were compiled, including soil layer, soil horizon, and soil profile. The term soil layer was used in descriptions of the soil section since the inception of soils surveys in the U.S. Bureau of Soils in the late 1890s (U.S. Bureau of Soils, 1914; Simonson, 1987). The terms horizon and profile were more recent arrivals through Glinka (1914) and Marbut (1927). Shaw merely equated the definitions of soil horizon and soil layer; the correspondences between them are summarized in Table 1. The horizonlayer synonymy was used for educational purposes: horizon was used in scientific contexts and layer in school or lay contexts (Lapham and Marbut, 1931). Currently, layer is used by geologists and sedimentologists to refer to any tabular body of rock, of ice, or of unconsolidated material, lying in a position essentially parallel to the surface or surfaces on or against which it was formed, and more or less distinctly limited above and below (Bates and Jackson, 1987, p. 373). The term layer has been broadened in a soils sense to include horizon. Horizon, although originally defined as a layer in a soil profile, has come to mean a layer or material altered by pedogenesis (Soil Science Society of America, 1997). A soil profile was defined by Shaw (1927, p. 68) as a vertical section of soil from the surface into the underlying unweathered material. Shaw presented the glossary at the First International Congress of Soil Science in 1927 (Shaw, 1928a), and again later that year at the 1927 ASSA meeting where it was formally adopted by the society (Shaw, 1928b). The Shaw (1929) profile shows an appreciation for characterizing the region beneath the A and B horizons: C1 represents oxidized, leached, C2 is oxidized, unleached, and CN equals unaltered parent material (the CN designation, rewritten as Cn, was used 45 yr later by Birkeland (1974) for unaltered parent material). After the horizon definitions were adopted by the ASSA in 1928, no real consensus was reached in the profession regarding horizon definitions. The ASSA appointed a Committee on Horizon Criteria, chaired by E.A. Norton, to develop standard horizon definitions. C.C. Nikiforoff (1931) cursorily reviewed the history of the A, B, and C horizons, possibly as background for the committee. The committee met from 1931 to 1934 and the results were reported by Norton (1932, 1933, 1934, 1935), but no consensus on standard definitions was reached. In its final statement, the committee decided to leave horizon concepts flexible and their definitions deliberately imprecise to allow application over a wide variety of conditions (Norton, 1935).

A-B-C Profile Expansion And Alternatives

Efforts have been made to expand existing or develop alternative horizon designation systems. D.W. Pittman (1932) promulgated the descriptive system proposed by A.N. Sokolovsky (1931, 1932). In this scheme, a P (parent rock) horizon was used rather than C. In addition, the unaltered parent material was designated with a notation z following the P (Pittman, 1932). Eugene P. Whiteside (1959) proposed a series of morphogenetic horizon designations in place of the A, B, and C. His profile below the solum consisted of pedogenetic horizons W (water leached, oxidized, and slightly altered) and X (unknown). These pedogenetic horizons were distinguished from petrogenetic horizons P (primary materialunaltered, unleached, and unoxidized layer) or U (underlying, unrelated materials). In addition, Whiteside (1959) advanced a total profile concept, the soil, which extended from the surface (V) to the unaltered (P). While Whitesides proposals were not wholly adopted, his E horizon designation was used in

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

339

Table 2. Summary of subsolum horizon and layer concepts.

Horizon or layer Symbol or designation C Placement (subsolum unless otherwise indicated) Subsoil

Definition or description

Reference Dokuchaev (1879, 1883, 1900), Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev (1893) Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927) Shaw (1927, 1928a, 1928b) Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951, 1960, 1962, 1975, 1981, 1993), FAO (1973, 1977) Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994) Marbut (1924) Fowler (1925) Veatch (1925) Norton and Smith (1928), Shaw (1929) Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951) Follmer (1979) Marbut (1924), Shaw (1929) Fowler (1925) Veatch (1925) Norton and Smith (1928) Follmer (1979) Norton and Smith (1928) Follmer (1979) Follmer (1979) Frye et al. (1960, 1962), Willman et al. (1963, 1966) Shaw (1929), Birkeland (1974) Birkeland (1974) FAO (1973, 1974, 1977) Soil Survey Staff (1981, 1993) Birkeland (1984) Dokuchaev (1900) Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927) Norton and Smith (1928) Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951) Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994) Soil Survey Staff (1951) Norton and Smith (1928) Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927) Glinka (1914) Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951) Brinkman and Pons (1973), Dent (1986, 1993) Soil Survey Staff (1951) Hallberg et al. (1978) Pittman (1932) Whiteside (1959) Soil Survey Staff (1962, 1975, 1981, 1993); FAO (1973, 1974, 1977) Nye (1954) Whiteside (1959) Hallberg et al. (1978) Frye et al. (1960, 1962); Willman et al. (1963, 1966) Watson (1961) Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962) Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962) Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham (1942) Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham (1942)

C1

C1 C2

C2 C3 C3 C4 CC Cn, Cn Cox Cr

Cu

Dr E G

M OU P R S U UU Unaltered W Zone 4 Zone 5

Subsoil, parent material or rock Feebly altered parent material Substratum Unweathered parent material Unconsolidated material little affected by pedogenic processes and lacking properties of O, A (including A2 later renamed E), B, and R; (includes C1, C2, D, G) Oxidized or gleyed, unleached Weathered, leached parent material Altered, unleached parent material Basal horizon of weathering Decomposed, disintegrated, oxidized, leached Slightly weathered Transitional to C2 (viz.) Leached, oxidized Decomposed, oxidized, unleached parent or source Unaltered, unleached parent material Below substratum Below substratum: unaltered geologic formation Decomposed, lesser disintegration, oxidized, leached Oxidized, unleached Decomposed, slight disintegration, oxidized, leached Transitional to C4 (viz.) Elements of C2 and C4 horizons present Unoxidized, unleached (unaltered) Oxidized, unleached Unaltered parent material Oxidized, unleached Strong reduction from groundwater influence Weathered, partly consolidated or soft bedrock Unaltered parent material Below C Ochre gley Slight decomposition, oxidized, calcareous Stratum unlike C and/or solum Below C Unaltered, unoxidized, unleached, unconsolidated Below C Consolidated rock like that from which C (or solum, if no C is present) has developed Unaltered parent material Reduced gley or glei Glei (groundwater influenced) Within the C or beneath Altered gleyed parent material Undifferentiated, unripe material Irreversibly indurated (non-pedogenic) Oxidized, unleached Parent rock Unaltered, unleached, unoxidized Hard (consolidated or indurated) bedrock Sedentary weathered zone Underlying material unlike overlying material Unoxidized, unleached Unoxidized, unleached Weathered zone Oxidized, unleached Unoxidized, unleached Oxidized, unleached Unoxidized, unleached

Below oxidized, leached Below oxidized, unleached

340

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

the FAO (1973, 1977) and later Soil Survey Staff (1981, 1993) systems. E.A. Fitzpatrick (1967, 1980, 1988) also broke with tradition and formulated an alternative approach to the A-B-C-horizon designation. His system categorized all major horizons into 77 types based on their own characteristics and diagnostic properties. Such a large system adds precision and important distinction, but is difficult to remember and apply in the field. The study and classification systems of soils around the world were largely developed independently from one region to another. The systems were largely built on regional experiences. Nevertheless, in recent decades the A-B-C concept of soil profile has been used to denote the master horizons of most soils of the world. The A-B-C notation is most easily applied in youthful landscapes, particularly in those regions glaciated during the Pleistocene. Its application in areas outside of glaciated regions has been more problematic.

A-B-C Use in Deeply Weathered Profiles

In many nonglaciated areas of the world, deep weathered profiles have developed. The application of the C in these areas was as uncertain as the designation of the material that had weathered from the bedrock. G.F. Becker (1895, p. 289), in his studies of the southern Appalachian gold fields, noted that geologists had used the German words geest (meaning dry land) and gruss (meaning transported angular material; it now means an in situ weathering product) when describing decomposed bedrock. Considering these word uses unsatisfactory, he proposed the term saprolite [from the Greek , meaning rotten] for thoroughly decomposed, earthy, but untransported rock. When the exact character of the original rock is known it is easy to qualify this term and to speak of granitic saprolite, and the like (Becker, 1895, p. 289290). Although Becker (1895, p. 290) observed soils above the saprolite, he neither described the soil and saprolite nor attempted to genetically relate them in a profile. Fowler (1925) was the first to apply the A-B-C profile to deeply weathered soils of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. He subdivided the C horizon into two members: the C1 was parent material weathered from bedrock that retained its geological character and could extend downward many feet, and the C2 was the unaltered parent material bedrock (Fowler, 1925). Marbut (1928), in his USDA Graduate School lectures, recognized that the C horizon of certain soils in the Piedmont often extended down several tens of feet (several meters) into the disintegrated and decomposed (his terms) rock. He discussed analyses of C horizon samples at 25 (7.6 m) and 75 foot (22.7 m) depths (Marbut, 1928). Shaw (1929) included disintegrated bedrock in his C horizon definition. William Battle Cobb (1931, p. 87) in his study of chemical constituents lost from horizons in selected Georgia soil profiles, distinguished between the C horizon and the less weathered lower horizons that he called weathered rock. R.C. Jurney (1935, p. 57) recognized that lying between the bedrock and the soil

[AB horizons] itself is a deep zone of material which cannot be classed either as rock or as soil. He called this zone the C horizon and defined it as the place of decomposed rock material which is gradually changing into soil (Jurney, 1935, p. 57). O.C. Bryan (1935, p. 6667) used the designation C for disintegrated and decomposed rock in the soil profile. In the tropics, as one of us pointed out (Johnson, 1994), an alternative profile scheme was formulated by some workers in the 1950s through 1960s. In his cocoa soils studies, C.F. Charter (1949) observed that humid tropical soils in South America and Africa typically exhibit three-layered profiles: a fine fraction mantle (topsoil, surface mantle), above a stony layer (stone-line), over weathered regolith or weathered bedrock. P.H. Nye (1954), working in Nigeria, subsequently gave two master horizon designations for such three-layered soils: a surficial Creep (Cr) Horizon that includes the surface mantle and the stone-line), and a Sedentary (S) Horizon for the subjacent weathered zone. J.P. Watson (1961), working in southern Africa, renamed the three horizons as follows: M for mineral mantle, S for stony layer (stone-line), and W for the weathered zone, a much simpler and more straightforward scheme. Donald L. Johnson (1994), in comparing humid tropical soils with humid midlatitude soils, averred that the midlatitude A-E-B-C scheme is basically the same as the M-S-W scheme, where A M, E S, and B C W, and that the same basic genetic processes produce them (many midlatitude soils have stone-lines at either the AB horizon interface, or the EB horizon interface). The deeply weathered profiles developed in bedrock began to receive more attention from pedologists since the 1950s (Stolt and Baker, 1994). The term saprolite, as originally defined by Becker (1895), began to be used in U.S. soil surveys in the 1960s. Larry T. West (personal communication, 2000) stated that the earliest use of the term that he had seen was the Clarke and Oconee Counties, Georgia soil survey correlated in 1965 and published in 1968 (Robertson, 1968); and that the term appears to have entered the published soil science literature (at least in the USA) by 1973 (Ojanuga, 1973). H.H. Eswaran and W.C. Bin (1978) recognized distinct zones within the weathered bedrock portion of profiles and modified the concept of G. Stoops (1967) to address the situation. Their zones are briefly described as: A B, accumulated gravel either with (1) or without (2) petroplinthite, m mottled zone with plinthite, p pallid zone, evident rock structure, and R cohesive rock (Eswaran and Bin, 1978). Stanley W. Buol, his colleagues and students, have studied profiles in deeply weathered rock worldwide for over 25 yr. C.S. Calvert et al. (1980) applied the designation R-S to the saprolite and the R-U to the unweathered bedrock portion of these profiles. Within a short time, E.L. OBrien and Buol (1984) used C for saprolite. After further consideration, T.J. Rice, Jr. et al. (1985), R.A. Rebertus and Buol (1985), and Griffin and Buol (1988) applied Cr to the saprolite portion of the profile. The designation Cr was originally used in

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

341

the FAO (1973, 1974, 1977) system for strong reduction from groundwater influence. However, the Soil Survey Staff (1981, 1993) chose to designate weathered or soft bedrock by Cr. However, Buol found imprecision in the concept of saprolite, its use and application and has developed a provisional taxonomic classification for it (Buol, 1994). Most recently, P.J. Schoenberger et al. (1995), Li et al. (1997), and Buol et al. (2000) have used the C for saprolite.

The Solum: A European Scientific Soil Concept

The struggle with soil horizon and profile concepts was not unique to the USA. In Finland, Benjamin Frosterus recognized that there was no one language in the northern European and Scandinavian countries that had a scientific word for soil. His prime example was the widely used German word boden, meaning soil, topsoil, or ground, in this linguistic category. Consequently, Frosterus (1924) proposed the term solumhorizont (a singular German noun, from solumthe Latin word for soil) for that portion of the earth surface affected by soil-forming processes. Frosterus (1924) recognized that the Solumhorizont extended from the surface downward and included (i) a surface zone of depletion, (ii) a zone of enrichment and (iii) a zone unaffected by soilcreation processes (the Untergrund). The solumhorizont concept was advanced at the 1924 International Conference on Agrogeology in Rome (at which the International Society of Soil Science was formed) that was attended by a few U.S. scientists, including Marbut. The concept name was shortened to solum when brought back to the USA. In 1926, Shaw (1927) defined the solum as the weathered part of the soil profile, and had restricted the term to the A and B horizons. Marbut (1928, 1951) called the solum the true soil, the mature soil, or the soil layer. However, outside of the USA, some scientists, such as D. Baize (1993) in France, appear to retain Frosterus original concept of the solum as the weathered portion of the earths crust; his conceptual solum and reference profiles include the A, B, and C horizons. The original solum concept embodied the entire soil profile, not just the A B. However, the solum concept in the USA has been restricted to the A and B horizons for the last 70 yr and this notion has spread globally. Nevertheless, a concept of a total solum incorporating the entire A-B-C profile has utility and is suggested in the profile concept of Norton and Smith (1928), the soel concept of Whiteside (1959), and the pedoweathering profile of John P. Tandarich et al. (1994).

Leverett and Alexander Winchell, were also active researchers in what became known as Pleistocene or Quaternary geology (Tandarich, 1998). The interest in soils among Quaternary geologists has expanded to include the subdisciplines of paleopedology and soil stratigraphy. In the 20th century study of Pleistocene geology, the concepts of the geologic weathering profile (Tandarich et al., 1988), and soil stratigraphy (Morrison, 1967, 1978) evolved to form a geological basis for understanding soils. Initially this evolution took place in schools and governmental agencies within the mid-continental USA where glaciated landscapes were prevalent. These institutions included the Universities of Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa, and the geological surveys of midwestern states. Colleagues of Shaler and Hilgard, Chamberlin, and Rollin Salisbury at the University of Chicago, trained George F. Kay (see cover). Kay was the originator of the term gumbotil (Kay, 1916) and geologic weathering profile (Kay and Pearce, 1920) concepts. Kay (1916, p. 637) characterized gumbo(til) as a grayish, tenacious, thoroughly leached, and nonlaminated joint clay. According to Kay (1916, p. 637), gumbotil is chiefly the result of weathering of till, but he never referred to it as soil. He gave a paper before the ASSA in 1929 (a reworking of portions of Kay and Apfel, 1928) entitled Gumbotil, its characteristics, origin and significance (Kay, 1930). Kay described stages of the alteration processes of the gumbotil and weathering profile:
solution, hydrolysis, the formation of colloids and crystalloids, precipitation and leaching, the gradual passage downward of all the transportable elements of the till, including the iron, the silica, the colloidal clays, and similar colloidal silicates. The resultant residuum of the chemical leaching process is a practically insoluble stratumthe gumbotil. In addition, such physical factors as wind action, freezing and thawing, and burrowing of ground animals may have played some part (Kay and Apfel, 1928, p. 111112; Kay, 1930, p. 134135).

Development of Homologous Profile Concepts

The subdiscipline of geology called Pleistocene geology or Quaternary geology arose from the Wernerian geognosic roots from the late 18th through the 19th centuries, as did agricultural geology. Many of the pioneer geologists who practiced agricultural geology, such as Amos Worthen, George H. Cook, Dokuchaev, Thomas C. Chamberlin, Hilgard, W.J. McGee, Frank

However, Kay stopped short of declaring the processes listed above to be soil-forming processes and the weathering profile, including the gumbotil, to be coequal to a soil profile. Yet he (Kay and Graham, 1942) equates the gumbotil and weathering profile zones as defined by Morris M. Leighton and Paul MacClintock (1930; see below) to soil profile horizons. Kays weathering profile zones are unnumbered or otherwise symbolically designated: gumbotil, oxidized and leached till, oxidized and unleached till, and unoxidized and unleached till (Kay and Apfel, 1928; Kay and Graham, 1942). We suspect that Kay was influenced by the work of Stevenson and J.F. Barker (1911) at Iowa State University on gumbo soils of Iowa. As Kays archival papers on the weathering profile are missing and presumed lost, we may never know if he corresponded with soil scientists as he formulated his ideas. Kay collected publications on soils, particularly soil survey reports, and corresponded with soil scientists Bushnell, Conrey, Norton, Rice and Smith in the 1920s and 1930s (Kay, n.d.).

342

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

A student and colleague of Kay, Leighton (see cover), refined the weathering profile concept. Leighton (1958) relates that, during his early years at the University of Illinois, he was inspired both by Glinkas work (1914) and Marbuts. Between January and July of 1923, Marbut gave a series of lectures at the University of Illinois that Leighton attended, and field trips were organized by university faculty members (Smith and others) to allow Marbut to view Illinois soils and comment on their characteristics and classification. The note cards of the soil profiles Marbut saw on this field trip are in the Marbut Collection (Lankford et al., 1985). As a result of this experience Leighton (1958, 1959; Leighton and MacClintock, 1930, 1962) credited Marbut for insights obtained on the soil profile and its application to studies of Pleistocene weathering profiles. In addition, Leighton had good rapport with the soils faculty at the University of Illinois during the 1920s. He particularly credited Smith and Norton, who were working on their own profile concepts at the time (see above and Table 2), for their active collaboration who directed attention especially, and with great helpfulness, to the detailed characteristics of the soil and immediate subsoil materials (Leighton and MacClintock, 1930, p. 30). Leighton (1958, p. 704) explained that the weathering profile was used as the geologic homologue of the pedologic term soil profile and also in recognition of the differences in the objectives, scope, and application of geology and pedology. Leighton (1958, p. 705) emphasized that it should be clear that the geologic terms weathered zone and profile of weathering and the pedological terms soil and soil profile refer to the same thing. Unfortunately, many users have consequently assumed that the actual profiles are different because the words are different. This partitioning of geological and pedological contexts was decided in an unwritten agreement resulting from a meeting between Leighton and Marbut during the latters 1923 lectures and field trips in Illinois (Leighton, 1958). As a result, the soil and geologic profile concepts were treated independently and, in many cases, differently or even mutually exclusive from each other. Hence, later concepts evolved beyond original intentions. Quaternary geologists in the 1920s were interested in soil profiles, but considered them less important than other geological endeavors. Agricultural geologists at the time were trying to diminish or rid themselves of their dependence on geological theories and create an independent soil science, with a subdiscipline concerned with soil genesis known as pedology. The Leighton Marbut agreement was seemingly a matter of convenience to delineate professional domains. This led to views that soil is not part of geology and vice versa. The Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962) weathering profile is similar to the Kay and J.N. Pearce (1920) profile except that the weathering zones were numbered from 1 through 5. Horizon 1 was restricted to the part called the surficial soil, the A horizon. The gumbotil proper, later correlated with the B(g) horizon by Simonson (1941) was designated Horizon 2. Horizons 3

through 5 were within the C horizon: Horizon 3 was oxidized and leached; Horizon 4 oxidized and unleached; and Horizon 5 unoxidized and unleached (unweathered). The Leighton and MacClintock weathering profile was used in Illinois and elsewhere in Pleistocene geologic studies until a revision was made by John C. Frye, H.B. Willman, and Herbert D. Glass. This revision began to evolve in the late 1940s and the 1950s. Frye, a Pleistocene geologist at the Kansas Geological Survey between 1942 and 1954, became acquainted with pedologist James Thorp, the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Division of Soil Survey regional correlator for the Great Plains. Glass (personal communication) stated that Frye became sensitive to the soil science literature and soil studies relative to Pleistocene stratigraphy through communication with Thorp and his published works (e.g., Thorp, 1949; Thorp et al., 1951). Frye came to the Illinois Geological Survey and succeeded Leighton as Chief in 1954, holding the post until 1974. Willman, a stratigrapher, had been working at the Illinois Survey since 1926, and Glass, a clay mineralogist, since 1948. The three began collaborating on Pleistocene soil studies in 1958 (Glass, personal communication, 1987) and produced major works on the concepts of gumbotil, accretion-gley, and the geologic weathering profile concept (Frye et al., 1960; Willman et al., 1963, 1966). Close linkage with the pedological profile is an integral part of the Frye, Willman, and Glass profile though they were uncomfortable with the term horizon, preferring instead zone. Their A-zone and B-zone are equivalent to the A and B horizons of the 1951 Soil Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff, 1951). The subdivisions of the C-zone (pedological C horizon) were threefold: CL, leached and oxidized; CC, unleached and oxidized; and UU unoxidized and unleached. The KayLeightonFrye weathering profiles were all developed to describe pedogenic horizons that they observed below the solum in youthful glacial deposits. Outside glaciated regions of the world, some geologists (and pedologists) have been using the term weathering profile to encompass both the pedological profile (solum), and the subsolum extending down to the unweathered bedrock (Pavich, 1986, 1989a, 1989b).

Interdisciplinary Communication And Concepts

Thorp (1935, 1949; et al., 1951) was one of the first to recognize the need to maintain interdisciplinary communication between pedology and Quaternary geology. Robert V. Ruhe of Iowa State University and the USDA-SCS pioneered studies combining pedology, geology, and geomorphology (Effland and Effland, 1992). One of Ruhes early publications treated Kansan and Nebraskan gumbotil variability (Ruhe, 1948). His work with Iowa State University pedologists Simonson and Frank F. Riecken led him to the conclusion, initially proposed by Simonson (1941), that gumbotil should be recognized as part of a paleosol profile. After Ruhe examined railroad cuts in southern Iowa (Ruhe, 1954), he possessed the data necessary to develop his concepts

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

343

of landscape evolution, soil stratigraphy and soil geomorphology that he promulgated in later works (Ruhe, 1956, 1959, 1969a, 1969b; Ruhe and Fenton, 1969). In particular, the work done by Ruhe in the Greenfield Quadrangle (Ruhe et al., 1967) and colleagues elsewhere in southwestern Iowa (Daniels and Jordan, 1966) help set modern standards for integrating geological and pedological methods to obtain better results for understanding the modern landscape, and why soils and paleosols are where they are. In 1958, Ruhe and colleague Raymond B. Daniels proposed revisions to the horizon designation system of the Soil Survey Staff (1951) that accommodated paleosol horizons (Ruhe and Daniels, 1958). Peter W. Birkeland, a Quaternary geologist influenced by pedologist Hans Jenny when at the University of California, Berkeley, has published on the interrelationships of pedology, Quaternary geology, and geomorphology (Birkeland, 1974, 1984, 1999). Birkeland modified the soil horizon designation system of the Soil Survey Staff (1951) by adding a Cox for an oxidized C horizon, and a Cn for unoxidized C (Birkeland, 1974). The latter was changed to Cu in 1981 in response to the horizon designation changes of the Soil Survey Staff that year (Birkeland, 1984). In 1978, Quaternary geologist George R. Hallberg of the Iowa Geological Survey, and Iowa State University pedologists Thomas E. Fenton and George R. Miller developed a hybrid profile descriptive system that incorporated notations from both the pedological and geological profiles. Letter clusters represent observed conditions below the pedological solum in loess and till: e.g., OL oxidized, leached; OU oxidized, unleached; and UU unoxidized, unleached (Hallberg et al., 1978). Independent of the Iowa effort, pedologist and Quaternary geologist Leon R. Follmer of the Illinois Geological Survey, influenced more by Leightons profile ideas than Fryes, developed a fourfold division of the C horizon (Follmer, 1979, 1984) that subdivided the region below the solum and included the unweathered portion of the profile (Table 2). More recently, Follmer et al. (1985) and Tandarich et al. (1994) introduced the pedoweathering profile concept, which contained pedogenic C and geogenic D horizons (Table 2), and integrated the functional parts of the pedological and geological profiles.

file model of the USDA has traditionally emphasized the solum: the A and B horizons of agricultural concerns, the focus of soil survey interest. For these reasons, the subsolum C horizon has traditionally been deemphasized and largely disregarded. Simonson viewed the C in his profile concept as vague, with an ill-defined upper and lower boundary; the FAO considered the C to be unaffected by soil-forming (pedogenic) processes. The deep profile stratigraphic concerns of geologists and geomorphologists led to an expanded profile developed from, and essentially a homologue of, the pedological profile. In spite of efforts by Thorp, Ruhe and others to integrate them, these two approaches artificially created by Marbut and Leighton, the pedological and geological, were seen as unrelated by some practitioners. The subsolum emphasis of the weathering profile not only applied to Quaternary deposits, but also extended to deeply weathered bedrock (Pavich, 1986, 1989a, 1989b; Cremeens et al., 1994). Recently, pedologists, Quaternary geologists, and soil geomorphologists have suggested and used profile concepts that are synthetic, i.e., they incorporate concepts and ideas from pedology and geologywhat the German scientists of the late 19th century called geopedology (Yarilov, 1927). When pedologists expand their study of the soil profile to greater depth, they will find geopedological profile definitions and applications useful. A geopedologic model can aid communication, promote understanding of the whole profile to a higher level than the five-factor model of Jenny (1941) or current models can do, and will provide more reliable interpretations of soil genesis and soil use. Also, as a consequence of a deeper view, it will attract other disciplines that, in reality, have overlapping interests with pedology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is part of the senior authors Ph.D dissertation and fulfills a portion of the requirements for the Ph.D. in the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors thank the following for assistance at various stages of the research and writing: E.A. Bettis II, S.A. Blair, S.W. Buol, H. Eswaran, V. Holliday, H.C. Hobbs, the late I.J. Jansen, the late W.H. Johnson, E.M. Melhado, M.J. Pavich, C.W. Rovey II, L.M. Sabas, G.F. Vance, and L.T. West. The authors also thank the following for translating original source materials: C. Leonhard (German), and G. Opelka and T. Chaika (Russian).

Discussions and Implications

In the 1860s and 1870s a simple concept for understanding and studying soils, which has become known as the A-B-C soil profile, began emerging from the work of English, German, Danish, and Russian scientists. From that time until the late 1920s, when the ideas reached the USA, firm conventions of soil profile and horizon designations had yet to evolve. In the USA, the soil profile as originally defined by Shaw, ranged from the surface to its unweathered base. However, the practical agricultural concerns of the Soil Survey Staff replaced the more flexible ideas of the ASSA regarding horizon definitions. The shallow pro-

REFERENCES
Baize, D. 1993. Place of horizons in the new French Referentiel Pedologique. Catena 20:383394. Baldwin, M. 1926. Some characteristic soil profiles in the north central states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:122132. Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson (ed.) 1987. Glossary of geology. 3rd ed. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA. Becker, G.F. 1895. Reconnaissance of the gold fields of the southern Appalachians. p. 251331. In Sixteenth annual report of the United State Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior 189495, Part IIIMineral resources of the United States, 1894 metallic products. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, weathering, and geomorphological research. Oxford University Press, New York.

344

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Birkeland, P.W. 1984. Soils and geomorphology. Oxford University Press, New York. Birkeland, P.W. 1999. Soils and geomorphology. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. Bridges, E.M. 1997. Origins, adoption and development of soil horizon designations. p. 4765. In D.H. Yaalon and S. Berkowicz (ed.) History of soil science: international perspectives. Advances in Geoecology 29. Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, Germany. Brinkman, R., and L.J. Pons. 1973. Recognition and prediction of acid sulphate soil conditions, p. 169203. In H. Dost (ed.) Acid sulphate soils. Int. Land Rec. Inst. Pub. 18. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Brown, P.E. 1924. Problems in mapping and classifying Iowa soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 5:2023. Bryan, O.C. 1935. Genesis and morphology of the red soils in the southeastern United States. Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:6669. Buol, S.W. 1994. Saprolite-regolith taxonomy: an approximation. p. 119132. In D.L. Cremeens et al. (ed.) Whole regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. Madison, WI. Buol, S.W., A. Amoozegar, and M.J. Vepraskas. 2000. Physical, chemical, and morphological properties of some regoliths in North Carolina. Southeastern Geol. 39:151160. Calvert, C.S., S.W. Buol, and S.B. Weed. 1980. Mineralogical characteristics and transformations of a vertical rock-saprolite-soil sequence in the North Carolina Piedmont: I. profile morphology, chemical composition and mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:1096 1103. Charter, C.F. 1949. The characteristics of the principal cocoa soils. p. 105112. In Proc. Cocoa Conf. Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectioners Alliance, London. Cobb, W.B. 1931. Changes in chemical composition produced by formation of pedalferic soils from different parent materials. Am. Soil. Surv. Assn. Bull. 12:8792. Coffey, G.N. 1912. The development of soil survey work in the United States with a brief reference to foreign countries. Proc. Am. Soc. Agron. 3:115129. Cremeens, D.L., R.B. Brown, and J.H. Huddleston (ed.) 1994. Whole regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. Madison, WI. Daniels, R.B., and R.H. Jordan. 1966. Physiographic history and the soils, entrenched stream systems, and gullies, Harrison County, Iowa. USDA Tech. Bull. 1348. Darwin, C.R. 1881. Earthworms and vegetable mould. London. Dent, D.L. 1986. Acid sulphate soils: a baseline for research and development. Int. Land. Rec. Inst. Pub. 39. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Dent, D.L. 1993. Bottom-up and top-down development of acid sulphate soils. Catena 20:419425. Dokuchaev, V.V. 1879a. Tchernozeme (terre noire) de la Russie DEurope. Societe Imperiale Libre Economique. Imprimeric Trenke & Fusnot, St. Petersburg, Russia. Dokuchaev, V.V. 1879b. . (Cartography of Russian soils). (In Russian.) Imperial University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia. Dokuchaev. V.V. 1883. . (Russian Chernozem). (In Russian.) Imperial University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia. dologique. Exposition UniDokuchaev, V.V. 1900. Collection pe ` Paris. (In French.) Section Russe. Edition du verselle de 1900 a Ministere des Finances, St. Petersburg. Dokuchaev, V.V., and N.M. Sibirtsev. 1893. Short scientific review of Professor Dokuchaevs and his pupils collection of soils exposed in Chicago in the year 1893. E. Evdokimova, St. Petersburg. Effland, A.B.W., and W.R. Effland. 1992. Soil geomorphology studies in the U.S. soil survey program. Agric. Hist. 66:189212. Eswaran, H., and W.C. Bin. 1978. A study of a deep weathering profile on granite in Peninsular Malaysia: I. Physico-chemical and micromorphological properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:144149. Fallou, F.A. 1862. Pedologie oder allgemeine und besondere Bodenkunde. (In German.) Verlag Schonfeld, Dresden. Food and Agricultural Organization. 1973. Guidelines for soil profile description. Soil Resources Development and Conservation Service, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome. Food and Agricultural Organization. 1974. Soil map of the world. Vol. 1: Legend. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), Paris.

Food and Agricultural Organization. 1977. Guidelines for soil profile description. 2nd ed. Soil Resources Development and Conservation Service, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome. FitzPatrick, E.A. 1967. Soil nomenclature and classification. Geoderma 1:91105. FitzPatrick, E.A. 1980. Soils: Their formation, classification and distribution. Longman, London. FitzPatrick, E.A. 1988. Soil horizon designation and classification. Tech. Pap. No. 17. International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Follmer, L.R. 1979. Appendix 3. Explanation of pedologic terms and concepts used in the discussion of soils for this guidebook. p. 129 134. In J.A. Lineback et al. (ed.) Wisconsinan, Sangamonian, and Illinoian stratigraphy in central Illinois: Midwest Friends of the Pleistocene 26th Field Conference, 46 May 1979. Ill. Geol. Surv. Handb. 13. Follmer, L.R. 1984. Soilan uncertain medium for waste disposal. p. 296311. In Proceedings of Seventh Annual Madison Waste Conference, 1112 Sept. 1984. Madison, WI. Follmer, L.R., J.P. Tandarich, and R.G. Darmody. 1985. The evolution of pedologic and geologic profile concepts in the Midcontinent, U.S.A. p. 191. In Agronomy Abstracts 1985. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. Fowler, E.D. 1925. Profile characteristics of some coastal plain soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:1923. Frye, J.C., H.B. Willman, and H.D. Glass. 1960. Gumbotil, accretiongley, and the weathering profile. Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 295. Frosterus, B. 1924. Die Klassifikation der Boden und Bodenarten Finnlands. p. 141176. In Memoires sur la classification et le nomeclature des sols. (In German.) Vol. IV. Commission No. 8. Comite Internationale de Pedologie, Rome. Glinka, K.D. 1908. Pochvovedenie. (In Russian.) Izdany A. F. Devriena, Petrograd, Russia. Glinka, K.D. 1914. Die Typen der Bodenbildung, ihre Klassification und geographische Verbreitung. (In German.) Gebrueder Borntraeger, Berlin. Glinka, K.D. 1915. Pochvovedenie. 2nd ed. (In Russian.) Izdany A. F. Devriena, Petrograd, Russia. Griffin, R.W., and S.W. Buol. 1988. Soil and saprolite chararcteristics of Vertic and Aquic Hapludults from Triassic basin Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:10941099. Hallberg, G.R., T.E. Fenton, and G.A. Miller. 1978. Part 5. Standard weathering zone terminology for the description of Quaternary sediments in Iowa. p. 75109. In G.R. Hallberg (ed.) Standard procedures for evaluation of Quaternary materials in Iowa. Iowa Geol. Surv. Tech. Info. Ser. No. 8. Hearn, W.E. 1926. Southern soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:15 24A. Hilgard, E.W. 1906. Soils. The Macmillan Company, New York. Jenny, H. 1961. E.W. Hilgard and the birth of modern soil science. Collana Della Rivista Agrochimica No. 3. Pisa, Italy. Johnson, D.L. 1994. Reassessment of early and modern soil horizon designation frameworks and associated pedogenic processes: Are midlatitude A E B-C horizons equivalent to tropical M S W horizons? Soil Sci. (Trends in Agri. Sci.) 1994:7791. Johnson, D.L. 1999. Darwin the archaeologist: A lesson in unfulfilled language. Discovering Archaeol. 1:67. Jurney, R.C. 1935. Morphology of the reddish yellow soils in southeastern United States. Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:5759. Kay, G.F. 1916. Gumbotil, a new term in Pleistocene geology. Science 44:637638. Kay, G.F. 1930. Gumbotil, its characteristics, origin and significance. Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 11:132136. Kay, G.F. nd. Index of materials to be found in the geological folders. Typescript copy in the G.F. Kay Papers. University Archives, Department of Special Collections, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, IA. Kay, G.F., and E.T. Apfel. 1928. The Pre-Illinoian Pleistocene geology of Iowa. Ia. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rept. 34:1304. Kay, G.F., and J.B. Graham. 1942. The Illinoian and Post-Illinoian Pleistocene geology of Iowa. Ia. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rept. 38:1262. Kay, G.F., and J.N. Pearce. 1920. The origin of gumbotil. J. Geol. 28:89125. Kellogg, C.E. 1930. Preliminary study of the profiles of the principal soil types of Wisconsin. Wisc. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 77A.

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

345

Kellogg, C.E. 1936. Development and significance of the great soil groups of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. 229. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Kellogg, C.E. 1937. Soil survey manual. USDA Misc. Pub. No. 274. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. (Reprinted in 1938.) Krusekopf, H.H. 1925. The brown soils of the north central states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:146148. Lankford, N., L. Gentzler, D. Garwood, T. Norris, R. Roberts, and C. Stewart. 1985. Unpublished materials of Dr. Curtis Fletcher Marbut. Soil Surv. Horiz. 26:3640. Lapham, J.E., and C.F. Marbut. 1931. Twenty-four representative soils of the United States. USDA, Washington, DC. Lapham, M.H. 1926. Some profiles of representative Western soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assn. Bull. 7:2542A. Laudan, R. 1987. From mineralogy to geology: The foundations of a science, 16501830. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Leighton, M.M. 1958. Principles and viewpoints in formulating the stratigraphic classifications of the Pleistocene. J. Geol. 66:700709. Leighton, M.M. 1959. Important elements in the classification of the Wisconsin glacial stage: a reply. J. Geol. 67:594598. Leighton, M.M., and P. MacClintock. 1930. Weathered zones of the drift sheets of Illinois. Ill. Geol. Surv. Rept. Inv. 20. Leighton, M.M., and P. MacClintock. 1962. The weathered mantle of glacial tills beneath original surfaces in north-central United States. J. Geol. 70:267293. Li, K., A. Amoozegar, W.P. Robarge, and S.W. Buol. 1997. Water movement and solute transport through saprolite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:17381745. Libernau, J.R.L. von. 1868. Grundsatze fur die Aufname und Darstellung vonlandwirtschaftlichen Bodenkarten. Wien. Marbut, C.F. 1922. Soil classification. Am. Soil Surv. Assn. Bull 3: 2432. Marbut, C.F. 1924. The classification of arid soils. p. 362375. In Actes de la IV Conf. Int. de Ped., Vol. 3. Rome. Marbut, C.F. (trans.) 1927. The great soil groups of the world and their development by K.D. Glinka. Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, MI. Marbut, C.F. 1928. Lecture XVI. In Soils, their genesis and classification and development/a course of lectures given in the/Graduate School/of the/United States Department of Agriculture/February to May, 1928. Mimeograph. USDA, Washington, DC. Marbut, C.F. 1951. Soils: their genesis and classification. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. (Published series of lectures given in 1928 in the Graduate School of the USDA). McCool, M.M., and J.O. Veatch. 1923. Soil studies in Michigan. Am. Assoc. Soil Surv. Workers Bull. 4:159165. Morrison, R.B. 1967. Principles of Quaternary soil stratigraphy. p. 169. In R.B. Morrison and H.E. Wright (ed.) Quaternary Soils. Proc. Int. Assoc. Quat. Res. 7th. Cong., Vol. 9. Center for Water Resources Research, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Morrison, R.B. 1978. Quaternary soil stratigraphy concepts, methods, and problems. p. 77108. In W.C. Mahaney (ed.) Quaternary soils. Geoabstracts, Norwich, England. Mu ckenhausen, E. 1997. Developments in soil science in Germany in the 19th century. p. 261275. In D.H. Yaalon and S. Berkowicz (ed.) History of soil science: international perspectives. Advances in Geoecology 29. Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, Germany. Mu ller, P.E. 1878. Ueber die Humusformen der Buchenwa lder auf Sand und Lehm. p. 5118. In P.E. Mu ller. 1887. Studien u ber die natu rlichen Humusformen und deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden. (In German.) Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin. Mu ller, P.E. 1887. Studien u ber die natu rlichen Humusformen und deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin. Nikiforoff, C.C. 1931. History of A, B and C. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 12:6770. Norton, E.A. 1932. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 13:7173. Norton, E.A. 1933. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 14:21. Norton, E.A. 1934. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 14:119. Norton, E.A. 1935. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:149.

Norton, E.A., and R.S. Smith. 1928. Horizon designations. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 9:8399. Nye, P.H. 1954. Some soil-forming processes in the humid tropics. 1. A field study of a catena in the West African forest. J. Soil Sci. 5:721. OBrien, E.L., and S.W. Buol. 1984. Physical transformations in a vertical soil-saprolite sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:354357. Ojanuga, A.G. 1973. Weathering of biotite in soils of a humid tropical climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:644646. ONeal, A.M. 1923. Minutes of the business meeting of the American Association of Soil Survey Workers held in Urbana, Illinois, November 17 & 18, 1922. Am. Assoc. Soil Surv. Workers Bull. 4:173 176. Orth, A. 1873. Das geologische Bodenprofile nach seiner Bedautung fur den Bodenwert und die Landeskultur. In German. Berlin. Orth, A. 1875. Die geognostisch-agronomische Kartirung. In German. Verlag von Ernst & Korn, Berlin. Ospovat, A.M. (trans.) 1971. Short classification and description of the various rocks by Abraham Gottlob Werner. Hafner Publishing Company, New York. Pavich, M.J. 1986. Processes and rates of saprolite production and erosion on a foliated granitic rock of the Virginia Piedmont. p. 551590. In S.M. Colman and D.P. Dethier (ed.) Rates of chemical weathering of rocks and minerals. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Pavich, M.J. 1989a. Appalachian Piedmont regolith: relations of saprolite and residual soils to rock-type. p. 111. In G. Matheson (ed.) Design with residual materials. Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 63. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Pavich, M.J. 1989b. Regolith residence time and the concept of surface age of the Piedmont peneplain. Geomorphology 2:181196. Pittman, D.W. 1932. A proposed descriptive symbolism for soil horizons. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 24:931934. Ramann, E. 1911. Bodenkunde. 3rd ed. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin. Rebertus, R.A., and S.W. Buol. 1985. Iron distribution in a developmental sequence of soils from mica gneiss and schist. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:713720. Rice, T.D. 1926. Profile studies of representative soils in the northern prairie states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:114A. Rice, T.J., Jr., S.W. Buol, and S.B. Weed. 1985. Soil-saprolite profiles derived from mafic rocks in the North Carolina Piedmont: I. Chemical, morphological, and mineralogical characteristics and transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:171178. Robertson, S.M. 1968. Soil survey of Clarke and Oconee Counties, Georgia. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington. Ruhe, R.V. 1948. Some notes on the Pleistocene geology of Shelby County, Iowa. Proc. Iowa. Acad. Sci. 55:281286. Ruhe, R.V. 1954. Pleistocene soils along the Rock Island relocation in southwestern Iowa. Am. Railway Eng. Assoc. Bull. 514:639.645. Ruhe, R.V. 1956. Geomorphic surfaces and the nature of soils. Soil Sci. 82:441455. Ruhe, R.V. 1959. Stone lines in soils. Soil Sci. 87:223231. Ruhe, R.V. 1969a. Quaternary landscapes in Iowa. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Ruhe, R.V. 1969b. Application of pedology to Quaternary research. p. 123. In S. Pawluk (ed). Pedology and Quaternary research. National Research Council of Canada. Ruhe, R.V., and R.B. Daniels. 1958. Soils, paleosols and soil-horizon nomenclature. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 22:6669. Ruhe, R.V., and T. E. Fenton. 1969. Paleosols and soil stratigraphy. p. 335340. In Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde. 8th Congress of Inqua. Paris: Union Internationale pour Letude du Quaternaire. (In French.) Ruhe, R.V., R.B. Daniels, and J.G. Cady. 1967. Landscape evolution and soil formation in southwestern Iowa. USDA Tech. Bull. 1349. Russell, J.C., and E.G. Engle. 1925. Soil horizons in the central prairies. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:118. Schoeneberger, P.J., A. Amoozegar, and S.W. Buol. 1995. Physical property variation of a soil and saprolite continuum at three geomorphic positions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:13891397. Shaler, N.S. 1890. Aspects of the earth. Charles Scribners Sons, New York. Shaler, N.S. 1891. The origin and nature of soils. p. 219345. In J.W. Powell (ed.) Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 189091. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.

346

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Shaler, S.P. (ed.) 1909. The autobiography of Nathaniel Southgate Shaler, with a supplementary memoir by his wife. Houghton Mifflin Company, The Riverside Press Cambridge, Boston and New York. Shaw, C.F. 1925. The development of soil profiles in southeastern Australia. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:5962. Shaw, C.F. 1927. Report of committee on soil terminology. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 8:6698. Shaw, C.F. 1928a. A definition of terms used in soil literature. p. 3864. In R.B. Deemer et al. (ed.) Proceedings and papers of the First International Congress of Soil Science, 1322 June 1927, Commission V/Commission VI/Misc. Papers. The American Organizing Committee of the First International Congress of Soil Science, Washington, DC. Shaw, C.F. 1928b. Soil terminology. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 9:23 59. Shaw, C.F. 1929. The parent material and the C horizon of soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 10:4043. Sibirtsev, N.M. 1900. Pochvovedenie. (In Russian.) Y.N. Skorokhodva, St. Petersburg, Russia. Simonson, R.W. 1941. Studies of buried soils formed from till in Iowa. Soil Sci. Am. Proc. 6:373381. Simonson, R.W. 1959. Outline of a generalized theory of soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23:152156. Simonson, R.W. 1987. Historical aspects of soil survey and soil classification. Reprinted from Soil Survey Horizons. SSSA, Madison, WI. Simonson, R.W. 1989. Historical highlights of soil survey and soil classification with emphasis on the United States, 18991970. Int. Soil. Ref. Info. Cent. Tech. Pap. 18. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Simonson, R.W., and D.R. Gardner. 1960. Concept and function of the pedon. Trans. 8th Intl. Cong. Soil Sci. 4:129131. Smith, R.S. 1924. Acid studies in Illinois in connection with the soil survey. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 5:6769. Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agric. Handbk. 18. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff. 1960. Seventh Approximation. USDA. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff. 1962. Identification and nomenclature of soil horizons. Supplement to Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agri. Hndbk. 18. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil taxonomy. USDA Agric. Handb. 436. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff. 1981. Chapter 4. Designations for master horizons and layers in soils. In Soil Survey Manual. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC. Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Chapter 3. Examination and description of soils. p. 59196. In Soil Survey Manual. USDA, Agric. Handbk. 18. (rev.) USDA-SCS, Washington, DC. Sokolovsky, A.N. 1931. A rational nomenclature of genetical horizons in soils. Cont. Ukrainian Inst. for Soil Res. 3. Sokolovsky, A.N. 1932. The nomenclature of the genetic horizons of the soil. p. 153154. In Proc. Paps. Second Intl. Cong. Soil Sci., Comm. V, Classif., Geog. and Cartog. Soils. State Publishing House of Agricultural, Cooperative and Collective Farm Literature, Moscow. Sprengel, C.S. 1837. Die Bodenkunde oder die Lehre vom Boden nebst einer vollstandigen Anleitung zur Chemischen Analyse der Ackererden. Leipzig.

Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary of soil science terms. SSSA, Madison, WI. Stevenson, W.H., and J.F. Barker. 1911. The gumbo soils of Iowa. Iowa. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 119. Stolt, M.H., and J.C. Baker. 1994. Strategies for studying saprolite and saprolite genesis. p. 119. In D. Creemens et al. (ed.) Whole regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. SSSA, Madison, WI. Stoops, G. 1967. Le profil dalteration au bas-Congo. Pedologie 17:60 105. Strzemski, M. 1975. Ideas underlying soil systematics. Pub. TT 7354013. (Translated from Polish). Foreign Scientific Publications Department of the National Center for Scientific, Technical and Economic Information, Warsaw, Poland. Tandarich, J.P. 1998. Agricultural geology. p. 2329. In G. Good (ed.) Sciences of the earth: an encyclopedia of events, people and phenomena. Vol. 1 A-G. Garland Publishing, New York & London. Tandarich, J.P., and S.W. Sprecher. 1994. The intellectual background for the factors of soil formation. p. 113. In R. Amundson et al. (ed.) Factors of soil formation: A fiftieth anniversary retrospective. SSSA Spec. Publ. 33. SSSA, Madison, WI. Tandarich, J.P., R.G. Darmody, and L.R. Follmer. 1988. The development of pedologic thought: some people involved. Phys. Geog. 9:162174. Tandarich, J.P., R.G. Darmody, and L.R. Follmer. 1994. The pedoweathering profile: A paradigm for whole-regolith pedology from the glaciated Midcontinental United States of America. p. 97117. In D. Creemens et al. (ed.) Whole regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. SSSA, Madison, WI. Thorp, J. 1935. Soil profile studies as an aid to understanding recent geology. Bull. Geol. Soc. China 14:359392. Thorp, J. 1949. Interrelations of Pleistocene geology and soil science. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 60:15171526. Thorp, J., W.M. Johnson, and E.C. Reed. 1951. Some post-Pliocene buried soils of the central United States. J. Soil Sci. 2:119. U.S. Bureau of Soils. 1914. Instructions to field parties. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Veatch, J.O. 1925. Northern podsol soils in the United States. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:2428A. Watson, J.P. 1961. Some observations on soil horizons and insect activity in granite soils. p. 271276. In Proc. First Fed. Sci. Cong. No. 1. Mardon Rhodesian Printers, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia. Whiteside, E.P. 1959. A proposed system of genetic soil horizon designations. Soil Fert. 22:18. Willman, H.B., H.D. Glass, and J.C. Frye. 1963. Mineralogy of glacial tills and their weathering profiles in Illinois. Part I. Glacial tills. Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 347. Willman, H.B., H.D. Glass, and J.C. Frye. 1966. Mineralogy of glacial tills and their weathering profiles in Illinois. Part II. Weathering profiles. Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 400. Wittmack, L. 1915. Albert Orth. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesselschaft 33:6065. Yarilov, A.A. 1927. Soil-science, pedology, khtonology. Pochvovedenie 22:511. Yarilov, A.A. 1936. Charles Darwinthe founder of soil science. Pochvovedenie 4:1723. Zakharov, S.A. 1906. Soil solutions. p. 389. In J. Exp. Agron. 1906. [no place of publication given]. (In Russian).