English   español  
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/129457
Compartir / Impacto:
Estadísticas
Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Título

Classical Pedology Questioned and Defended

AutorIbáñez Martí, J. J.; Ruiz Ramos, M.; Zinck, J. A.; Brú, Antonio
Palabras claveSoil classification
Soil mapping
Landscape
Pedotaxa
Biotaxa
Patterns
Fecha de publicación2005
EditorSpringer
CitaciónEurasian Soil Science 38 supl.1: S75-S80 (2005)
ResumenClassical pedology is increasingly being questioned about its three main components: soil classification, soil mapping, and the concept of soil as a natural body on the landscape. We discuss some of the concerns most frequenly put forth, in particular the pedometric approach with its focus on soil variability and its effect on making soil classes and maps units. We analyze these issues in the light of the philosophy of science and by comparison with similar issues in the field of biological sciences. Situations where soil bodies can be delineated with sharp boundaries are probably as frequent in nature as situations with gradual variations of soil properties requiring a fuzzy mapping approach. Hierarchical taxonomies are, in general, appropriate to classify soils, as they reflect the tree model that the human mind chooses to classify natural objects. Soil classfication results, expressed as pedotaxa, reveal mathematical structures similar to those of biotaxa, while pedodiversity, analyzed on the basis of pedotaxa richness, follows patterns similar to those of biodiversity. Universal classifications are better communication tools to compare soils within regions than single-property maps. Classical pedology needs to evolve towards a ne soil paradigm and to promote synergy with the pedometric approach.
Descripción6 páginas-- 1.The continuum dilemma 2.Soils in classification boxes 3.Soils on the landscape 4.Toward a new paradigm 5.Conclusions. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to R. Arnold and D. Yaalon for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
URI10261/129457
ISSN1064-2293
E-ISSN1556-195X
Aparece en las colecciones: (CCMA) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.
Mostrar el registro completo
 


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.