Quantitative assessment of soil diversity at different scales of study (case study of Karelia)
Abstract
Recently the quantitative methods became popular in soil geography to study the structure of soil cover tackled as pedodiversity. The experience gained in their application to different territories and at different scales is not large yet, and the regularities revealed are not always obvious and unambiguous. The study of pedodiversity in the Republic of Karelia with its rather monotonous small-contour soil cover is targeted at the analysis of pedodiversity factors. It is of considerable methodological interest as an example of rather simple model with definitive soil diagnostics, and also a source of data in soil geography. Pedodiversity is shown to be higher when calculated basing on large-scale maps versus small- and mediumscale ones, and it strongly depends on soil classification applied for the soil map legend. When soil names are transferred from classification systems used in Russia to the International (WRB) system the ShannonWiener index becomes lower. This could be partly attributed to the nature of classification systems in relation to their objects, i.e. soils of the USSR or Russia and soils of the world. It is obvious that soils of one country, even with a complicated and variegated soil cover, require more detailed classification.
About the Authors
M. I. Gerasimova
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Department of Landscape Geochemistry and Soil Geography, Professor, D.Sc. in Biology
Russian Federation
Department of Landscape Geochemistry and Soil Geography, Professor, D.Sc. in Biology
Yu. A. Golovleva
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Engineer of 1 category
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Engineer of 1 category
A. M. Lavrova
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Engineer of 1 category
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Engineer of 1 category
P. V. Кrasilnikov
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Professor D.Sc., Corresp. member. RAS. in Biology
Russian Federation
Faculty of Soil Science, Department of Soil Geography, Professor D.Sc., Corresp. member. RAS. in Biology
References
1. Alyabina I.O. Kartograficheskaya ocenka raznoobraziya pochv Rossii [Cartographic assessment of soil diversity in Russia]. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta, Ser. 17, Pochvovedenie, 2018, no. 1, p. 8–15. (In Russian)
2. Camargo J.A. On the concept of pedodiversity and its measurement. A reply. Geoderma, 1999, vol. 93, no. 3–4, p. 339–344.
3. Fridland V.M. Struktura pochvennogo pokrova [The structure of the soil cover]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1972, 424 p. (In Russian)
4. Fridland V.M., Karavaeva N.A., Rudneva E.N. et al. Programma pochvennoj karty SSSR masshtaba 1:2 500 000 [The program of the USSR soil map scale 1:2 500 000]. Moscow, Dokuchaev Soil Institute Publ., 1972, 160 p. (In Russian)
5. Gerasimova M.I., Lebedeva I.I., Khitrov N.B. Razvitie bazovoy klassifikazii pochv Fridlanda v Klassifikazii pochv Rossii [Development of basic soil classification by V.M. Fridland in the Classification of soils of Russia] / Tretia Vserossiyskaya otkrytaya konferenzia «Pochvy i zemel’nye resursy» k 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya V.M. Fridlanda, Moscow, 2019, 72–75.
6. Guo Y., Gong P., Amundson R. Pedodiversity in the United States of America. Geoderma, 2003, vol. 117, no. 1–2, p. 99–115.
7. Ibáñez J.J., Vargas R.J., Vazquez-Hoehne A. Pedodiversity State of the Art and Future Challenges. Pedodiversity, London, CRC press, 2013, p. 1–28.
8. Ibáñez J.J., Feoli E. Global relationships of pedodiversity and biodiversity. Vadose Zone Journal, 2013, vol. 12, no. 3, 7 p.
9. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Report, no. 106. FAO, Rome, 2015, 192 р. http://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf.
10. Karpachevskij L.O. Lesnye pochvy Karelii [Forest soils of Karelia]. Pochvovedenie, 2007, no. 7, p. 890–891. (In Russian)
11. Klassifikatsiya i diagnostika pochv SSSR [Classification and diagnostics of soils of the USSR]. Moscow, Kolos Publ., 1977, 223 p. (In Russian)
12. Krasil’nikov P.V., Gerasimova M.I., Golovanov D.L., Konjushkova M.V., Sidorova V.A., Sorokin A.S. Pochvennoe raznoobrazie i ego znachenie v kontekste sovremennoj geografii pochv [Soil diversity and its importance in the context of modern soil geography]. Pochvovedenie, 2018, no. 1, p. 3–16. (In Russian)
13. Krasil’nikov P.V., Lantratova I.M., Starr M. Kolichestvennaja ocenka pochvennogo raznoobrazija Fennoskandii [Quantitative assessment of soil diversity of Fennoscandia] Ekologicheskie funkcii pochv Vostochnoj Fennoskandii, Ed. T.S. Zverevoj, Petrozavodsk, Karelian Science Center RAS, 2000, p. 108–123. (In Russian)
14. Minasny B., McBratney A.B., Hartemink A.E. Global pedodiversity, taxonomic distance, and the World Reference Base. Geoderma, 2010, vol. 155, no. 3–4, p. 132–139.
15. Morozova R.M. Lesnye pochvy Karelii [Forest soils of Karelia]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1991, 184 p. (In Russian)
16. Pedodiversity. Ed. J.J. Ibáñez, J. Bockheim. London, CRC press, 2013, 250 p. Pochvennaja karta RSFSR. Masshtab 1:2 500 000 [Soil map of the RSFSR. Scale 1:2 500 000] Ed. V.M. Fridland. Moscow, State Administration of Geodesy and Cartography, 1988 (revised digital version, 2007). (In Russian)
17. Smirnova M.A., Gennadiev A.N. Kolichestvennaya ocenka pochvennogo raznoobraziya: teoriya i metody issledovaniya [Quantitative assessment of soil diversity: theory and research methods]. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta, Ser. 5, Geogr., 2017, no. 4, p. 3–11. (In Russian)
18. Smirnova M.A., Gennadiev A.N. Kolichestvennaya ocenka pochvennogo raznoobraziya Rossiyskoi Arktiki i Subarktiki (po kartograficheskim dannym) [Quantitative assessment of soil diversity of Russian Arctic and Sub-Arctic using cartographic data]. Pochvovedenie, 2019, no. 1, p. 43–52. (In Russian)
19. Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soils surveys. Agric, Handbook 436, Washington, DC, NRCS UN Dep. Agric, 1999, 869 р.
20. Toomanian N., Esfandiarpoor I. Challenges of pedodiversity in soil science. Eurasian Soil Science, 2010, vol. 43, no. 13, p. 1486–1502.
21. Toomanian N., Jalalian A., Khademi H., Eghbal M.K., Papritz A. Pedodiversity and pedogenesis in Zayandeh-rud Valley, Central Iran. Geomorphology, 2006, vol. 81, no. 3–4, p. 376–393. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.016.
22. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Report, no. 106, FAO, Rome, 2015, 192 р. http://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf.
Review
For citations:
Gerasimova M.I., Golovleva Yu.A., Lavrova A.M., Кrasilnikov P.V. Quantitative assessment of soil diversity at different scales of study (case study of Karelia). Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografiya. 2020;(3):47-52. (In Russ.)
Views:
620
Email this article 
