Geoderma 111 (2003) 197 215

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Perspectives on utilitarian ethnopedology

Pavel V. Krasilnikov a, Joe A. Tabor b,*
a

Institute of Biology, Karelia Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Pushkinskaya 11,
Petrozavodsk, 185610 Karelia, Russia
b
Office of Arid Lands Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Abstract
Folk taxonomies can provide a common language, establish value, and assure quality of soil
investigations for scientists, extension agents, and development workers. Vernacular soil names
have been used throughout history and helped provide the basis of scientific classification. The
Chinese were classifying soils 4000 years ago for tax assessment. Dokuchaev and others used
vernacular soils like chernozem, solonetz, and gley as central concepts for their scientific soil
classification. Scientific systems and detailed soil mapping are replacing folk taxonomies, especially
in the more developed countries, because folk systems, if they still exist, are only locally valid and
have relatively limited uses compared to scientific systems. In spite of these limitations folk
taxonomies can still provide information that is useful for understanding landscape structure,
function, and change, especially in developing countries with limited resources for research.
Opportunities for using folk taxonomies to improve scientific soil classification, mapping, and
environmental impact monitoring are not being exploited. These systems are disappearing; the last
two centuries have seen rapid loss of this potentially useful information. The disconnection between
folk and scientific soil classification and the resulting land management decisions that occur have
wasted resources and caused severe economic hardship on communities. Examples from Africa,
Asia, Europe, and the Americas are provided, especially the Senegal River Valley, United States,
and Saudi Arabia.
D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ethnoscience; Geospatial; Indigenous knowledge; Landscape ecology

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-520-621-3816.

E-mail addresses: kras@krc.karelia.ru (P.V. Krasilnikov), jtabor@ag.arizona.edu (J.A. Tabor).
0016-7061/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 0 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 4 - 1

198

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

1. Introduction
Wallere ena walla.
Fallo ena faloo
Ko Wakajiju wakata ko fof . . .
. . . Ko Hollalde hollata
Wallere, it helps (everything you put in it grows)
Fallo, its a defense (against hunger because its here that you get the first
crop out of the ground)
Of all those that Wakajiju laughs at . . . (because of its good production)
. . . Its the Hollalde which shows (with the best production of all the soils)
Indigenous soil classification provides insight into the way communities value and
manage their soil. This annotated poem presented by an elder of Saye Mauritania in
West Africa describes why these four agricultural soils are important. Other communities
may not make as detailed classifications. The Bedouin of Saudi Arabia, for example, do
not have soil names of any pedologic value. They use landscapes for orientation and do
not distinguish range-quality by soil types. Seeing where rainstorms occur on the
horizon is a much better predictor than soil type of where to find the best range
production.
In the United States, residents of Malibu, CA, identify one soil type, the infamous
Malibu Blue Clay soil (Diablo series among soil scientists). This soil is distinguished
because it reduces property values. This soil has very slow percolation rates that
prevent the use of conventional septic tank absorption fields. Development of property
with this type of soil requires more expensive alternative systems to assure safe
disposal of effluent, since municipal sewage is not currently available for this
community.
Land users develop folk taxonomies or vernacular systems. They recognize patterns
of covariation and classify them (Hunn, 1982, p. 833). Vernacular soil classifications
are descriptive or nominal; they have only local importance. So beyond historical and
anthropological interests, why study them? Folk taxonomies can provide outsiders a
language to communicate with local land users, especially regarding land management, resource valuation, and resource tenure. Folk taxonomies can also provide
technicians and scientists insight into natural resource management systems that can
prove valuable for inventorying, developing, conserving, and monitoring local resources.
Ethnopedology, a term coined by Williams and Ortiz-Solorio (1981, p. 336), is the
study of these folk taxonomies. A blossoming of ethnopedology emerged during the last
decades of the 20th century. The use of folk agrarian knowledge was discussed in a

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

199

number of works, for example by Wilde (1953), Conklin (1954), and Williams and OrtizSolorio (1981). Folk soil knowledge has been documented in numerous countries, for
example Bolivia (Zimmerer, 1994), Burkina Faso (Dialla, 1993), Haiti (Tabor, 1988),
Indonesia and Malaysia (Marten and Vityakon, 1986), Kenya (Tabor et al., 1990), Mali,
Mauritania, and Senegal (Bradley, 1983; Tabor and Ba, 1987; Tabor, 1993), Mexico
(Williams, 1975; Williams and Ortiz-Solorio, 1981), New Guinea (Ollier et al., 1971;
Marten and Vityakon, 1986; Sillitoe, 1993), Nigeria (Osunade, 1988; Warren, 1992), Peru
(Behrens, 1989; Sandor and Furbee, 1996), Tanzania (Acres, 1984), Zambia (Kerven et al.,
1995), and Zimbabwe (Nyamaphene, 1983). The list is extensive (Barrera-Bassols and
Zinck, 2000), but the countries and territories are unevenly represented because of spotty
development of these systems, incomplete documentation of them, and cultural erosion.
During the 19th and 20th centuries significant loss of folk soil knowledge occurred in both
developed and developing countries.
Development of indigenous soil knowledge is highly dependent on landscape, land-use,
and cultural history. For example, in Russia more than 150 soil names were identified for
the farming based European part of the country, while only few soil names have been
identified in northern Siberian nations that depended on hunting and reindeer grazing (very
large management units) (Shoba, 2002). The soil names used by Yakutians, Evenks, and
other native Siberians denote fens and natural sources of salts, properties affecting animal
management and hunting.

2. Historic overview
For 10 millennia humans have tilled, drained, or irrigated soils for agriculture (Heiser,
1990). For an even longer period of time they have used soils as a construction material.
From the very beginning of civilization people have been accumulating knowledge on soil
properties, methods of land management, and classifying soil.
Four thousand years ago in Asia, the Chinese were classifying soils according to their
productivity and using it as a basis for tax assessment (Ping-Hua Lee, 1921; Finkl, 1982,
p. 1). The earliest known soil classification system in the world occurs in an ancient
Chinese book, Yugong (2500 years BP). This system classified soils into three categories
and nine classes and was based on soil color, texture, and hydrologic features (Zitong,
1994).
In Africa, the ancient name for Egypt is Kemet; it means fertile black alluvial soils.
Deshret was used to describe red desert land. Three thousand years ago, agricultural soils
in Egypt had established values: nemhuna soils cost three times more than sheta-teni soils
(Krupenikov, 1981).
In Greece, Theophrastus, the greatest botanist of Antiquity, described clay, sand, stony,
salty, swamp, soft, and hard soils and their relation to plant cover. He laid the scientific
foundation for systematic agronomy. Marcus Porcius Cato, a Roman lawyer of 234 149
BC, described during his later years a number of soil typeswhite clay, red clay, mottled
earth (terra cariosa), and friable dark earth (terra pulla)in his book De agri cultura and
was revered by later Roman agronomists (Krupenikov, 1981; Butzer, 1993, pp. 543 546).
The relationship between soil, landscapes, and forest vegetation was also well known to

200

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

the ancient Karelian Finnish, as demonstrated by the epos Kalevalas The Land of Heroes
(Kirby, 1923, pp. 10 11).
Down he stooped the seeds to scatter,
On the land and in the marshes,
Both in flat and sandy regions,
And in hard and rocky places.
On the hills he sowed the pine-trees,
On the knolls he sowed the fir-trees,
And in sandy places heather;
Leafy saplings in the valleys.
In the dales he sowed the birch-trees,
In the loose earth sow the alders,
Where the ground was damp the cherries,
Likewise in the marshes, sallows.1
Roman-trees in holy places,
Willows in the fenny regions,
Juniper in stony districts,
Oaks upon the banks of rivers.
American civilizations have also developed soil classifications. At least 45 terms for
various soils are documented for pre-Hispanic Aztec culture. Though these documented
classifications were most likely artificially constructed by priests or officials, they were
doubtlessly based on folk soil knowledge. For example, several Aztec names for soils are
still in use among Mexican Indians (Williams, 1975).
Little documentation of folk soil knowledge occurred in post-Renaissance Europe. To
some extent it was due to a general tendency of European scientific method to disregard or
discredit folk knowledge. This may have been because soil knowledge was closely
connected with pre-Christian agrarian myths, which were not approved by the Church.
Occasionally, the need for information on land resources led some to an ethnopedological
approach. In 15th century Russia, special books were composed on the natural resources
1
For poetic reasons, the translator used sallow (Hippophae rhamnoides) instead of the original Salix caprea
(willow) to avoid using willow again in the following line for Salix fragilis.

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

201

of the state. They contained information collected from farmers and landowners on land
quality (e.g., good, medium, or bad) and soil properties (e.g., stony land, sandy land)
(Gavrilyuk, 1963). These research works extended into the middle of the 19th century,
when detailed characteristics of soils were obtained by interviewing farmers from the
European part of Russia. Two soil maps from the European part of Russia, by K.S.
Veselovsky in 1851, and by V.I. Chaslavsky in 1879, used ethnopedological data.
The scientific method was employed to explain many natural phenomena, and by the
19th century geology could no longer be held back by religious dogma. With the addition
of geology all the necessary disciplines were in place to begin the scientific study of soils.
In 1862, Friedrich Fallou coined the term pedology for the scientific study of soils. In
1876, Russian geologist geographer and father of soil science, Vasili Dokuchaev,
participated in an interdisciplinary commission to study the chernozem2 soil. It was during
this time that Slavonian folk soil names, such as chernozem, solonetz, and gley, began to
be used in scientific literature.
By the end of 19th century, formal scientific soil surveys replaced ethnopedological
investigations. The need for an objective scientific system for land evaluation was obvious
because the ethnopedological approach had a number of disadvantages. Dokuchaev (1949)
noted in various areas of Russia, identical kinds of soil are often denoted by totally
different names. . .. It is, however, much more frequently the case that totally different soils
are called by the same name. This inconsistency is due in part to the attempt by some
landowners to reduce their taxes by describing less fertile soils than they owned.
Although ethnopedological surveys were replaced by spade and auger soil surveys,
soil surveyors sometimes used indigenous knowledge for guidance in mapping and a
number of researchers continued investigations on folk soil knowledge. In the United
States, E.W. Hilgard discussed the need to compare farmer land classifications that were
based on landscape position and vegetation (e.g., black oak and hickory uplands, gum
bottoms, and hackberry hammocks) with scientific agronomic and soil classifications
(Hilgard, 1930). Dokuchaev (1953) himself stressed the importance for local terminology
studies. In 1915, Lamansky collected more than 200 Russian folk names for soils, and
Zaharov published a list of soil names for Georgia and Armenia (Lamansky, 1915;
Zaharov, 1915). In 1920s and 1930s, Kubiena (1953) intensively studied folk soil
terminology of Western Europe and introduced such terms as gyttja, dy, tangel, and terra
rossa into scientific literature. In 1925, E. Best compiled an extensive list of soil names
used by Maori in New Zealand (Hewitt, 1992). Bennett and Allison (1928) cited a number
of vernacular soil terms in their description of the soils of Cuba.
In the 1940s and 1950s, several remarkable studies were done on ethnopedology, for
example the comprehensive studies on Bulgarian soil terminology made by Stransky
(1954, 1956, and 1957) who cited more than 1000 folk soil names. Aubert (1949) made a
survey on vernacular soil terms in use in Sudan and Senegal, and Calton (1949) described
folk soil terminology for Zanzibar Island. Raychaudhri (1958) included a number of folk
terms in his paper on the soils of India.
2
Most western scientists use chernozem; however, chernoziom is closer to the original sound. Chernozem is
a common Slavonian vernacular name: cherny means black and zemlya or zema means soil. This word was
used in Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.

202

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

3. Loss of knowledge through cultural erosion

Cultural erosion has wiped out many folk taxonomies and is threatening many others.
Conversion and evolution of socioeconomic systems have eliminated soil-related knowledge. Economically and politically forced migrations of whole communities have eroded
site-specific knowledge of soils, which is lost if its members do not return. Promotion of
scientifically based systems upon communities is causing later generations to discard their
cultural heritage. This is most apparent among the university trained.
Imposed or voluntary changes in the way land is managed can lead to loss of
indigenous knowledge. Such losses were notably large in the Americas through the
extinction of many cultures and languages as a result of European colonization. At least
100 of the estimated 300 North American languages are no longer spoken. A great piece of
agricultural knowledge was lost during Hispanic colonization of Mid-American states. The
Aztec had developed soil classification, but only a few Nahua soil names are still in use in
Mexico (Williams, 1975). The land management used by Mayan Indians to achieve their
high yields on shallow limestone soils of the Yucatan has not been fully explained (Sedov,
1999). In Eurasia, the greatest cultural erosion occurred in countries with planned
economy, where the decisions of governments could not be discussed and no local
experience was taken into account. The most infamous example is the attempt of the
Soviet Union leader Khrushchev in the 1960s to cultivate maize all over the country, even
north of the Arctic Circle. It was no use to appeal to local experience or to common sense;
the farmers just had to follow orders.
Migrations result in cultures discarding their knowledge of soils because it is no longer
relevant to their new location. Intensive and widespread migrations of indigenous
populations occurred in the Americas, and soil knowledge was certainly discarded. In
North America for example, the United States (US) government in 1838 1839 forced
most of the Cherokee people to move 1000 km west from the forested region of the
southern Appalachian Mountains to the wooded hills of eastern Oklahoma, in what is
referred to as the Trail of Tears.
Forced migrations occurred also in post World War 2 Europe when Stalin ordered
deportation of people in those traitor nations whose representatives collaborated with
Nazi Germany (such as Crimea Tatars, Chechens, Karachajs, and Inkeri Finnish) to Siberia
and Middle Asia. Traditional knowledge of those lands and their management was lost.
During the same period, territories liberated from the Nazis were settled by people from
other parts of the Soviet Union that had little knowledge of the land, mostly from Ukraine
and southern Russia. The displaced occupants were quickly removed, sometimes in less
than a day, preventing a transfer of indigenous knowledge.
In Africa, drought and civil war have displaced people from their homes with little hope
of returning to their land. The migrations that have occurred in Ethiopia and Sudan are
widely known and current examples.
Scientifically based systems are replacing indigenous knowledge because it is not
considered relevant to new land management techniques, such as chemical fertilization,
mechanized cultivation, new crops, and irrigation, that accompany modern economic
systems and world markets. Year after year, local soil names and traditional agronomic
techniques are replaced by scientific classifications and expert recommendations. Farmers

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

203

tend to follow recommendations of university-educated specialists; for example, farmers in

Mexico call these specialists los que saben (those who know) in contrast to themselves, los
que no saben (those who do not know) (Williams and Ortiz-Solorio, 1981).
The loss of indigenous soil knowledge will continue to occur with the inevitable
expansion of scientific knowledge, economic evolution, and migrations of populations.
Folk taxonomies should be studied before they are lost because they have current economic,
social, and cultural value. They tell us something about the land and its management.

4. Folk taxonomies reemerging influence on pedology and land management

Soil classification systems, both scientific and indigenous, provide a common means
for talking about soils. They simplify the complexity and continuum of the real world into
more easily understandable discreet classes. This simplification is based on criteria that are
biased toward its intended use, such as agriculture or engineering, and the methods used
for differentiating classes, such as measuring soil characteristics or determining processes
of soil formation. These artificial systems, scientific and indigenous, are founded on their
creators available body of knowledge and assumptions on how the soil will be used.
Classification systems may have limited value if they are (1) applied to uses that are
different than those for which they were developed, or (2) applied to regions and situations
alien to the information on which the system is based.
Folk taxonomies or vernacular systems are either nominal, giving unique names to soils
or landscapes, or descriptive, naming soils by their characteristics, such as red, hot
(droughty), fat (productive), or sandy. Soil names may even show a hierarchical
organization (Sandor and Furbee, 1996). Soils are distinguished by obvious characteristics,
such as physical appearance (e.g., color, landscape position), physical and chemical
properties (e.g., texture, tilth, salinity), performance (e.g., production capability, flooding),
and accompanying vegetation. These distinctions are often based on characteristics and
class boundaries that are important to soil use and land management. For example, the
Russian word solod describes a landscape with distinct boundaries. It is used for a small
plate-like depression in the steppe zone and is covered with flood tolerant aspen and
willow. (Solod is also used as a term in Russian and Canadian soil classification.) Similar
landscapes with distinct soil boundaries are identified all over the world, for example
miombo and flei in Africa, alvar in Sweden and Estonia, tepetate in Mexico.
Some academics consider folk taxonomy inherently inadequate because the names are
based on superficial characteristics, as opposed to scientific systems that use both surface
and subsurface criteria. What they do not consider is that superficial characteristics are
often correlated to subsurface characteristics, especially when applied to areas with the
same factors of soil formation (Jenny, 1941). Experienced soil mappers know this and use
surface observations such as texture, color, vegetation, landscape position, and microtopography to map soils with minimal digging, usually just to confirm what the soil
scientist suspects lies under the surface.
Scientific systems are more complex than folk taxonomies because they must address
multiple purposes (e.g., productivity of different crops, erodibility, and engineering
properties) and be applied over large regions, if not the world. Folk taxonomies are

204

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

created for a few purposes (e.g., distinguishing soils that are good for growing millet from
soils that are best for sorghum) and for a limited area (e.g., village territory and tribal
grazing lands).
Because indigenous soil classification systems can distinguish soils and soil characteristics that are important to local management, some soil scientist are using this knowledge
to complement scientifically based systems and conventional mapping techniques. The
main benefit of acquiring indigenous knowledge is being able to translate and correlate
different perceptions of the world. Indigenous classification is based on climatic and
socioeconomic factors that can provide outsiders insight into natural resource management
systems. This allows better integration of soil surveys into socioeconomic aspects of
natural resource management. Often major constraints or opportunities can be identified
when the perceived value to the local population is very different than it is to the
interviewers (Tabor and Hutchinson, 1994).
The methodological issues concerning the best way to truly understand local perspectives are often conflicted by the need for timely information at reasonable costs. Group
meetings attended by a soil scientist are usually a more efficient way to obtain a balanced
and informed opinion from the community than numerous individual discussions. Group
meetings also allow interviewers to identify soil characteristics that are consistently
described by individual members of the community. This consistency in perception
among community members is required if folk taxonomies are to be useful in extension
and development activities.
4.1. Benefits of ethnopedological surveys
Folk taxonomies provide a common language. Surveyors can develop lexicons of soil
related terms and allow correlation of different classification systems that are related to
local landscapes and soil characteristics. They can conduct household or community
interviews to identify local classifications and management of resources for agricultural
extension and project impact monitoring. For example, the soil names in Table 1 are used in
the Senegal River Valley of western Africa. The vernacular names have been assigned to a
hierarchical scientific classification system. This provides a more regional interpretation of
each soil type. These regionalized names are linked to specific information collected from
each village in the valley. The village specific descriptions of soil characteristics (i.e., Soil
Series level of detail) and soil name variations can be used by extension agents and
researchers to communicate with local populations (Tabor et al., 1993).
Folk taxonomies provide outsiders a practical means to quickly gain a better understanding of the local environment and constraints to its use. They have an advantage over
scientifically based taxonomies in that they are widely known by the people of the region.
Only a relatively few scientists, technicians, and extension agents need to learn the
farmers classification system. Outsiders who understand the local resource base and use
local terminology when describing it are more effective extension agents. They more
quickly earn the respect and trust of their clients.
Folk taxonomies can establish value. Economic, infrastructural, cultural, and social
assumptions are inherent in classification systems and are factors for determining value.
As a result, folk taxonomies can help identify relative value of soils and their character-

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

205

Table 1
Soil names of the Senegal River Valley and scientific hierarchical soil classificationa
Vernacular names by language

French soil classification system

Soninke

Fulfulde

Hassania

Bambara

Faro

Legrarra

Fara

Folo

Fallo

Louwat

Dougoukoulo
fing

Fonde

Fonde

Tchin Tchin

Gede
Gnignam bine

Salka

Trab khahale

Gouroumbe
Karan karan
Katamangue

Karawal
Katawal

Dergia
Katamangna

Koulou
Dougoukoulo
fing

Karan karan
Katamangue

Khare
Ko
Koche

Hollalde
Changoul

Louid

Fara

Bere

Kolanga

Hollalde

Fara

Narawalle

Narawalle

Tchin Tchin

Nirakata
Parawalle
Rakhe

Parawal
Baldiol

Seybo

Fouga

Singue

Seeno

Trab beyda

Tchin Tchin

Walere

Walere

Lou wat

Dougoukoulo
fing

a
b

Sols hydromorphes with concretions and

grayish mottles over clayey material
Sols peu evolues dapport alluvial
hydromorphe over sandy loam or
sandy material
Sols peu evolues dapport alluvial
hydromorphe over loamy material
Sols mineraux and Lithosols
Sols peu evolues dapport alluvial
hydromorphe over sandy material
Eroded, gullied soils (badlands)
Eroded, crusty soils (phase modifier)
Sols peu evolues dapport colluvial and
sols hydromorphes mineraux pseudogley
Vertisols without external drainage
Sols peu evolues dapport alluvial
Sols peu evolues dapport colluvial
graveleux
Vertisols without external drainage or
little external drainage
Sols ferrugineux tropicaux and sols peu
evolues dapport colluvial with a thin
sandy surface
Sols peu evolues dapport colluvial
Sols peu evolues dapport colluvial
Clayey soils that occur along small drains
and flood
Sols hydromorphes mineraux profonds
pseudogley over silty clay material and
sols sodiques
Sols ferrugineux tropicaux over sandy
material and sols ferrugineux tropicaux
hydromorphe de profondeur
Sols peu evolues dapport alluvial and
sols peu evolues dapport alluvial
hydromorphe pseudogley over diverse
alluvial material

Bradley (1983); Tabor et al. (1993); Tabor (1993).

: Insufficient information or soil name does not exists in villages surveyed.

istics. Folk taxonomies allow village chiefs to more effectively allocate land to families.
They also allow outsiders to discreetly assess individual wealth and social status among
community members and among communities. For example, in Fig. 1, unofficial and
undocumented boundaries of village territories in the Senegal River Valley were mapped
along with vernacular soil types. These tenure and soil boundaries define the resource base
of each village. The legend in Fig. 1 lists the relative value, or potential, of each soil. This

206
P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215
Fig. 1. This soil map (solid medium lines) with overlays of irrigated perimeters, and land tenure boundaries (broken bold lines) shows that irrigated perimeters were
constructed in resource rich territories of Dar Salam and Diyalla compared to Alahina. Alahina is 7 km west northwest of Kayes in western Mali. Refer to Table 1 for
scientific classification of vernacular soils. Map information is presented on a topographic base with elevation control points in meters (Dames and Moore, 1990).

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

207

capability classification was based in part on information collected from farmers in the
valley. People of the land-poor village Alahina needed and wanted an irrigated perimeter.
However, well-meaning donors, ignorant of the resource base of communities in the area,
constructed perimeters near land-rich villages. These land-rich villages poorly utilize their
irrigated perimeters, preferring to invest their labor and capital in conventional, low
investment, rain-fed agriculture on their abundant, relatively productive soils. At another
nearby village, Banzana Mali, a donor-financed road rehabilitation project excavated,
without compensation to the village, all of its best agricultural soils for roadbed
construction. Donor and government ignorance caused severe and permanent economic
hardship for this community.
Knowing local systems of land classification is extremely important in understanding
land tenure relationships. Natural resource development projects often disrupt established
social and tenure relationships through real or perceived changes in the soils productivity
and land value. Needless disruption in tenure relationships can be avoided if local land
classification systems are integrated into the development projects soil and cadastral
surveys.
Major opportunities or constraints for development interventions can be identified
when perceived land value by the local population and soil scientists are very
different. For example, in the Sahel of West Africa, eroded, deep, sandy soils (e.g.,
Karan karan) form a crust and are abandoned even though they are still productive if
more intensive management is used (Fig. 2). The perceived low value of this soil by
locals contrasts strikingly with a soil science perspective. This contrast identifies a

Fig. 2. Erosion can greatly reduce water infiltration on sandy soils in the semi-arid Sahel and cause farmers to
abandoned them. These two sites near Bakel Senegal were only three meters apart. Narawalles sandy surface allows
rapid infiltration while the eroded surface of Karan karan soil forms a hard, restrictive crust. This type of crust forms
on most eroded sandy soils in the Sahel where the B-horizon has slightly more clay (e.g., 7% clay compared to 3%
for an uneroded surface). Final infiltration rates are in parentheses (Tabor et al., 1993; Tabor, 1995).

208

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

potential opportunity for interventions, such as water conservation techniques (Tabor,

1995).
In the Senegal River Valley, Folo soils (also Fallo, as in the introductory poem) occur
along riverbanks and are highly valued because they are easily irrigated. Nearly all soil
surveys conducted in the valley did not adequately describe these soils because they occur
in units that are too narrow to easily map. As a result development experts did not consider
them and overestimated the demand for pump-based irrigated vegetable production.
Uninformed experts also scheduled high volume releases from Manantali Dam during
the dry season that destroyed farmers crops growing on those soils.
In another example, the Zuni Indians of semi-arid New Mexico, US, have a long
history of rain-fed agriculture using water conservation techniques and have a folk
taxonomy to differentiate the important characteristics of their soils. Ironically, US
government soil scientists have described their land as nonarable, even though the Zuni
have been farming the land for over 2000 years (Pawluk and Norton, 1997; USDANRCS, publication pending). The US Capability Classifications that were assigned to the
Zuni land are misleading and demonstrates how a classification system can be used out
of context. The US Capability Classification system is based in part on open land and
labor markets, commodity markets, infrastructure, and technologies that are generally
available in the US. Zuni cultural values, limitations on exploitable land, and historical
factors are not part of this Capability Classification system. This system has also been
used out of context in many developing countries.
Folk taxonomies can provide clues for identifying those soil characteristics that are
most limiting to land management and can help the soil scientist identify agricultural
interventions that will most economically improve the soils productivity. This approach to
soil surveys can provide better insights into the farming system, which in turn can better
guide agricultural research.
Using folk taxonomies can assure the quality of land assessment by survey teams. Over
a relatively brief period, outsiders can acquire knowledge of the soil characteristics
throughout the year and over decades. This assures that seasonal changes in soil
characteristics are considered as well as those that may only be expressed during climatic
extremes. Utilizing indigenous knowledge can save time in conducting a resource
inventory. This knowledge helps assure that inventory and development of local resources
will be culturally relevant. Technicians with limited soils training can conduct soil surveys
once reconnaissance surveys establish general lexicons, mapping legends, and/or correlations of classifications. Community members can show soil scientists what soils are
typical; the soil scientist need only verify the information. Members of the community can
also help map their soils.
Soils that are identified by farmers can closely resemble those identified by scientific
systems, and in some cases folk taxonomies make finer distinctions than would normally
be made by soil scientists. For example, Soninke farmers and Fulani pastorialists in
drought-prone Senegal, Mauritania, and Mali make very fine distinctions between soils
with respect to their period and frequency of flooding, which would be difficult for a soil
mapper to determine from a site visit.
Using indigenous systems of soil classification can save the soil scientist time in
classification and mapping. The most difficult task in conducting soil surveys is creating

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

209

soil legends that effectively separate soils on their productive capacity and that allow easy
identification in the field. Village and personal interviews allow soil scientists to rapidly
identify all the soils that are of importance to land-users; determine each soils relative
productivity and its value for agriculture, forestry, and range; and locate typical soils of each
type and correlate them to other systems, both scientific and indigenous. Collecting this
information, along with a wealth of other natural resource information, would require a large
amount of time and expense if soil scientists work independently of farmers and pastorialists.
Folk taxonomies can be used to guide separation of soils on the landscape for mapping
and to guide class separation of characteristics for classification. For example, women
farmers in the Senegal River Valley select soils with a specific textural range for
cultivating peanuts. If a soil survey is to be functional, class boundaries of surface texture
need to coincide with that used by the women farmers. Soil scientists tend to be biased
toward the classification systems that they know and commonly separate soils based on the
class breaks of their system. This can overly complicate the soil survey, or worse,
disregard separations that are important to land-users.
Ethnopedology can verify and validate our scientific soil taxonomies to assure that they
are functional as well as scientific. It provides an opportunity to compare science-based
biological and pedologicial classifications with use-based indigenous knowledge (Militarev, 1993).
4.2. Limitations of ethnopedological surveys
The value of folk taxonomies is limited by the relative importance of individual soils.
For example, the range in soil productivity or usefulness may be too small to benefit from
applying different land management practices, thus providing little utility in developing a
detailed classification system to distinguish differences between soils that will be managed
the same. In other situations, the variability of soil productivity may be too complicated
relative to the management unit size (e.g., field, pasture) even though soils of contrasting
productivity levels may be easily identifiable. Also, non-soil related factors affecting the
value of land, such as rainfall events in the case of Bedouin pastorialists, can overwhelm
those soil characteristics that influence land value and thus diminish the utility of detailed
soil classification and mapping, scientific or folk.
Folk taxonomies are locally valid. Geology, topography, hydrology, and other factors
that affect the development of soils change from community to community and so do the
soil characteristics represented by the local classification. For example, the characteristics
of a red sandy soil in one community are likely to be different than that of another
community (Tabor, 1988; Tabor et al., 1990). Ethnopedological surveys need to regionalize classifications to overcome limitations presented by the localized nature of folk
taxonomies. The problem of cross-referencing local classifications to a regional or
scientific classification can be surmounted by using a geographical-information-system
(GIS) to access soil information (Tabor and Hutchinson, 1994).
Variable quality of local knowledge requires using anthropologic and soil science skills
to fully appreciate local knowledge. Local soil scientists who are familiar with the culture
and language have an advantage over outsiders if they are open to the potential value of
folk taxonomies.

210

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

5. Future uses of ethnopedology

Ethnopedology can help guide the development of scientific classification systems so
that class boundaries will be more relevant to land managers. Likewise it can guide soil
mapping by helping identify boundaries between soils with contrasting productivities and
management. An ethnopedological approach can also reduce costs and increase accuracy
of natural resource monitoring programs through improved stratification of data. It will
allow better targeting of development activities, improve their performance, and result in
higher adoption rates of interventions. Ethnopedology is particularly relevant for improving stratification of land quality data in countries without detailed soil surveys. It could
even play a role in monitoring carbon sequestration, a potential method of reducing
greenhouse gases that was the focus of the Global Climate Change Treaty: The Kyoto
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
5.1. Classification
Comparing numerous soils by their folk names would be an onerous task with only
limited potential benefit. This problem can be overcome by combining folk taxonomies
and hierarchical scientific systems. For example, Soil Taxonomy, the US Department of
Agricultures (USDA) soil classification system, provides a good model. It combines the
simplicity of a rule-based hierarchical system (e.g., Order to Family3 categories) with the
specificity of a nominal classification system like Soil Series. There are approximately
20,900 Soil Series in the US and its territories, too many to manage unless organized with
some other system. In Soil Taxonomy, only a relatively few Soil Series, commonly 3 to 15,
occur in each Family level classification. At this level one must review each Soil Series
description to assign a soil its classification. In this way, the two systems, nominal and
hierarchical, are linked and provide a powerful tool for organizing, identifying, understanding, and managing soils.
Most of the soil classification and mapping in developing countries do not achieve the
detail of Soil Series because of scale limitations, budget constraints, and lack of classified
taxa at this level. As a result similar soils are aggregated, described, and mapped at one of
the lower categories of a hierarchical system (e.g., Subgroup or Family levels). This level of
classification can generally provide information that is good for exclusionary decisions
(e.g., too shallow or too salty to exploit) but is often inadequate for field specific land
management decisions to improve production (e.g., growing maize vs. soybeans) and
reduce degradation. For example, the fine, smectitic, thermic Family of Aridic Haploxererts
represents 12 Soil Series, each with different capabilities and positions on the landscape.
Folk taxonomies are much like the nominal system of Soil Series but without the rigor
of scientific descriptions and engineering capabilities. Folk classifications are often
detailed enough to serve as a basis for field-level management decisions, but only at a
community level. They can supplement scientific classifications with important information affecting soil management.
3
Order to Subgroup levels are hierarchical, rule-based categories. The Family category is a descriptive type
of classification that modifies the Subgroup hierarchical name.

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

211

This merging of scientific hierarchical and folk taxonomies can be copied in countries
where indigenous soil knowledge has practical value (see Table 1), especially in
developing countries with limited resources for agricultural research but with a great
need to increase agricultural production and reduce soil degradation. Folk taxonomies in
these situations can provide the base for developing a nominal scientific system in much
the same way that chernozem, solonetz, and gley soils served in the development of
scientific soil classification in the 1800s.
To demonstrate how this all fits together, Malibu blue clay, a vernacular name
described in the introduction, is the designation used by a particular community. This soil
was established by the USDA in 1910 as Diablo Soil Series (a regional name following a
nominal scientific system) and classified as a Grumusols (old hierarchical scientific
system). Since then Soil Taxonomy replaced the old hierarchical system, and Soil Series
descriptions were slightly modified to fit within the class boundaries of the new system
(e.g., base saturation, textural ranges). A slightly modified Diablo is now classified as fine,
smectitic, thermic family of Aridic Haploxererts (current hierarchical scientific system).
Once the characteristics of vernacular and regional soil types are described and analyzed,
they can be correlated to any of the numerous hierarchical scientific systems that are
available (Tabor, 1997).
5.2. Mapping
Folk taxonomies can be much better at identifying soil-landscape relationships for
mapping than the hierarchical scientific classifications that are used throughout the
developing world (e.g., FAO system, French system, and Soil Taxonomy). Soil surveys
of much of the world do not provide sufficient detail to base field specific recommendations for farmers. Even 1:20,000 scale soil surveys can be too general where farmer
fields are 0.1 ha or smaller and soil variability is high. Owing to high costs and the time
required to make these soil surveys, it is unlikely that developing countries will survey a
significant portion of agricultural land at scales large enough to be of use to the farmer in
the foreseeable future. Also, many of the maps and inventories that have sufficient detail
provide information that is not very useful. The common fault is classification systems do
not correlate well with folk taxonomies and the way the land is managed (Tabor and
Hutchinson, 1994). This places a great burden on information users (e.g., the extension
agents) to interpret the studies correctly and apply it to the way farmers and pastorialists
classify and manage their resources.
Ethnopedology should be included in soil surveys and inventories for the reasons
discussed; however, the practical impact would be small since the current investment in
soil surveys is small. There is a potential for larger impacts by supplementing existing soil
surveys, both small and large scale, with information on folk taxonomies and related soil
management. This additional information would be useful to agricultural extension and
research until more detailed soil surveys are available. A few technicians, over a period of
several days, can define the major soils that occur in a community, make descriptions and
take samples for analysis of these soils, and determine their relative potential and their
constraints for agriculture. This information (e.g., descriptions and block diagrams of the
relationship between folk taxonomies, scientific classifications, and mapped soil units)

212

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

would provide extension agents and researchers with a field level perspective that cannot
be gleaned from most existing maps. Agricultural extension agents can use this information to more easily and accurately understand the resource base that each farmer is
managing and then suggest appropriate interventions. Researchers and development
organizations can use this type of soil information from a regional or landscape perspective
to plan activities that address the major agricultural and environmental constraints and to
exploit opportunities that may exist.
Soil information collected in this manner will allow soil scientists to better define their
scientific classification criteria and use vernacular names that have some meaning to
farmers and pastorialists. The location of described soils and the wealth of information
collected from land users can be recorded on a GIS and later applied to more accurate
mapping based on remote-sensing and other data. Vernacular and scientific systems can be
used to identify opportunities for land development by looking for soils with contrasting
values as identified by each classification system.
5.3. Monitoring
Donors of natural resource development projects (e.g., United Nations, World Bank,
US Agency for International Development) are requiring better impact reporting by
organizations implementing the projects (e.g., consulting firms, private voluntary organizations) in order to justify their activities. Many of these organizations use monitoring
methodologies that are based on interviewing land managers. Minimal field validation is
used (e.g., plot based observations) in order to keep monitoring costs low relative to funds
used to achieve projects goals.
Socio-economic tools that are used for project monitoring and evaluation, such as
household baseline surveys, have well developed methodologies. They provide part of the
context for which land use and management decisions are made. However, they do not
record with sufficient accuracy the location of project activities nor quality of natural
resources that are managed. Only large impacts on natural resources and agricultural
productivity are detectable at specific locations. Extrapolation of natural resource impacts
on the entire project area is often weak.
Currently, most field validation of project activities is based on random, plot-based
treatments and controls. In areas without detailed soil surveys to stratify areas by soil characteristics (e.g., soil productivity), impact monitoring only shows statistical significance for
those interventions with relatively large impacts. Most of the impact reporting is limited to
providing averages. Data variance is usually very high and rarely reported. It would question
the validity of reported impacts. This is a pragmatic compromise until better methodologies
can be developed. To show impacts for less spectacular interventions, more data and/or
better stratification of data are needed. In many circumstances soil scientists using an
ethnopedological approach can provide projects with a means to stratify monitored data that
can be collected by interviewing project participants (e.g., farmers and pastorialists).
Global positioning system (GPS) technology now allows quick, easy, and precise
location of sites. It also allows random monitoring of activities to validate reported impacts.
The costs of satellite-based remote sensing and geospatial technologies are dropping and
provide the opportunity to establish baselines of land-use and monitor changes. To varying

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

213

degrees these technologies are useful in mapping quality and quantity of natural resources.
Ethnopedology is compatible with the socio-economic methodologies and geospatial
technologies (Tabor and Hutchinson, 1994). An ethnopedological approach can help
improve reporting of site quality (e.g., differences in productivity of targeted lands). It
would also improve site selection for field validation studies (e.g., crop yield trials) and
improve stratification of land-use data so that better impact assessments can be made. Over
time, wide scale, spatially explicit reporting of data and soil classifications will allow better
natural resource inventories and impact reporting using geospatial technologies.
Donors and implementing organizations will need to devote more resources during
project design to improving impact monitoring and evaluation. An ethnopedological
reconnaissance survey of the project area could determine if folk taxonomies provide
adequate information for a monitoring program as well as develop a good understanding
of local natural resource management. Soil scientists conducting these surveys during
project design would also serve more effectively the conventional role of identifying
opportunities and constraints for project activities, designing activities, and selecting sites
for field validation studies of project activities. If folk taxonomies provide sufficient
information, soil scientists can develop a lexicon of soil related terms that would be used
in household questionnaires and for interpreting reported impacts by targeted populations.
They would also translate local perceptions to scientifically based ones in order to help
development workers more effectively implement projects.

6. Conclusion
Land-use planning decisions frequently require scale considerations of landscape
structure, function, and change (Hobbs, 1997, pp. 4 5). Folk taxonomies can provide
scale and management units on which to base studies and offer a context for evaluating
human aspects of environmental change. Using an ethnopedological approach, especially
in information poor areas, researchers and development workers can better describe
landscape structure (e.g., configuration, heterogeneity, and connectivity), landscape
function (e.g., water and nutrient flows, cropping patterns, and patch dynamics), and
landscape change (e.g., disturbance regimes and fragmentation). Indigenous soil knowledge can improve the inventory and management of natural resources, but this knowledge
is being lost. Documentation of folk taxonomies and the development of ethnopedology
can be promoted through natural resource development projects by improving existing soil
surveys in project areas and environmental impact monitoring of project activities. Folk
taxonomies were used as the base for developing the first scientific soil classification
systems in the 1800s; they can continue to contribute to pedology by helping assure that
soil classifications are functional as well as scientific.

Acknowledgements
We thank Charles Hutchinson, Jay Norton, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors
for their helpful comments.

214

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

References
Acres, B.D., 1984. Local farmers experience of soils combined with reconnaissance soil survey for land use
planningan example from Tanzania. Soil Surv. Land Eval. 4 (3), 77 86.
Aubert, G., 1949. Note on the vernacular names of the soils of the Sudan and Senegal. Proc. First Commonw.
Conf. on Trop. and Sub-Trop. Soils, Harpenter, 1948. Comm. Bureau Soil Sci., Techn. Comm., vol. 46,
pp. 107 109.
Barrera-Bassols, N., Zinck, J.A., 2000. Ethnopedology in a Worldwide Perspective: An Annotated Bibliography.
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), Netherlands. 636 pp.
Behrens, C.A., 1989. The scientific basis for Shipobo soil classification and land use: changes in soil plant
associations with cash cropping. Am. Anthropol. 91 (1), 83 100.
Bennett, H.H., Allison, R.V., 1928. The Soils of Cuba. Trop. Plant Res. Found., Washington. 410 pp.
Bradley, P.N., 1983. Peasants, soils, and classification: an investigation into a vernacular soil typology from the
Guidimaka of Mauritania. Res. Ser. No. 14, Department of Geography, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
106 pp.
Butzer, K.W., 1993. The classical tradition of agronomic sciences: perspectives on carolingian agriculture and
agronomy. In: Butzer, P.L., Lohrmann, D. (Eds.), Science in Western and Eastern Civilization in Carolingian
Times. Birkhauser Verlag, Boston, pp. 539 596.
Calton, W.E., 1949. A reconnaissance of the soils of Zanzibar protectorate. Proc. First Commonw. Conf. on Trop.
and Sub-Trop. Soils, Harpenter, 1948. Comm. Bureau Soil Sci., Techn. Comm., vol. 46, pp. 49 53.
Conklin, H.C., 1954. An ethnoecological approach to shifting agriculture. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 7 (2), 133 142.
Dames, Moore, 1990. Atlas Volume 1, Annexe E. Plan Directeur de Developpement de la Haute Vallee du Fleuve
Senegal. Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Senegal, Dakar/USAID/Dames and Moore Ltd.,
Paris. p. 20-D-02 soils and land tenure.
Dialla, B.E., 1993. The mossi indigenous soil classification in Burkina Faso. Indig. Knowl. Dev. Monit. 1 (3), 1 5.
Dokuchaev, V.V., 1949. Russian chernozem. Complete Collection of Works, vol. 3. The Acad. of Sci. of the
USSR Publ. House, Moscow, pp. 378 404. In Russian.
Dokuchaev, V.V., 1953. The advantage of studying the local terminology of Russian soils. Complete Collection
of Works, vol. 7. The Acad. of Sci. of the USSR Publ. House, Moscow, pp. 332 340. In Russian.
Finkl, C.W. (Ed.), 1982. Soil Classification. Hutchinson Ross Publ., Stroudsburg, PA. 391 pp.
Gavrilyuk, F.Y., 1963. Field Investigation and Mapping of Soils. Vyshaya Shkola, Moscow. 235 pp., in Russian.
Heiser Jr., C.B., 1990. Seed to Civilization: The Story of Food. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hewitt, A.E., 1992. Soil classification in New Zealand: legacy and lessons. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30, 843 854.
Hilgard, E.W., 1930. Soils, their Formation, Properties, Composition, and Relation to Climate and Plant Growth
in the Humid and Arid Regions. Macmillan, New York. 593 pp.
Hobbs, R., 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37, 1 9.
Hunn, E., 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. Am. Anthropol. 84, 830 847.
Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kerven, C., Dolva, H., Renna, R., 1995. Indigenous soil classification systems in Northern Zambia. In: Warren,
D.M., Slikkerveer, L.J., Brokensha, D. (Eds.), The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermed. Technol. Publ., London, pp. 82 87.
Kirby, W.F., Translator. 1923. Kalevala, vol. 1. J.M. Dent & Sons, London. 327 pp.
Krupenikov, I.A., 1981. The History of Soil Science. Nauka, Moscow. 327 pp., in Russian.
Kubiena, W.L., 1953. Bestimmungsbuch und Systematic der Boden Europas. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart. 392 pp.
Lamansky, V.V., 1915. An attempt for folk soil dictionary. Pochvovedenie 2, 61 72. In Russian.
Marten, G.G., Vityakon, P., 1986. Soil management in traditional agriculture. In: Marten, G.G. (Ed.), Traditional
Agriculture in Southeast Asia. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 199 225.
Militarev, V.Y., 1993. Categories and principles of the natural-science classification theory. Theory and Methods
of Biological Classifications. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 101 115. In Russian.
Nyamaphene, K.W., 1983. Traditional systems of soil classification in Zimbabwe. Zambezia 11 (1), 55 57.
Ollier, C.D., Drover, D.P., Godelier, M., 1971. Soil knowledge amongst the Baruya of Wonenara, New Guinea.
Oceania 42 (1), 33 41.
Osunade, M.A.A., 1988. Soil suitability classification by small farmers. Prof. Geogr. 40 (2), 194 201.

P.V. Krasilnikov, J.A. Tabor / Geoderma 111 (2003) 197215

215

Pawluk, R., Norton, J., 1997. Personal communication. Zuni Conserv. Project, Pueblo of Zuni, P.O. Box 339,
Zuni, NM 87327-0339, USA.
Ping-Hua Lee, M., 1921. The economic history of China with special reference to agriculture. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law 99, 1 461.
Raychaudhri, S.P., 1958. Soils of India. Rev. Ser., vol. 25. The Indian Counc. Agric. Res., Delhi. 28 pp.
Sandor, J.A., Furbee, L., 1996. Indigenous knowledge and classification of soils in the Andes of Southern Peru.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60 (5), 1502 1512.
Sedov, S.N., 1999. Personal Communication. Department of Geology, UNAM, Mexico. sergey@geol-sun.igeolcu.unam.mx.
Shoba, S.A. (Ed.), 2002. Soil Terminology and Correlation, 2nd ed. Karelian Research Centre RAS Publ.,
Petrozavodsk. 294 p.
Sillitoe, P., 1993. Local awareness of the soil environment in the Papua New Guinea highlands. In: Milton, K.
(Ed.), Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. Routledge, New York, pp. 160 173.
Stransky, I., 1954. Folk soil names based on color and moistening degree. Proc. of Soil Sci. Inst. Sofia. Bulg.
Acad. of Sci. Publ. House, vol. 2, pp. 281 360. In Bulgarian.
Stransky, I., 1956. Folk soil names based on physical properties. Proc. of Soil Sci. Inst. Sofia. Bulg. Acad. of Sci.
Publ. House, Sofia, vol. 3, pp. 329 410. In Bulgarian.
Stransky, I., 1957. Folk soil names based on various features. Proc. of Soil Sci. Inst. Sofia. Bulg. Acad. of Sci.
Publ. House, Sofia, vol. 4, pp. 307 409. In Bulgarian.
Tabor, J.A., 1988. Soils and Soil Management in the Massade Commune of Haiti. USAID/Save the Children
Federation, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, p. 126.
Tabor, J.A., 1993. Soils of the lower, middle and upper Senegal River Valley. In: Park, T.K. (Ed.), Risk and
Tenure in Arid Lands. The political ecology of development in the Senegal River Basin. The University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 31 50.
Tabor, J.A., 1995. Improving crop yields in the Sahel through water-harvesting. J. Arid Environ. 30, 83 106.
Tabor, J.A., 1997. Soil classification systems. Soils of Arid Regions of the U.S. and Israel. Office of Arid Lands
Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/IALC/soils/classifsystems.html.
Tabor, J.A., Ba, D., 1987. Soils and Soil Management for Agriculture, Forestry, and Range in Mauritania.
Farming Systems Research Along the Senegal River Valley: Report No. 7. USAID/The University of Arizona,
Office of Arid Lands Studies, Tucson, AZ. 105 pp.
Tabor, J.A., Hutchinson, C.F., 1994. Using indigenous knowledge, remote sensing, and GIS for sustainable
development. Indig. Knowl. Dev. Monit. 2 (1), 2 6.
Tabor, J.A., Kilambya, D.W., Kibe, J.M., 1990. Reconnaissance Survey of the Ethnopedology in the Embu, Meru,
Machakos, and Kitui Districts of Kenyas Eastern Province. USAID/University of Missouri, Columbia. 85 pp.
Tabor, J.A., Watson, A., Diagne, A., Ibrahima, K., Daffe, M., Dieme, M., Khouma, M., 1993. Annexe du sols.
Plan Directeur de Developpement de la Haute Vallee du Fleuve Senegal. Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur
du fleuve Senegal, Dakar/USAID/Dames and Moore, Paris. 91 pp., data base on diskettes, 1:50,000 and
1:20,000 maps.
USDA-NRCS, publication pending. Soil Survey of McKinley County Area. USDA Nat. Resour. Conserv. Serv.,
Washington, DC.
Warren, D.M., 1992. A preliminary analysis of indigenous soil classification and management systems in four
ecozones of Nigeria. Discussion Paper RCMD 92/1. Int. Inst. of Trop. Agric., Ibadan and the Afr. Resour.
Cent. for Indig. Knowl., 28 pp.
Wilde, S.A., 1953. Soil science and semantics. J. Soil Sci. 4 (4), 1 4.
Williams, B.J., 1975. Aztec soil science. Bol. Inst. Geogr. 7, 115 120.
Williams, B.J., Ortiz-Solorio, C.A., 1981. Middle American folk soil taxonomy. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 71 (3),
335 358.
Zaharov, S.A., 1915. On soil terminology of the native population in the Transcaucasian region. Russ. Pochvoved
13 14, 367 373.
Zimmerer, K.S., 1994. Local soil knowledge: answering basic questions in highland Bolivia. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 49 (1), 29 34.
Zitong, G. (Ed.), 1994. Chinese soil taxonomic classification (Draft). Inst. of Soil Sci. Academia Sinica, Nanjing.
93 pp.