-‘qoo—oqto- v‘ Q~~§am~WO‘Wfl’-fl Q.--

THE CLASSIFICATION or MICHIGAN ORGANIC SOILS
_ ACCORDING TO THE 1953 CLASSIFICATION OF
HISTOSOLS ‘

Thesis for the Degree of M. a
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT W. JOHNSON
1969

 

‘h-IESIS

 
 
  

".Ht'“ -4 'VP' -" “PH“! ' -..‘-"lu‘"“
.

«J

1

LIIIIHRY " ‘
L‘lichigan Stat:
UI- 'vetséty '

m

 

ABSTRACT

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MICHIGAN ORGANIC SOILS ACCORDING TO THE 1968
CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS

By
Hebert W. Johnson

A new system for the classification of organic soils was
adopted by the National Cooperative Soil Survey in 1968. The system
is compatible with and incorporates the basic concepts and principles
of nomenclature of the system used for classifying mineral soils which
was adopted for use in 1965.

Twenty-one organic soil series have type locations within the
state of Michigan. The information recorded in the standard descrip-
tions of these soils however, did not contain the necessary data to
properly place the soils into the new classification system. Therefore,
an intensive field study was made to evaluate bogs previously mapped
in Michigan under the former system of soil classification in terms of
the new system. Soil survey reports published in.Mflchigan, as well as
those pending publication were reviewed to determine previous concepts.
Nineteen samples were also analyzed in the laboratory of the University
of Minnesota for fiber content, reaction, ash content and water holding
capacity.

Using the data obtained frcm these studies, fourteen of the organic
series descriptions were redrafted in terms of the new classification of
Histosols. In addition, a key was developed showing the interrelation-
ships among the Michigan Histosols and their placement into the classi-
fication system. The key also indicates some of the additional organic

families which are likely to occur in the state as the new classification

Robert W. Johnson

system is applied more extensively.

The laboratory samples were used as bench marks to evaluate the
accuracy with which the field soil scientist could estimate the fiber
content of the organic soils. In addition, data on ash contents
and water holding capacities obtained from the samples were compared
with expected results for sapric and hemic materials reported by Farm-
ham and Finney and in the new classification of Histosols.

The family break in reaction proposed in the new classification
system for Histosols is discussed. It appears that a shift downward
in reaction to a pH of about 5.0 in 0.01 M CaClZ would bring the break
more in line with previous series concepts as well as reported signi-
ficant responses by major crops.

The use of sodium pyrophosphate as a reliable field test for
determining the degree of decomposition is discussed and suggestions
made to study the techniques for running the test in the field.

This study indicates that there is a need for continued research
and evaluation of the diagnostic criteria set forth in the new system
for classifying Histosols and to study both laboratory and field
methods and techniques used to measure the various parameters. It is
further suggested that emphasis needs to be placed on determining
the composition of the various mapping units of Histosols as the new
system is applied in the soil survey program.

It is the author's conclusion that this system for classifying
organic soils can be applied in detailed soils surveys and that the
defined taxa will improve the interpretations of these soils for their

utilization and.management.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MICHIGAN ORGANIC SOILS
ACCORDING TO THE 1968 CLASSIFICATION
OF HISTOSOLS
BY
Robert WNJOhnson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

IMASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Soil Science
1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. E. P.
Whiteside for his guidance and suggestions throughout the course
of this study.

Special appreciation is extended to Mr. William Mc Kinzie,
Assistant Principal Soil Correlator for the Soil Conservation Service
for his encouragement, participation in the field study, and for his
technical review of the series descriptions.

The author also wishes to thank Mr. Verne Bathurst, State Con-
servationist, and.Mr. Dirk van der Vbet, State Soil Scientist of the
Soil Conservation Service, for their encouragement of this study and
for authorizing the participation of Service personnel. Thanks is
also due to the soil scientists of the Soil Conservation Service
who participated in the field study and obtained the raw data on
which this thesis is based.

Special thanks is extended to my wife Ardith for her patience
and understanding throughout the course of this study and for her

contribution in typing and editing the manuscript.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page
It INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II.APPROACHUSED....................
III.HISTORICALASPECTS..................

A. General Review of Background Literature . . . . .

\n 4: C: h) P‘

l.Dawson....................
2. Dachnowski-Stokes............. 10
3. Farnham - Finney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Extent and Location of Michigan Organic Series. . l?
1. Michigan Series Correlated in Other States. . l7
2. Organic Series Correlated in Michigan . . . . 20
C. Early Concepts of Organic Series in Michigan. . . 28
1. Soil Survey Reports Published Prior to 1950 . 28

2. Soil Survey Reports Published After 1950 and
Manuscripts Completed But Not Yet Published . 32

IV. THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS. . . . . . . . . . 34

V. APPLICATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS TO
MICHEANSOESOOOOOOOOQO000000000.1+3

A. Field Evaluation of Organic Soils Proviously
MappedinMichigan................ M

B. Study of Organic Soils in Delta County Survey Area 1&8
C. Correlation Field Trip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
D. Continuity of Series Concepts . . . . . . . . . . 57
E. Initial Review Draft Descriptions . . . . . . . . 63

Continued

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER

VI. EVALUATION OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS

A.
B.
C.
D.

Fiber Content - Rubbed and Unrubbed. . . . .

CaClZpHvs.pHinH20......
Sodium Pyrophosphate Test. . . . .
M1nera100ntents.........

water Holding Capacities . . . . .

VII 0 DI SC" SSION O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0

VIII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

A.

Initial Review Draft Descriptions
Adrian Series. . . . . . . . . . .
Carbondale Series. . . . . . . . .
Carlisle Series. . . . . . . . . .
Cathro Series. . . . . . . . . . .
Chippeny Series. . . . . . . . . .
Dawson Series. . . . . . . . . . .
Greenwood Series . . . . . . . . .
Houghton Series. . . . . . . . . .
Lupton Series. . . . . . . . . . .
Markey Series. . . . . . . . . . .
Palms Series .-. . . . . . . . . .
Rifle Series . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
66
66
72
76
81
83
85

92

9b

102
106
110
113
116
120
th

132
136

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

APPENDICES ‘ Page
Tacoosh Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Tawas Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14#

B. Laboratory Methods and Procedures Used for Measuring

Physical and Chemical Properties (At the University
ofMinnesota).....................l’+8
Maximum water Content and water Content as Received. . lh8
AshContent......................1'+9
pHDetermination...................1‘P9

Procedure for Determination of Unrubbed Fiber
Content of Pest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

$1ubn1ty in Sodi'lm Pyrophosphat. o e e o e o o o o o 151

C. Form Used for Describing Organic Soils . . . . . . . . 153

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Organic Soils Correlated Outside of Michigan Since 1950 . .

Estimated Family Temperatures of Histosols Published or
correlated in Michigan. 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Histosols Mapped and Published in Michigan Prior to 1950
With Acreages and Probable New Classification . . . . . . .

Histosols Mapped and Correlated in Michigan After 1950
With Acreages and Probable New Classification . . . . . . .

A Key to the Histosols Under the Former Classification. . .
Summary of Field Studies Throughout Michigan on Histosols .
Summary of Histosol Study in Delta County . . . . . . . . .
A Key to Michigan Histosols Under the 1968 Classification .
Laboratory Data - Michigan Organic Soils. . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Fiber Content With Sodium Pyrophosphate Test.

Page

18

23

21+

26
33

50
51+
67
80

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
1. Status of Soil Surveys and.Mesic-Frigid Boundary
Map of Michigan showing:
Mbdern surveys published and year published.
Modern surveys completed and year publication is scheduled.
Modern surveys in progress and scheduled completion date.
Published Surveys (1902 - 1951) and year published.
Land-type Surveys.
No Survey.

Line used to separate mesic from frigid soil temperatures. . . 22

vii

I. INTRODUCTION

Michigan has approximately 4.5 million acres of organic
soils (4). These bogs are represented by twenty-two soil series,
as classified and described under the classification system of 1938
and revised in 1949. In 1965, a new comprehensive system for class-
ifying mineral soils (7th Approximation) was adopted by the National
Cooperative Soil Survey (12). A supplement to this classification
system was published in September 1968 for the clasSification of
organic soils (14).

In order to test the proposed classification of Histosols
in Michigan, it is necessary to take a new look at the organic soils
of the state, describe selected pedons of each of the existing series
using the new criteria, and then redefine the concepts of these series.

It is the primary purpose of this thesis to apply the new
classification of Histosols to the organic soils in Michigan and to
redraft the standard soil series descriptions using terms and criteria
of this system. The adequacy of the proposed classification system
will be evaluated and proposals for its improvement by additions,

deletions, or alterations will be suggested.

II. APPROACH US

[*1

D

In order to revise the standard soil series descriptions of
the organic soils with type locations within the State of Michigan,
the author used the following procedure:

1. Became familiar with the system proposed for the classifi-
cation of Histosols (l4).

2. Reviewed soil surveys published in Michigan prior to 1950,
to ascertain the concepts of the various organic series as they were
mapped and classified during that era. From the descriptions recorded
in those soil survey reports, the principles of the new classification
system were applied and the probable classification of each soil was
recorded in terms of the new classification system.

3. Reviewed soil surveys published after 1950 and soil survey
manuscripts which have recently been prepared but are not yet published.
The series descriptions in these reports represented the modern concepts
of the organic series just preceding the newly proposed classification
system.

4. Reviewed the current standard soil series descriptions of
the organic soils with type locations in Michigan in order to fully
evaluate the modern concepts of the series.

5. A field study was made to examine major organic soil areas
which were mapped under the former system of classification to
evaluate the consistency of mapping under the former system. De-
scriptions were written of the predominant pedons encountered in
these areas in terms of the new classification system (14). These

field studies were carried out with the assistance of the soil

scientists of the U. 8. Soil Conservation Service. Prior to their
field study. the soil scientists involved, were given a summary of
the proposed classification of Histosols, and a one day training
session, in the field, on the new system.

6. A one week field study trip (August 1968) was made to study
major organic series in.Michigan. The participants in the field trip
included representatives of the Soil Survey Staff of the U. 8. Soil
Conservation Service, (including a representative from the office of the
Director of Soil Classification and Correlation, washington, D. 0.. the
Principal Soil Correlator, Lincoln. Nebraska, State Staffs of Michigan,
New York. Wisconsin and Minnesota) and Experiment Station representa-
tives from Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin.
The purposes of this field study were to: (a) review in the field
and discuss the concepts of the organic series as they had.been.mapped
and correlated in the recent past inlMichigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin;
(b) review the organic series being mapped in a current progressive
survey area (Clare Cbunty) in which the new organic classification sys-
tem is being used and to discuss the prOblems encountered in applying
the new concepts there; and (c) review type locations of the major
organic soils in the recently completed Delta County survey area. There
the soils were mapped and tentatively correlated using the old series
concepts. These soils were re-studied and described in terms of the
new classification of Histosols.

7. Finally, using the above studies, the major organic series
of Michigan were classified in the new classification of Histosols

and Initial Review Draft descriptions were prepared for fourteen series.

III. HISTORICAL ASPECTS

A. General Review of Background Literature

Both Dawson (3) and Farnham-Finney (6) in their publications
point out that the literature dealing with organic soils is quite
extensive. However, they note that the literature is not particu-
larly extensive as it relates to the utilization of peat as a soil
or medium for supporting plant growth and the characterization of
the organic soil material itself.

Several recognized authorities in the field of organic soils
have reviewed the previous literature on organic soils. Three such
papers, reviewed below, point up the necessity for developing a com-
prehensive system for classifying organic soils. These include

Dachnowski-Stokes (2), Dawson (3), and Farnham and Finney (6).

l. Dawson

Dawson, in his paper "Organic Soils" (3), reviews a number of
papers dealing with five general subjects relating to organic soils.
These include: (a) materials found in organic soils and their strati-
graphy; (b) rate of formation of peat soils; (c) subsidence of organic
soils; (d) chemical properties of organic soils of significance in
crop production; and (e) chemical work on peat and related materials.

a. Organic soil materials: Auer (1933), Dachnowski-Stokes (1933)
and Rigg (1940) have described materials composing organic soils as
accumulations of plant remains. As soil material, these deposits were
described as consisting of peat and muck. Peat has usually been de-
fined as any partially decomposed plant material that has accumulated
in water or in a water-saturated soil where plant growth and deposition
have exceeded decomposition. The kind of peat has usually been speci-
fied in tenms of identifiable plant remains. When the degree of de-
composition of an organic soil material was high enough to prevent
identification of the plant from which it was derived, the material
has been called muck.

Ruttner (1953) included gyttja as an organic soil material.
Gyttja is peat derived from plankton and other sediments deposited
on the bottoms of bodies of water by sedimentation. Ruttner (1953)
also included dy as an organic soil material. Dy is composed of
insoluble salts of humic acids. Some organic soils contain marl
which is precipitated in bodies of water as a result of carbon dioxide

and bicarbonate ion utilization by plankton in photosynthesis.

Dachnowski-Stokes (1933) described layers of diatomaceous
earth, volcanic ash, and pumice in organic soils of the Pacific
Northwest. Diatomaceous earth was considered genetically a part
of the organic soil profiles whereas volcanic ash and pumice were
compared to layers of other mineral deposits.

Organic soils may include all the above mentioned materials as
well as muck and/or peat. Studies have shown that certain sequences
of two or more layers of these materials are common. Dawson discusses
the common sequences which occur in organic soils. Different organic
soil profiles developed along three courses: 1. Different profiles
are observed because of variations in the completeness of lake filling
and development of the soil; 2. Different profiles are observed be—
cause of variations in the initiation of these accumulating formations;
3. Different profiles are observed because of regressive development
in the normal sequence.

b. Rate of Formation of Peat Soils: The rate of formation of
peat soils has been measured by pollen counts and by radiocarbon
dating. Godwin (1934), Hardy (1939), Hyde (i940), and Dawson (1950)
have shown by pollen counts that peat accumulates at a rate of 0.0021
1 0.0006 foot per year.

Radiocarbon dating by Arnold and Libby (1951), Libby (1951,
1954) and Preston e.al. (1955) show an average rate of formation of
0.0021 3 0.0013 foot per year. In other words, the average time for
formation of one foot of peat is about 500 years. The rate of marl
formation was estimated by Portner (1951) as 0.0020 1 0.0007 foot per

year.

c. Subsidence of Organic Soils: Organic soils subside or de-
crease in their surface elevation when the water table is maintained
below the land surface. Roe (1936) has shown that subsidence in
Minnesota increases as depth to water table increases. Weir (1950)
observed that subsidence of soils high in organic matter exceeded
subsidence of soils lower in organic matter. Five causes of subsi-
dences have been suggested. They are oxidation, fire, compaction,
shrinkage and wind erosion.

d. Chemical Properties of Organic Soils of Significance in
Crop Production: Virgin organic soils are commonly low in fertility
level with respect to phosphorus and potassium. Bigger (1953) as
well as Davis, Lathwell and Dawson in Michigan fertility studies
showed that soil tests for phOSphorus and potassium are highly correl-
ated with fertilizer responses.

Nygard (1954) showed a response of lime—sensitive crops to an
addition of two to three tons of calcium carbonate per acre without
a substantial decrease in acidity. Staker and Cummings (1941) and
Staker (1944) reported the presence of toxic concentrations of zinc
in organic soil occuring after drainage as a result of oxidizing
zinc sulfide present in undrained soil to zinc sulfate. Organic
soils having pH values of 6.0 or above and containing free calcium
carbonate, tend to be manganese-deficient when crops sensitive to
this deficiency are grown.

e. Chemical Wbrk on Peat Soils and Related Materials:

Dawson reviewed some of the investigations on the formation of humic
acids. Organic soils often contain material of low chroma and value,

some of which is soluble in alkali hydroxide solutions from which

some is precipitated by acid. The organic materials that form sol-
uble alkali salts and that precipitate upon the addition of acid are
called humic acids.

Inorganic composition of organic soils is discussed briefly.
Salmi (1950) observed that peat bogs act as collectors of trace elements.
He noted that copper contents greater than 0.1 percent, zinc contents
greater than 0.6 to 1.0 percent, and nickel contents greater than 0.06
to 0.1 percent of peat probably indicate ore deposits within the water-
shed of the bog. Bushinskii (1946) published a paper on the formation
of siderite, vivianite and brown iron ore in the peat bogs of White
Russia. He indicated that when the land in the drainage area of a bog
is acid, the waters entering the bog from this area are acid and con-
tain iron, manganese, and phosphorus among other elements. When such
a bog also receives alkaline spring water and when mixing of these acid
and alkaline waters occurs within the bog, lenses of vivianite (white to
blue ferrous phosphate) and siderite (gray ferrous carbonate) will be
formed in the pH range 7.2 to 7.4. Marl will be formed in the pH range
7.5 to 8.0. He also suggested that brown bog iron ore results from
oxidation of siderite.

Dawson also reviewed briefly the work done on: solubility of
humic acids, peat and coal; titration curves for humic acids: and
amino acid contents of organic soils.

In a summary of his paper, Dawson indicates some problems in
stratigraphy, formation, subsidence and chemistry of organic soils
which may have directed or encouraged more work on organic soil class-

ification. He noted that a taxonomic system for classifying peat soils

that clearly brings out the similarities as well as the differences
between these soils is needed. He stated that the system being used
in the United States by soil surveyors was doing less than was needed.
Two difficulties inherent in that system were: too much emphasis was
placed on surface layers, which are the layers most subject to change;
and sedimentary peat, or gyttja had been described as muck or as mucky
peat when mixed with fibrous peat. Yet these sedimentary materials
are not highly decomposed as are the small particles of muck.

Dawson noted that a system of classification of organic soils
could and should be developed based on organic soil materials and

the sequence of those materials that occur.

10

2. Dachnowski-Stokes

Dachnowski-Stokes has done considerable work with organic soil
resource as they relate to their commercial utilization. His studies
have been made throughout the United States, with concentrated studies
in Alaska, the Pacific States and Florida.

The work in Alaska (2) was a result of numerous inquiries re-
ceived by the U. S. Department of Agriculture for information which
would facilitate the industrial utilization of Alaska peat deposits.

A program was developed cooperatively by the Territory of Alaska and
the Bureau of Plant Industry to determine the location, quality, depth,
and profile characteristics of the accessible peat deposits.

The field work consisted of actual examination of the peat pro-
files from the surface to the bottom of the deposits. They determined
the botanical composition of vertical cross-sections, described their
physical characteristics, reconstructed the types of original vegeta-
tion and environmental conditions. They emphasized the sequence and
quality of different layers of peat and interpreted the inherent struc-
tural features and relationships in terms of use capability. Their
report includes a brief statement of the salient features of the peatv
areas examined in Alaska, and an appraisal of the factors bearing on
the origin, condition, and characteristics of peat materials connected
with the problems of their prospective uses.

As proponents of a botanical classification of organic soils,
the author wrote profile descriptions with considerable detail relat-
ing to the kind of fibers present. His method of determining the main

character of primary peat materials is based on the external form and

11

the botanical identification of the plant remains which are suffi-
ciently well preserved to be recognizable. Peat materials of rela-
tively uniform composition and purity represent a type and are class-
ified as woody, fibrous, or sedimentary by the author. Those grouped
as Egggy included coarse, lumpy, partly decomposed woody fragments.
They were irregular to angular in shape and consisted of leaves,
needles, bark, bits of twigs, roots, and other components of trees

and shrubs as well as woody granular material. The coarseness or fine-
ness of the fragments depended upon the degree of decomposition. The
peat materials grouped as fibrous, consist of underground stems and
roots of grasslike plants which show more or less well developed hor-
izontal cleavage plane or lamination, while those derived from entire
small stems, such as Sphagnum mosses preferred for some commercial uses,
are often characterized by small columnar lumps and vertical aggregates.
The third group included all peat materials which are more or less
colloidal orgjellylike, form a coherent and sticky mass, shrink greatly
and become hard upon air drying, and represent finely divided organic
sediments that accumulated in open water from aquatic vegetation.

The author states that the most distinctive features of an area
of peat are its strata, which differ in quality according to the char-
acter of the peat-forming vegetation and the content of mineral or
other constituents. The successive layers of peat in a deposit reflect
the changes in the composition of the vegetation which replaced one
another in a peat area throughout the whole period of its formation.
From this, it is possible to establish a coordinated history of the

complex development which the bogs have followed in response to changes

12

in climatic conditions, in water table, and in supply of soluble salts
affecting physiological and other vital processes, as well as to effects
of floods, drought, fire and erosion. In this way an analysis of the
peat layers superimposed upon one another may be employed also as a
chronological scale against which other events, such as climatic cycles,
volcanic eruptions, or changes in sea level, can be measured.
Undoubtedly one of the factors which influenced the author's
study and development of a botanical classification of organic soils
was the fact that about this time (1941) the federal government was
taking steps to standardize the various kinds of peats which might be
purchased by the government. As a physiologist with the Division of
Soil Survey, Bureau of Plant Industry he encouraged the adoption of

peat standards by all peat producers and buyers.

13

3. Farnham and Finney

There have been numerous attempts at developing schemes for
classifying the organic soil deposits in the United States within
the last 60 years. There have also been many schemes proposed by
scientists in other countries. Along with these schemes for classi-
fying organic soils, many studies have been made on the distribution
and extent of organic deposits.

Farnham and Finney in their publication "Classification and
Properties of Organic Soil" (6) have made an extensive review of the
literature in a search for the various criteria used in the many sys-
tems proposed for classifying organic soils.

They listed six different topic headings under which they dis-
cussed the biases used in the highest category of the various proposed
schemes. These are summarized below.

a. Topographical - Geographical Features: Shaler (1890), a
geologist, categorized kinds of peatland into Marine marshes and
Freshwater swamps with various breakdowns under each.

Weber (1903), a German, divided bogs into three types based on
surface configuration. These were low moor, transition moor, and
high moor.

The low moor bog has its central portion at a lower elevation
than the mineral soil peat boundary. The high moor in contrast is
higher in elevation in the center than at the mineral-soil peat bound-
ary. The transition moor is intermediate between these two.

b. Surface Vegptation Features: Ogg (1939) divided the peat-

lands of England into four categories based on surface vegetation,

l4

namely fen, carr, moor, and heath. Plants occuring on the fen are
mostly sedges and grasses, on the carr mostly trees and shrubs, on the
heath mostly heather and on the moor mostly Sphagnum mosses and cotton
grass.

Radforth (1952-1953) classified peatland in Canada with nine
cover classes based on quality of vegetation, height, texture of vegeta-
tion, and growth habits.

Heinselman (1963) presented a classification based on water
movement patterns, physical features of the peatland itself, peat
characteristics and natural vegetation.

c. Chemical Prgperties: Sukachev (1926), a Russian, classified
Soviet bogs into two broad types, ground-nourished bogs and atmospheri-
cally nourished bogs.

Alway (1920), Harmer (1941),Nygard (1954), and Godwin (1941) used
similar approaches to classifying organic soils primarily on pH or their
line requirements.

d. Botanical Origin: Davis (1946) in his classification of
Florida peats, Rigg (1958) in his studies of Washington, and Davis and
Lucas (1959) in their studies of Michigan peat soils used botanical
origin as a basis for organic soil classification.

e. Morphology: Post (1926) established a scheme for determining
the extent of decomposition. This was expressed by the symbol H.
Little decomposed, fibrous, light-colored peat was defined as H 1,
whereas well decomposed, collodial, dark-colored material was H 10.

R was used to designate the presence of root fibers (scale 0-3);

wood residue (scale 0-3).

15

Veatch (1953) subdivided organic soils into: advanced stage of
decomposition; and less advanced stage of decomposition with two sub-
divisions under each category. The lowest category in Veatch's system
was the soil series.

Dachnowski-Stokes (1940) emphasized the importance of structure
as a morphological feature of organic soils. Four main kinds of struc-
tural units were observed, namely: horizontal: vertical; fragmental
or blocky; and granular.

Troels-Smith (1955) consider three features: physical features
(appearance and mechanical qualities); humicity (degree of decomposition);
and component parts.

f. Genetic Processes: Veatch (1927) proposed four "great classes"
of soils: Communizems (common mineral soils); Lithozems (indurated
rock soils); Hydrozems (water soils); and Plantazems (organics with
low specific gravity and great waterholding capacity. The Plantazems
were further subdivided into two classes: (a) old-mature and (b) young-
recent or geologic.

Dachnowski-Stokes (1924), Kazakov (1958) and Kubiena (1953)
recognized two major divisions of organic soils based on origin. The
first comprised soils that developed in water basins and under con-
ditions of poor drainage; and the second, those that deve10ped on
moist flat land under conditions of a rising or fluctuating water table.
Waksman (1942) used a similar approach.

Auer (1930) investigated many bogs in Canada, and indicated that
materials composing the peat bogs may be classified according to origin

and botanical composition. He proposed eight classes which are:

l6

inorganic ooze; organic ooze (limnetic); limy ooze (limnetic);
jellylike ooze (limnetic); carix peat; Amblystegium peat (telmatic);
Sphagnum peat; and grass-herb—forest peat (terrestrial).

Fraser (1943—1954), a Scottish peat worker, Ivanova and Rozov
(1960), both Russians, and Pons (1960), a Dutchman, also proposed schemes
for classifying peat soils based on genetic processes of formation.

Farnham and Finney pointed out that many of the earlier classi-
fication systems proposed have been oriented toward the classification
of the peatland landscape rather than the organic soil itself. They
noted that efforts of the workers proposing the various schemes had
different objectives in classification. Their fields of endeavor in-
cluded botany, geology, and several branches of soil science.

The authors then proposed a system for the classification of
organic soils which was compatible with and incorporated the basic con-
cepts and principles of nomenclature of the new soil classification
system for mineral soils developed by the Soil Survey Staff of the 0.5.
D.A. (12). That system, with modifications, was the one finally adopted
by the Soil Survey Staff for the classification of organic soils.

In the present author's opinion, a scheme to classify the land-
scape or the configuration of a bog is still a useful tool to assist in
portraying the "Setting" of a particular organic series. For example,
Weber's classification in which he uses high moor, low moor and tran-
sition moor to indicate the surface configuration of a bog, could well
be used in the technical series description, in addition to geologic
features, to assist the reader in picturing the landscape unit of a

given series.

17

B. Extent and Location of Michigan Organic Series

1. Michigan Series Correlated in Other States

Records of soil series correlated in the United States are
maintained in the regional offices of the Principal Soil Correlators
of the Soil Survey Staff of the U.S.D.A. This information was useful
in determining the distribution of the various series and tracing the
history of the series, as they have been mapped throughout the United
States. The author was most interested here to determine the distri-
bution of the organic series correlated since about 1950, which corres-
ponds to the beginning of publication of modern detailed soil surveys
on base maps (commonly aerial photos), larger than 1 inch = 1 mile scale.
This information is particularly valuable now as the series are being
revised in terms of the new classification of Histosols.

With the above in mind, the office of the Principal Soil Correlator
in Lincoln, Nebraska and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania provided records of
correlations of the Michigan organic series (1.6. soils with type
locations within the state of Michigan) which had been correlated in
other parts of the United States. Table 1. shows the Michigan organic
series which have been correlated outside the state of'Michigan since

about 1950 and their aerial extent where this information was available.

18

Table 1. Organic Soils Correlated Outside Michigan Since 1950

 

 

 

Number of
Series State Counties Extent
Adrian Wisconsin 8 8,737 Dodge and Fond du
Lac not included
Carbondale Wisconsin 1 - - - Fond du Lac
Carlisle Ohio 9 17,627
Indiana 10 38,801
Vermont 1 - - -
Cathro - - - - - - -
Dawson - - - - - - -
Edwards Indiana 5 1,969 Elkhart not
included
Ohio 2 288
New York 4 - - -
Greenwood Wisconsin 1 8,080
Houghton Illinois 3 36,174
Wisconsin 8 75.564 Dodge and Fond du
Lac not included
Linwood Indiana 9 3.429 Elkhart not
included
Ohio 6 59772
Loxley - - - - - - -
Lupton - - - - - - -
Markey - - - ' ' ' ‘
Palms Wisconsin 7 18,803 Dodge and Fond du
Lac not included
Rifle Ohio 1 3.900
Washington 1 _ - -
Rollin Wisconsin 6 1,413 Fond du Lac not

included

Spalding ‘Wisconsin 1 19,220

Table 1. (Continued)

l9

 

 

 

Number of
Series State counties Extent
Tahquamenon Wisconsin 1 1,856
Tawas Indiana 5 10,168 Elkhart not
included
Ohio 3 487
‘Willette Indiana 1 1,222
Ohio 7 2,582

20

2. Organic Series Correlated in Michigan

A review was made of the published soil survey reports and soil
survey manuscripts completed but not yet published (see Figure l for
status of soil survey in Michigan) in order to determine the extent
and location of organic soils correlated in Michigan. This information
is important, as mentioned above, to determine the extent of a given
series and to determine the most typical type location for the series.

The data obtained was summarized in Table 2 and indicates the
number of counties in which each series had been correlated; the total
acreage correlated; acres correlated in a mesic temperature area (mean
annual soil temperature of 47° to 59° F); and acres correlated in a
frigid temperature area (mean annual soil temperature of less than
47° F). (Also see Figure l for line used to separate mesic from frigid
soil temperatures.)

The same information is recorded for the series as they were
correlated prior to 1950 in Table 3, and as they were correlated after
1950 in Table 4. The probable or estimated classification, in terms
of the new classification of Histosols was also recorded (as near as
could be determined) from the descriptions in the various reports, as
described in the following sections.

Soil temperature is one of the differentiating criteria used
at the family and great group levels of the new classification system.
As the individual series are revised, an.important item of considera-
tion is the mean annual soil temperature in the areas where the
majority of the correlated acreage occurs. If mean annual soil temper-

atures are not available, they can.be related to air temperatures as

21

described by Smith et al. (12). For example, if it was determined
that ten thousand (10,000) acres of a given series had.been correlated
since 1950, and eight thousand (8,000) occurred in an area with a
mean annual soil temperature of less than 47° F. (frigid), every-
thing else being equal, the revised series description would be

defined in a frigid family or Boric suborder.

O

‘08

47

 

22?.

AHCJV:

87

I -'.!

'el'd

mrg.b m wit-Oman ‘n-w .1-

 

65

.4

-‘ me- L.

 

 

 

   

  

 

ONTONAG ON

MARQUETTL’

 

 

 

0

 

F

  

I

Figure l

STATUS OF SOIL SURVEYS

AND MESICuFRIGID BOUNDARY

    

 

   

 

  
   

 

.._..Jg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2/58

 

 

 

 

 

#7

48

#6

'95

’02

 

 

r: e: ._:
1+ J i“ 1" ‘5
( 7) DICKINSON x34) (39) 3
b6 __ 3 ._ DELTA 2 E —1
““3? 5 (' 1) . '°
t K 1+:
L g o
1. Modern Survey 1;(30; 0°
Published 1
(Year Published) 6 I
. I 015560 MONTMOR.
1'5 "-— ~ 1' P (4 __
2. Modern Survey Completed ‘0 5 (36) )
(Year Publication \ Lflmfififi;5gxmm
5011811116204.) GR'O TRAY. (J, L], L], 5}
_3(625(31) (31) (36)
30 MOdeI‘fl Survey in Prpgress . mFORD MISSAUK. ROSCOM. OGEMAW IOSCO
(Scheduled Completion (3" 5 (g ( 4) 5
w. DELI-3) MASON LAKE opscleom CLARE ’GLTAowT fir/36)}
”“° 4 2 3 2
4. Published Survey 1902 - {I 6
1951 $9632.34 NEWAYGQ Maggi); ISABELLA AT/rTz'AA'o !
(Year Published) 4 4 4 4 4 q
x (31) (28) (igll‘g‘
£2,557 (51) WQWTM 07923757’ 3:
5. Land Type Survey _ . n[ 3 g
, (63 “W (60) (72);? (3
«3 »—-—O‘ NO survey LL IONIA CLINTON SHé/‘W‘u
(30) I" u -
. (63) (:72) ((0) famine 2
- APPgOXimate f‘lE‘SijFI‘j-gid ALLEGAN BARRY EAT§~ INGHgV uwmgr" 1+ §(7 -
(47 F Temperature Break) . 8
- > (28) (72) (72) (71) (0*) a.
E KAL/LWA. CALHOUN JACKSON WASTE/5V W ”'AYNE
4 ll, Bl 6 [z
(20) (19) (30) 3)
4.: -.—- stOSspfi 53»:an HILLSOA. LENAWEE MoNR05 {e _.._-
L .[ - 1 3
1(231i£3221(28) (61) _(72
SCALE-:-::TA:IJT[34ILES
I I L fat—23"‘f‘7fa £0 j j L
e9 es Ln _______ _ ac _- _..._____85_____ a. s3
AD- 400.20 ' — __

Table 2. Estimated Family Temperature of Histosols Published or

Correlated in Michigan and Their Estimated Acreages

 

 

 

Counties Total Acres Acres
Series mapped acreage mesic frigid
Adrian 7 8.735 7.780 955
Carbondale 9 346,127 - - - 346,127
Carlisle 22 315,279 291,727 23,552
Cathro 1 1,167 - - - 1,167
Dawson 5 38,037 2,426 35,611
Edwards 18 21,627 12,781 8,846
Greenwood 30 127,769 9,466 118,303
Houghton 32 114,554 44,925 69,629
Kerston 24 54,255 18,315 35,940
Linwood 11 25,371 19,850 5,521
Loxley l 558 - - - 558
Lupton 18 121,909 6,998 114,911
Markey 6 10,953 - - - 10,953
Ogden 1 300 300 - - -
Palms 2 8,526 8,526 - - -
Rifle 32 872,823 192,960 679,863
Rollin l 621 621 - - -
Spalding 7 158,672 2,128 156,544
Tahquamenon 4 21,696 - - - 21,696
Tawas 13 43,117 14,158 28,959
Wdllkill 6 3,820 1,022 2,798
Warners 9 2,220 1,291 929
Willette 6 3,348 3,029 319

24

Table 3. Histosols Mapped and Published in Michigan Prior to 1950
With Acreages and Prdbable New Classification

 

 

 

Counties Acres Acres Probable classification
Series mapped mesic frigid Subgroup and Family
Carbondale 5 - - - 330,560 Typic Borosaprist; euic.

Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
Terric Borosaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Carlisle 16 225,792 23,552 Typic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.
Terrie Medisaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic, mesic.

Dawson 2 — — - 35,328 Sapric Borofibrist; euic.
Hemic Borofibrist; euic.
Terric Borofibrist; sandy,
mixed , 61110 e

Edwards 5 - - - 5,640 Limnic Borosaprist; marl,
euic e
Greenwood 26 7,040 116,208 Typic Borofibrist; dysic.

Terrie Borofibrist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Houghton 25 37,120 64,708 Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Typic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.

Terric Borosaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Terrie Medisaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic, mesic.

Kerston 16 7,168 32,128 Fluventic Borosaprist;
eUiCe
Fluventic Medisaprist;
euic, mesic.

Lupton 11 - - - 96,448 Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
Terrie Borosaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Table 3. (Continued)

25

 

 

Series

Counties
mapped

Acres
mesic

Acres
frigid

Probable classification
Subgroup and Family

 

Rifle

Spalding

Tahquamenon
Wallkill

warners

27

178,136

677.462

156.544

21,696
2.798
256

Typic Borohemist; euic.
Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Typic Medihemist; euic,
meSiCe

Typic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.

Terrie Borohemist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Terrie Medihemist; sandy,
mixed, euic, mesic.

Typic Borofibrist; dysic.
Terric Borofibrist; sandy,
mixed, dysic.

Limnic Borosaprists; marl,
euic.

Table 4.

26

Histosols Mapped and Correlated in Michigan after 1950
With Acreages and Probable New Classification

 

 

Series

Counties Acres Acres Probable Classification
mapped mesic frigid Subgroup and Family

 

Adrian

Carbondale 4 - -

Carlisle

Cathro

Dawson

Edwards

Greenwood

Houghton

Kerston

Linwood

7 7,780 955 Terrie Medisaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic, mesic.

15,567 Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Hemic Borosaprist; euic.

0\

65,935 - - - Typic Medisaprist; euic,mesic.

1 - - - 1,167 Terrie Borosaprist; loamy,
mixed, euic.
Terrie Borohemist; loamy,
mixed, euic.

3 2,426 283 Terric Medihemist; sandy,
mixed euic, mesic.
Terric Medifibrist; sandy,
mixed euic, mesic.

13 12,781 3,206 Limnic Medisaprist; marl,
euic, mesic.

4 2,426 2,095 Typic Borofibrist; dysic.
Hemic Borofibrist; dysic.
Typic Borohemist; dysic.
Typic Medifibrist; dysic.
mesic.
Hemic Medifibrist; dysic.
mesic.
Typic Medihemist; dysic.
mesic.

7 7,805 4,921 Typic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.
Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Typic Medihemist; euic,
mesic.
Typic Borohemist; euic.

8 11,147 3,812 Fluventic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.
Fluventic Borosaprist; euic.

11 19,850 5,521 Terrie Medisaprist; loamy,
mixed, euic, mesic.
Terrie Medihemist; loamy,
mixed, euic, mesic.

27

Table 4. (Continued)

 

 

Counties Acres Acres Probable Classification
Series mapped mesic frigid Subgroup and Family
Loxley l . - - - 558 Typic Borosaprist; dysic.
Lupton 7 6,998 18,463 Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Typic Medisaprist; euic,
meSiCe
Markey 6 - - - 10,953 Terric Borosaprist; sandy,
Ogden l 300 - - - Terric Medisaprist; clayey,
illitic, euic, mesic.
Palms 2 8,526 - - - Terric Medisaprist; loamy,
mixed, euic, mesic.
Spalding 1 2,128 - - - Typic Medifibrist; dysic.
meSiCe
Typic Medihemist; dysic.
mesic.
Rifle 5 14,824 2,401 Typic Medihemist; euic,
mesic.
Sapric Medihemist; euic,
mesic.
Hemic Medisaprist; euic,
mesic.
Tawas 13 14,158 28.595 Terric Medisaprist; sandy,

mixed, euic, mesic.
Terric Borosaprist; sandy,
mixed, euic.

Rollin l 621 - - - Limnic Medisaprist; marl,
euic, meSic.

wa11ki11 3 1,022 - - - - - -

warners 7 1,291 673 - - -

Willette 6 3,029 319 Terric Medisaprist; clayey,

illitic, euic, mesic.
Terrie Medihemist; clayey,
illitic, euic, mesic.

28

0. Early Concepts of Organic Series in Michigan

1. Soil Survey Reports Published Prior to 1950

Prior to 1950, as now, soil surveys inMMichigan'were conducted
cooperatively by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station. The agencies of the U. S. D. A..
which had responsibilities for conducting soil surveys prior to
November 15, 1952 included the Division of Soils of the Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils and the Bureau of Plant Industry. The Lands
Division of the Michigan Conservation Department was also a cooper-
ator in.Michigan during part of that period.

The earliest soil survey publication in Michigan was Allegan
county which was mapped in 1901 and published in 1902. After the
publication of Allegan county, forty more counties were published in
a similar format. The last publication of this group was Newaygo
county, which was mapped in 1939 and published in 1951.

The scale of the published soil map of the early format was
one inch to the mile. Base maps were plain line maps constructed
using a plain table and alidade.

During that era, Pedology as a science was relatively young.
Soil Classification was being developed and little emphasis was placed
on the higher categories. Legends for these surveys were developed
by soil scientists as the survey progressed. Little was known about
the soils of the survey area prior to the start of the surveys. Con-
cepts of soil series were necessarily broad. Descriptions were

written in somewhat non-technical terms compared to todays standards.

29

Terminology used was leveled at the understanding of the laymen.

Soil mapping units were also broad, corresponding to the
generalities built into the legend itself. These early surveys are
now referred to as reconnaissance surveys.

The descriptions of the organic soil series which appear in
these soil survey reports were what is now considered a non-technical
series description and mapping unit description. Some reports con-
tained.more technical information about the soil than others. One
of the better descriptions of an organic soil is that of the Carlisle
series appearing in the Ingham county report issued in March 1941.

It reads as follows:

“Carlisle muck - Carlisle muck is characterized by dark'brown
or black surface material, a natural coarse-granular structure, and a
fine texture under cultivation. In the typical soil, the organic
matter becomes finer in texture at a depth of a few inches, is pasty
when wet, and when dry is hard and horny, breaking with an angular or
conchoidal fracture. At a depth ranging from 12 to 20 inches, the
material in most places becomes coarser, more peaty, and less decom-
posed, and in.many places it is not distinguishable from that under-
lying other organic soils. In Carlisle muck, the parent organic
material, to a depth ranging from 21 to 30 or more inches, has been
so greatly modified in.most places that the original vegetal.matter
cannot be determined."

Some additional data is also given with reference to use and
management of the soil.

The above description is one of the most complete and

30

comprehensive appearing in this type of soil survey report.

On the other end of the spectrum, several of the older publi-
cations, such as the Soil Survey Report of Ottawa County issued in
1926, did not delineate organic series as such. Organic soils were
mapped only as “muck" and the description included in the report per-
tained to the general nature of these areas as a whole.

From these descriptions, several items were interpreted which
assisted in the formulation of the principal concept of the organic
series at that time. These items included: degree of decomposition,
color, depth, reaction and vegetation. Acreage in the survey area
was also noted. As a result of interpreting the above characteristics,
several alternative classifications are offered for each series in
terms of the new classification system in Table 3. The first classifi-
cation offered seemed the most likely classification, the second the
next most likely, and so forth. It should be pointed out that the pro-
posed classification for each series was indeed a crude estimate, since
the descriptions in the reports, for the most part, offered very little
clue to percent fiber which is the major criterion used in the new
classification system.

To summarize the positive aspects of these descriptions, we note
that while the concepts of the various organic series were broad, and
descriptions were in non-technical terms, the individual series seemed
to be mapped quite consistently throughout this general time period.
The relative degree of decomposition was considered as a series criterion,
although stages of decomposition were not precisely defined. Terms

such as "raw", ”well granulated“ or "relatively undecomposed” are examples

31

and appeared consistently in the descriptions. Present vegetation also
seemed quite consistent for the various series. For example, vegetation
noted for the Carlisle series throughout most of the reports consisted
of elm, ash, soft maple, swamp oak, and basswood. For the Greenwood
series, vegetation was consistently sphagnum moss, leatherleaf, labador
tea, blueberry, cranberry, and laurel. It seems apparent that the
vegetation played a big role as a mapping clue or perhaps even a major

criteria for identifying the various organic series.

32

2. Soil Survey Reports Published After 1950 andeanuscripts Completed
But Not Yet Published

Beginning about 1960, the modern concept of Soil Survey Reports
began to be published. The scale of the published soil survey maps
are now generally 3.1? inches per mile or u inches per mile, compared
to the 1 inch per mile scale in most older publications. The legends
used for mapping organic soils after about 1950 used the system of
classification which has been used for these soils until the revision
recently issued which is discussed and incorporated later into this
thesis.

Michigan counties which have modern published soil survey reports
include Montcalm (1960), Sanilac (1961), Lenawee (1961), Grand Traverse
(1966), Arenas (1967), Ionia (1967) and.Muskegon (1968). Counties in
which the manuscript has been completed but not yet published include
Charlevoix, Gladwin, Leelanau, Osceola, Emmet, Shiawassee, Lapeer,
Macomb, Ottawa, and Livingston.

A review was made of the organic series descriptions contained
in the above mentioned county soil survey reports or manuscripts. The
properties described were evaluated in terms of the new classification
of Histosols and an approximation made as to the probable current

classification as shown in Table 4. These descriptions were much.more
' sophisticated than those described in the earlier published reports,
however they again lacked an estimation of fiber content which is a
:najor basis of the new classification system.

Table 5, "A Key to the Histosols Under the Former Classification",
summarizes some of the characteristics used in classifying the organic

soils mapped from about 1950 until the adoption of the new system.

33

Table 5. A Key to the Histosols Under the Former Classification

 

 

ORGANIC SOILS, HISTOSOIS

‘A .4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Character of Organic Material (Depth of Organic Material
iii __i. _ Hi i
.p__ Deep Shallow (12" — 1+2")
*0" to 12" 12 to h2 Illl (h2"+) over over over ‘ over over
12-2h” sands loams cl 8 marl limestone
Decid- Black, granular, 8.3
uous & well-decomposed to
Coni- woody over undecoms 7.0 Lupton Markey Cathro Edwards Chippeny
fers osed brown fibrous
Dark'brown, slightly
Decid- to moderately decom— 7'0
uous posed over undecomp too Carlisle
kxxxy posed brown fibrous 5'
Dark brown, slightly
Coni- to moderately decom~ 7'0 “Will-
fers posed over undecomp to Carbondale Tawas Linwood ette
_L posed brown fibrous 5'0
Coni-
fers &. Brown to yellow un- 6'5 .
Decid- decomposed fibrous t0 lele
uous ”-5
oody' "
and. g:::-&’ Brown to yellow un- 5'0 S ldi
ibr- decomposed fibrous to pa ng Dawson
Marsh 3.0
one he 5 O
Lest r . ‘** *"
leaf :2::::; undecomposed to Greenwood Dawson
Bogs 3.0
" Black to brown "
ibrai decomposed Loxley
is ' Darkjbrown yellow 7T0 ’“‘
marsh finely fibrous to Houghton .Adrian Palms Ogden.Rollin
5.0
Uhdécomposed over 7.0T "‘*’
Marsh- semi-f1uid.mass or to Tahquamenon
land water 5.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PThe stage of decomposition of the surface 12 inches is reflected by the type name.

—-‘—‘

meant

for the well-decomposed and moderately well-decomposed organic materials, each series
:may include a muck type and a pest type as Heughton muck and Heughton peat.

IV. THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS

The Supplement to the Soil Classification System (7th Approxs
imation) (12), issued in March 1967 did not include a classification
of Histosols. Histosols (organic soils) is the tenth of the ten soil
orders recognized in that Soil Classification System. The word
"Histosol" is derived from the Greek, histos, meaning tissue which is
added to:the formative element, "sol" meaning soil, to form the word
"Histosol". These are in fact soils derived from plant tissues or
organic soils.

Farnham and Finney proposed a system for classifying organic
soils in 1965, as previously mentioned (6). They used the principles
of nomenclature proposed by the Soil Survey Staff (1960) for naming the
categories of the classification of mineral soils. The system proposed
by Farnham and Finney is the system which, after some testing and mod-
ification, was adopted and included as a Supplement to the Soil
Classification System, (September 1968) (1%).

Some of the principal criteria used for establishing the various
categories, the diagnostic horizons, and the control section will be
discussed for background purposes.

A. Th24§asis for the Propgsed System

Farnham and Finney state that the scheme they propose is “based
essentially on certain morphological properties distinguishable in the
field”. The principal differences between this system and other systems
for classifying peat or organic soils are as follows:

1. The main emphasis in this system is on morphological proper-

ties of certain diagnostic layers, not on botanical remains, geology,

34

35

tepography, or chemistry of bog water.

2. The object classified is a three-dimensional body occuring
on organic terrain which has certain designated thickness limits.

3. The system uses as many semi-quantitative or quantitative
evaluations as necessary so that good precision is both possible and
reproducible.

4. Classes are carefully selected which are clearly and re-
peatedly distinguishable.

5. The system is basically designed for use in making detailed
soil surveys but is also useful for broad groupings of organic soils.

The basic precepts or guidelines generally used include the
following:

1. Organic soils are saturated with water for prolonged periods,
or artificially drained, and have 30 percent or more organic matter
(17.“ percent organic carbon) if the mineral fraction is 50 percent or
more clay, or 20 percent or more organic matter (11.6 percent organic
carbon) if the mineral fraction has no clay, or proportional inter-
mediate organic matter content if the clay fraction is intenmediate;
or are never saturated with water for more than a few days, and have
35 percent or more organic matter. The thickness of the organic de-
posit to be considered a Histosol is variable. (See later discussion
on control section.)

2. For practical reasons, an arbitrary control section is
classified, not the entire organic deposit. The portion classified
includes that portion of the soil where maximum.microbiological

activity occurs and where most of the roots of economic plants grow.

36

3. Enphasis is given to the more stable subsurface (12" to
35“ or 2n" to #8”) part of the control section in the higher taxa
of the system because the surface layer may change rapidly through
farming practices or drainage.

h. In control sections with two diagnostic subsurface layers
the most stable (most decomposed) layer receives precedence in naming
classes at the suborder level.

5. Non-organic layers occuring in the arbitrary control section
of organic soil must be considered in the classification system at the
subgroup level.

6. Surface layers are conéidered only as a phase of series in
the system, except for shallow organic soils. ,Morphological properties
significant to use of these soils form the basic differentiae for
classes.

B. Criteria Used for Establishing the various Categories of
the stem

 

1. .Order - minimum thickness of the organic deposit and the
organic matter content: (e.g. Histosol)
2. Suborder - presence or absence of diagnostic organic horizons

and kinds of subsurface layers. (e.g. Saprists)

3. Great Group - climate and presence of certain specific
botanical remains. (e.g. Medisaprists and Sphagnofibrists)

4. Subgroup - kinds of control section; for example, all
contrasting organic substrate, mineral substrate, and arrangement of
organic layers. (e.g. Typic Medisaprists, Fibric Medisaprist and
Terrie Medisaprist)

37

5. Family - nature, texture and mineralogy of substrate, base
status, and soil temperature. (e.g. typic Medisaprist; euic, mesic)

6. Series - base status, specific fiber composition, uniformity
and thickness of subsurface layers. (e.g. Carlisle) These may be
further subdivided for mapping units as phases of the series.

C. The Diagnostic Horizons

Three basic kinds of organic soil materials are distinguished.
They are fibric, hemic and sapric materials. These are distinguished
from one another by the content of fibers in the undisturbed condition
and after rubbing.

Before proceeding with the definition of the kinds of organic soil
material, the term “fiber” should first be defined. Thus, fibers are
defined as fragments or pieces of plant tissue retained on a 100 mesh
sieve (0.15 mm openings). Fragments larger than 2 cm in cross section
so undecomposed that they cannot be crushed and shredded with one's
fingers are not considered fibers. The fragments of undecomposed wood
in the form of the larger branches, logs, and stumps are considered to
be coarse fragments, comparable to gravel, stones, and boulders in
mineral soils.

Ehphasis is placed not only on the fiber content in the undisturbed
condition, but also on the percent of fiber remaining after rubbing. The
percentage of fibers that do not break down with rubbing gives a more
realistic estimate of the degree of decomposition than does the content
of fibers in the unrubbed condition. Bulk density values, and hence
subsidence on drainage are more closely related to the content of fiber

after rubbing. To determine fiber content after rubbing, a small wet

38

fragment of the material is rubbed between the thumb and forefinger
about ten times with firm pressure. After the rubbing, the fragment
may be washed on a screen in the laboratory or molded into a spherical
mass and broken for field examination of the fiber content under a
hand lens of ten power or more.

Fibric materials are the least decomposed of all the organic soil
material. They contain very high amounts of fibers which are well pre-
served and readily identifiable as to botanical origin. They also have
very low bulk densities (less than 0.1 gin/cc) and high maximum water
contents when saturated (850 to over 3000 percent on the oven-dry basis).
Fibric materia1.must have: (a) in the unrubbed condition, a content of
fiber in excess of two-thirds (2/3) of the organic volume, and the
fibers are so resistant to disintegration that after rubbing they com-
prise 40 percent or more of the organic volume; and (b) if the fiber
content after rubbing is less than 60 percent, the material yields a
sodium pyrophosphate extract color on white filter paper that is 7/1,
7/2, 8/1, 8/2 or 8/3 (Munsell designation of value and chroma).

Hemic materials are intermediate in degree of decomposition.

They have morphological features, with intermediate values for bulk
density (0.1 to .2 gm/cc), water contents when saturated (#50 to 850
percent), and fiber contents between one-third (1/3) and two-thirds
(2/3) of the volume before rubbing. Hemic material must have one of
the following: (a) in the unrubbed condition, a content of fiber of
1/3 to 2/3 of the organic volume if after rubbing, the content of

fiber is 10 percent or more of the organic volume; or (b) in the un-

rubbed condition, a content of fiber exceeding 2/3 of the organic

39

volume if after rubbing, the content of fiber is between 10 and 40
percent of the organic volume; or (c) in the rubbed condition, a fiber
content of less than 60 percent of the organic volume, but #0 percent
or more, and the material yields a sodium perphosphate color extract on
white filter paper with a value of 7 or less and a chroma of 3 or more.

Sapric materials are the most highly decomposed of the organic
materials. They have the highest bulk density values (0.2 + gm/cc), the
lowest water contents at saturation on a dry weight basis (less than 450
percent) and the least amount of fiber (less than one-third of the vol-
ume) unrubbed and less than 10 percent after rubbing.

Sapric material has the following characteristics: (a) in the
unrubbed condition, a fiber content of less than 1/3 of the organic
volume; or in the unrubbed condition, a fiber content of 1/3 or more of
the organic volume if after rubbing the fiber content is less than 10
percent of the organic volume, and (b) yields a saturated sodium pyro-
phosphate extract on white filter paper with colors which are below or
to the right of a line drawn to exclude 5/1, 6/2 and 7/3 (Munsell
designations) .

Limnic materials include marl, diatomaceous earth, and coprogenous
earth (sedimentary peat). These are all organic and inorganic materials
either deposited in water by chemical precipitation, through the action
of aquatic organisms such as algae or diatoms, or derived from under-
water floating aquatic plants subsequently modified by aquatic animals.

Limnic materials are used to separate classes in the subgroup category.

D. The Control Section

For practical reasons an arbitrary control section is considered
in the classification. It is either 51 inches or 63 inches in thickness
depending on the kind of material and providing that no lithic or para-
lithic contact, a thick layer of water, or frozen.material occurs within
these limits. The thicker limit is used if the surface 24 inches con.
sists of 75 percent or more fibric moss.

The control section is divided into three tiers, the surface, sub-
surface and bottom tiers. Generally, the kinds of materials in the sub-
surface tier are the basis for distinguishing the kinds of soil at the
order level. The bottom tier is ordinarily used as basis for distin-
guishing kinds of soil at the subgroup level. The surface tier is the
most unstable and is generally considered a series or phase differentia.

The three tiers are defined as follows:

Surface tier - The top 24 inches if it is fibric material and 75
percent or more of the fiber volume is of mosses; otherwise the top 12
inches exclusive of loose litter or living mosses.

Subsurface tier - This is 24 inches thick unless the control sec-
tion ends at a lithic or paralithic contact or water within this depth,
or the soil is frozen at a shallower depth. In any of these situations
the subsurface tier extends from the base of the surface tier to the
base of the control section. It includes mineral layers that may be
present within these depths except for consolidated rock.

Bottom tier - This tier has a thickness of 16 inches unless the
control section stops within its maximum span.

Thus, if the organic materials are thick, we have two control

41

sections according to the presence or absence and thickness of a
surface mantle of fibric moss. If the fibric moss extends to 24
inches in depth, the control section is 63 inches thick. If the
fibric moss is thin or absent, the control section extends to a 51
inch depth. The control section is terminated at shallower depths
by water or by a lithic or paralithic contact or 10 inches below a
layer that is frozen about 2 months after the summer solstice.
In summary, Histosols are soils with:
1. Organic soil materials that extend from the surface to one
of the following:

(a) 24 inches or more if 75 Percent or more of the volume
is fibric moss or the bulk density is less than 0.1 gm/cc;

(b) 16 inches or more if saturated with water for pro-
longed periods (more than 6 months) or artificially drained, and consist-
ing of sapric or hemic materials, or if fibric materials that have less
than 75 percent by volume of moss and have a bulk density or 0.1 or
more:

(c) 40 inches or more if consisting dominantly of sapric
materials to that depth, and neither saturated with water for long
periods, or artificially drained;

(d) within 4 inches or less of a lithic or paralithic
contact provided that the thickness of the organic soil materials is
more than twice that of the mineral materials above the contact:

(9) any depth if to fragmental material (gravel, stones,
cobbles) with interstices filled with organic materials, or to a

lithic or paralithic contact; and

42

2. (a) no mineral layer 16 inches or more thick at the sur-
face or with an upper boundary within a depth of 16 inches from surface,
and

(b) no mineral layers, taken cumulatively, as thick as 16
inches within the upper 32 inches.

As a general rule, a soil is classed as a Histosol if more than
half of the upper 32 inches is organic, and it is classed as a Histosol
without regard to thickness of organic materials if they rest on rock

or fragmental material with the interstices filled with organic materials.

V. APPLICATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS TO MICHIGAN SOILS

The application of the new classification system to the organic
soils of Michigan involved reviews of Soil Survey Reports and Report
Manuscripts already described. These studies were used as the basis
for the proposed classification of the series shown in Tables 3 and 4.

The next step was to organize a field study of major organic
soil areas throughout the state which had been.mapped using the former
system of classification and to correlate them into the new system.

A similar study was made in the soil survey area of Delta county
and the west portion of the Hiawatha National Forest which includes
parts of Schoolcraft and Alger counties.

Other studies and information used included profile descriptions
written in terms of the new classification system by soil scientists of
the Soil Conservation Service in Clare and Gratiot counties, where this
system is being used in the current mapping of the National Cooperative
Soil Surveys

A special study trip was also held in Michigan in the summer of
1968 with soil scientists from the other Lake States to evaluate the
new classification system and to study the continuity of series con—
cepts as they occur in these areas.

Using all the studies mentioned above, a proposed classification
was made for the major organic soils in.Michigan and initial review

drafts of the descriptions were written.

43

A. Field Evaluation of Organic Soils Previously Mapped in Michigan

With the assistance of the soil scientists of the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, a field study was made to examine major organic soil
areas which had.been previously mapped using the former system of
classification. The prime objective of this study was to sample as
many'bogs as possible and to correlate previously mapped and named
organic soils into the new system of classification. The study in.
volved seven soil scientists. Each was assigned four organic series
to study that occurred in his respective area of the state. Geograph-
ically, most of the state was covered. Three other soil scientists,
in charge of progressive soil surveys, were asked to describe the or-
ganic soils which were being mapped currently using the classification
system and in addition indicate what the series would have been mapped
using the old system. The following guidelines and procedures were
used to study the bogs.

(1) The size of bogs to be studied were no less than 40 acres
in size with a minimum width of 400 feet. This gave a minimum of
four observations in a transect of each bog as explained below.

(2) The method for determining composition of the mapping units
was as follows: a transect was run across the middle of each bog with
borings every 100 feet starting 50 feet from the edge of the bog.
Notes were taken indicating variations in the mapping unit and varia-
tions in the properties of the taxonomic unit. -

(3) After determining the dominant taxonomic unit within the

mapping unit, the profile was described from a pit. A special form

45

designed for describing organic soils was provided. (See Appendix C.)
(4) In addition to the information called for on the description
form, additional notes were taken indicating the series that the area
had been mapped in the past, or if it was being mapped for the first
time what it would have been mapped using the former classification
system. The results of this study are shown in Table 6. The areas
investigated represented bogs of extensive acreage and were considered

typical of each soil being studied.

46

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary of Field Studies Throughout Michigarlon Histosols
Series Classification
Adrian (3) * Terrie Medisaprist; sandy, mixed, euic, mesic.
Carbondale (6) * Hemic Borosaprist; euic

(6) Typic Borohemist; euic.

(5) Typic Borosaprist; euic.

(1) Sapric Borohemist; euic.

(l) Typic Borofibrist; euic.

(l) Hemic Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.

(l) Sapric Terric Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.

(1) Terric Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Carlisle (5) Typic Medisaprist; euic, mesic.

(2) Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
Cathro (2) Terric Borosaprist; loamy, mixed, euic.
Chippeny (4) Lithic Borosaprist; euic.

(3) Lithic Borohemist; euic.
Dawson (2) Terric Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, dysic.

(2) Hemic Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, dysic.

(2) Terric Borohemist; sandy, mixed, dysic.
Edwards (1) Limnic Medisaprist; marl, euic, mesic.

(l) Limnic Borosaprist; marl, euic.
Greenwood (9) Typic Borohemist; dysic.

(2) Typic Borofibrist; dysic.

(l) Fibric Borohemist; dysic.

(l) Sapric Borohemist; euic.
Houghton (2) Typic Medisaprist; euic, mesic.

(4) Typic Borosaprist; euic.

(1) Typic Medihemist; euic, mesic.

(l) Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
Linwood (3) Terrie Borosaprist; loamy, mixed, euic. ‘

(2) Terric Borohemist; loamy, mixed, euic.

Terric Medisaprist; loamy, mixed, euic, mesic.

Loxley (l) Typic Borohemist; dysic.

(l) Hemic Borosaprist; dysiC.

(l) Hemic Borofibrist; dysic.

47

Table 6. (Continued)

 

 

 

Series Classification
Lupton (5) ‘ Typic Borosaprist; euic.
(4) Typic Borohemist; euic.
(3) Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
(l) Sapric Borohemist; euic.
Markey (3) * Terric Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Palms (8) * Terric Medisaprist; loamy, mixed, euic, mesic.
Rifle (4) * Typic Borohemist; euic.
(l) Fibric Medihemist; euic, mesic.
(l) Terric Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Tawas (l3) * Terric Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
(l) Terric Medisaprist; sandy, mixed, euic, mesic.
(l) Sapric Terric Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
(l) Terrie Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Spalding (1) * Typic Borohemist; dysic.
(1) Typic Borohemist; euic.
Willette (l) Terric Borosaprist; clayey, illitic, euic.

* Terric Medisaprist; clayey, illitic, euic, mesic.
Note: The figure in parenthesis ( ) indicates the number of bogs

investigated reflecting this classification.

* Indicates proposed classification.

B. Study of Organic Soils in Delta County Survey Area

The soil survey in Delta county and the west portion of the
Hiawatha National Forest was completed in the fall of 1967. The sur-
vey area includes all of Delta county and portions of Alger and School-
craft counties. The entire survey area comprises about 1,137,000 acres.
Over 262,500 acres consists of organic soils. The final correlation, or
the official naming of the soils mapped.was completed in March of 1968.
The mineral soils were named and classified according to the Comprehen-
sive System of Soil Classification (12). The organic soils were corre-
lated and named.according to their definitions and classification under
the former system of classifying Histosols. This is as they had origi-
nally been mapped.

In view of the fact that the new classification or Histosols had
just been initiated and the fact that this survey area had an extensive
acreage of organic soils, the Principal Soil Correlator recommended that
a special study be undertaken to reclassify these Histosols in terms of
the new classification. The published soil survey of Delta county and
the west portion of the Hiawatha National Forest would then be one of
the first reports reflecting the use of the complete new system. This
recommendation was approved by the State Conservationist of the Soil
Conservation Service in.Michigan.

Using the procedure outlined above, two soil scientists (Loren
Berndt and Donald Buchanan) spent approximately three weeks studying
the major organic soil areas in the survey area. They were assisted

for one week by Royce Lewis, a soil scientist from northern Minnesota,

II',.II|I."I‘ lillllll 1111‘!

 

1,9

who had had considerable experience working with organic soils.

Again in this study, as in the case of the field study in-
volving the organic soils throughout other portions of the state,
only extensive'bogs were checked which were considered to be typical
of the series being studied. Time was not available to completely
remap these areas, or to complete a more comprehensive sampling of
each mapping unit. As a result, the proposed correlation of these
soils includes three undifferentiated units. These undifferentiated
units consist of two or three named soils which could have been mapped
separately if the new system of classification had been instituted at
the start of the survey. Also, some of the inclusions of other soils
in the mapping units might have been delineated and some of those in-
clusions might have been studied in:more detail and possibly proposed
as new series. One new soil series, Tacoosh, resulted from this study.

Notwithstanding the above mentioned limitations of the proposed
correlation of the organic soils in the Delta survey area, it is the
author's Opinion that a meaningful correlation is proposed and that
the study performed has resulted in a more useful soil survey.

Table 7 summarizes the results of the Delta study. These Obser-
vations are also included in Table 6. -

lllll‘tllllllvl . 1!!
.l'lll‘ill

 

 

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

Table 7. Summary of Histosol Study in Delta County
Series Classification
Carbondale (#)* Typic Borohemist; euic.
(3) Hemic Borosaprist; euic.
(l) Typic Borosaprist; euic.
(l) Typic Borofibrist; euic.
(l) Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
(l) Hemic Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
(l) Sapric Terrie Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Proposed correlation: Carbondale, Lupton and
Rifle soils. l]
Cathro (2) Terrie Borosaprist; loamy, mixed, euic.
Proposed correlation: Cathro muck.
Chippeny (4) Lithic Borosaprist; euic.
(3) Lithic Borohemist; euic.
Proposed correlation: Chippeny muck.
Dawson (2) Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, dysic.
(2) Hemic Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, dysic.
(2) Terrie Borohemist; sandy, mixed, dysic.
Proposed correlation: Dawson peat. g/
Greenwood (3) Typic Borohemist; dysic.
Proposed correlation: Greenwood peat. g/
Linwood (3) Terrie Borosaprist; loamy, mixed, euic.
(2) Terrie Borohemist; loamy, mixed, euic.
Proposed correlation: Cathro and Tacoosh mucks. 2/
Loxley (1) Typic Borohemist; dysic.
(l) Hemic Borosaprist; dysic.
(l) Hemic Borofibrist; dysic.
Proposed correlation: (not actually mapped in Delta
Co., oecured only as inclusions).
Lupton (4) Typic Borosaprist; euic.
Proposed correlation: Carbondale, Lupton and
Rifle soils. _1_/
Rifle (4) Typic Borohemist; dysic.

(l) Terrie Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Proposed correlation: Greenwood peat. 2]

51

 

 

 

Table 7. (Continued)
Series Classification
Tawas (9) Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.

(l) Hemic Terrie Borosaprist; sandy, mixed, euic.
(l) Terrie Borohemist; sandy, mixed, euic.
Proposed correlation: Tawas muck.

Note:"The figure in parenthesis ( ) indicates the number of bogs
investigated reflecting this classification.

l/
y

Most areas were originally mapped as Carbondale and
Lupton. Considerable inclusions of Rifle were also found.

Some units were originally mapped as Dawson and Greenwood
peats and are correlated as such.

Most areas were originally mapped as Linwood and Cathro.
Linwood is proposed as a Medisaprist. Areas were found which
were less decomposed than Cathro, thus Tacoosh is proposed

as new series. (Terrie Borohemist; euic.)

Areas mapped Rifle were in the reaction range of Greenwood.

52

C. Correlation Field Trip

A one week study trip was made to study concepts of major organic
series in Michigan. The participants in the field trip included rep-
resentatives of the Soil Survey Staff of the U. 8. Soil Conservation
Service including the office of the Director of Soil Classification
and Correlation in washington, D. 0., the Principal Soil Correlator's
office in Lincoln, Nebraska, State Soil Conservation Service Staffs of
Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and Experiment Station
representatives from Michigan State University and the University of
Wisconsin. The purpose of this study was to: (a) review in the field
and discuss the concepts of the major organic soils as they had been
mapped and correlated in the past in Michigan, Minnesota, and'Wisconsin;
(b) review the organic series being mapped in a progressive soil sur-
vey area in which the new organic classification system is being used
and discuss the prdblems encountered in applying the new differentiae:
and (c) review type locations of the major organic soils in the recent-
ly completed Delta county survey area.

Fbllowing is a summary of the soils observed on the study trip:
Clinton County - Carlisle and Houghton series were studied in areas
which had been mapped in accordance with the most recent concepts of
these series prior to the new classification of Histosols: Clare County -
six profiles were observed which had.been recently mapped using the con.
cepts of the new classification system. Pedons studied included soils
formerly called Carbondale, Lupton, Tawas, Markey and Loxley; Delta

County - nine profiles were Observed. These areas had recently been

53

mapped using the older concepts and were restudied and described in
1968 using differentiae of the new classification system. Pedons
studied were formerly called Carbondale, Cathro, Chippeny, Dawson,
Linwood, Loxley, Lupton, Rifle and Tawas.

The site of each soil studied on the trip had been described in
the field prior to the field trip. For the sites in Clare and Delta
counties, samples had been taken from within the subsurface tier of
the control section and had been analyzed for fiber content at the
University of Minnesota under the direction of Dr. R. S. Farnham.
These data were available at each site and served as bench marks for
the field party in estimating fiber content.

‘This correlation trip, along with the field study of bogs pre-
viously'mapped in Michigan and the Delta county study, provided the
basic information for the preposed classification of the Michigan
Histosols. The relationships among the series and their proposed

classification are summarized in Table 8.

5“

Table 8. A Key to Michigan Histosols Under the 1968 Classification *

 

 

Dominant Character of
Material in Control Section

Mean Annual Soil
Tanperature ® 20"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dyeic 0

Phase Series Family Subgroup Suborder Family
Surface Botanical Reaction Rubbed Rubbed Frigid Mesic'
Tier Composition 0.01M CaClz Fiber Fiber .470 F 47° .. 59° F
0-12" 12-35“ 12-35“ 12-51" 12-35“
Herbaceous Euic Sapric Sapric Houghton
5.5 - 7.8 Typic Typic
Bore saprist: Medisaprist;
euic. euic, mesic.
Woody Euic Sapric Sapric Lupton Carlisle
5.5 - 7.8 Typic Typic
Sapric Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
or euic. euic, mesic.
Huic
Herbaceous Euic Hemic Sapric Carbondale
5.5 - 7.8 10" + Hemic Huic
(Muck thick Boro saprist: Medisaprist;
or euic. euic, mesic.
Mucky
Peat)
Herbaceous Dysic Sapric Sapric Loxley
-5.5 Typic Typic
Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
dysic. dysic, mesic.
Herbaceous Euic Hemic Hemic Rifle
5.5 - 7.8 Typic Typic
Borohemist; Medihemist;
Halic euic. euic, mesic.
or
Fibric
(Mucky Herbaceous Dysic Hemic Hemic Greenwood
Peat or -5.5 Typic Typic
Peat) Borohemist; Medihemist;
dysic. dysic. mesic.
Woody Dysic Hemic Hemic MM
-5.5 Typic Typic
Borohemist; Medih-nist:

dysic, mesic.

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. (Continued)
Herbaceous Dysic Fibric Hemic
Fibric -5.5 10" + Fibric
(Peat) thick Borohemist;
dySiCe
Herbaceous Dysic Hemic Hemic Tahguamenon
-5.5 or or Hydric
Fibric Fibric Borohemist
or
Borofibrist.
Herbaceous Euic Sandy Sapric Markey Adrian
5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
sandy, sandy, mixed
Sapric mixed, euic. euic, mesic.
or
Hemic
(Muck or woody Euic Sandy Sapric Tawas
Mucky 5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Peat) Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
sandy, sandy,
mixed, euic. mixed, euic,
mesic.
Herbaceous Dysic Sandy Sapric Dawson
-5.5 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Hemic Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
or sandy, sandy, mixed,
Fibric mixed, dysic dysic, mesic.
(Mucky
Peat or
Peat) Herbaceous Dysic Sandy Hemic
-5.5 (16-50") Terrie
Borohemist;
sandy,
mixed, dysic
Sapric Herbaceous Euic Sandy Hemic
or 5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Hemic Borohemist; Medihemist;
(Muck or sandy, sandy, mixed
Mucky mixed, euic. euic, mesic.

Peat)

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. (Continued)
Herbaceous Euie Loamy Sapric Cathro Palms
5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
Sapric loamy, loamy, mixed
or mixed, euic. euic, mesic.
Hemic
(Muck or
Mucky Wbody Euic Loamy Sapric Linwood
Peat) 5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie Terrie
Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
loamy, loamy, mixed
mixed, euic. euic, mesic.
Hemic or Herbaceous Euic Loamy Hemic Tacoosh
Fibric 5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie
(Mucky Borohemist;
Peat or loamy,
Peat) mixed, euic.
Herbaceous Euic Clayey Sapric 'Willette
5.5 - 7.8 (16-50") Terrie
Medisaprist;
clayey, illitic
Sapric euic, mesic.
or
Hemic
(Muck Herbaceous Euic Marl Sapric Edwards
or 5.5 - 7.8 (layer Limnic Limnic
Mucky 2" + Borosaprist; Medisaprist;
Peat) thick) marl, euic. marl, euic,
mesic.
woody Euic Limestone Sapric Chippeny
or 5.5 - 7.8 Bedrock Lithic
Herbaceous (20-50") Borosaprist;
euic.

 

* This Key is intended to show relationships among the various series;
The placement of

it is not a substitute for the series descriptions.
the series is tentative.

In slots where there is no series name

listed, but the classification is given, it is felt that these soils
Where the slot is left blank, it is

will probably occur in Michigan.
not known if such soils exist in Michigan.

elusive.

This list is not all in-

57

D. Continuity of Series Concepts

From the period 1899 to 1902, soil types were recognized as the
soil bodies shown on maps in the soil surveys in the United States and
consisted of rather broad associations with similarity in parent rock
being the most common feature (10).

The concept of the soil series was first introduced in the class-
ification and.mapping of soils in 1903 by the Bureau of Soils. In 1903,
certain soil types, previously recognized, were grouped into series.
Each series was given a place name, and the individual types within a
series were identified by texture class names in addition to the series
name. This has been the convention used in the United States since
that time.

Concepts of the soil series changed gradually until it was fully
expressed by Kellogg in 1937 in the first edition of the Soil Survey
Manual. Here the emphasis was placed on nature and sequence of the
genetic horizons.

It is this author's opinion that the evolution of the series con.
cept for organic soils has generally followed the basic principles set
forth for mineral soils expressed by Kellogg (1937). Our basic knows
ledge however, of the nature of the layers in organic soils and the fact
that they are not entirely genetic in nature, caused the organic soils
to lag behind the mineral soils in precise definition.

In the review of the published soil survey reports, the author
attempted to determine the consistency with which the various series

‘were mapped over the years.

58

In evaluating the series concepts as they were mapped and pub-
lished prior to 1950, the following properties or conditions were
evaluated: color: decomposition of the organic fibers: thickness of
the organic deposit; reaction: and vegetation. It has been previously
noted that descriptions were mostly of a general nature and the descrip-
tion of the taxonomic unit was often difficult to separate from a de-
scription of the mapping unit. They were, in some cases, a combina-
tion of the two. In general, the upper 12 or 2n inches were described
in much more detail than any other part of the profile. This part of
the profile was described in terms of color (dark brown or black),
amount of decomposition (well decomposed or undecomposed) and structure
and/or consistency (granular, finely divided, spongy). The material
below this depth was described in more general terms, such as brown or
yellow, less decomposed peat. It is noted that the National COOperative
Soil Survey did not adopt standardized color designations until about
19hl (9). The first soil survey report published ianichigan using the
standard color nomenclature was Montcalm county in 1960.

The thickness of the peat soil was applied generally to the land-
scape unit and it was often noted as a range, such as l to 10 feet thick.
Reaction was also listed as a range, but the range would be considered
consistent with the series level of classification.

The properties mentioned above, while they were quite general,
were described quite consistently over a period of time for the various
series. vegetation was probably the most consistent feature noted
about the series, which were described in the soil survey reports.

These properties were evaluated in terms of the criterion of the

59

new classification system. The probable classification is listed in
Table 3. It may be interesting to note, that after data from all
studies were considered and the new classification for the series
were proposed, that in five of ten cases the proposed classification
was mentioned in Table 3 as a probable classification.

From 1950 to date, the more modern technical series descriptions
were used as a basis or guide to mapping. These descriptions established
limits for the properties to be included within the range of the series.
In addition to the descriptions, aerial photographs were also used as
base maps during this period and the map scale had increased from one
inch used in the early surveys to four inches per mile.

The counties mapped in.Michigan using the more modern descriptions,
started with.Montca1m county. The descriptions reported in these soil
survey reports were evaluated in terms of the new classification sys-
tem and reported in Table H. It can be noted that the classification
of fourteen of the seventeen series in Table 8 were mentioned as a
probable classification in Table 4.

One of the primary factors influencing the proposed re-classifi-
cation was maintainance of the general concepts of the series as they
had developed over the years. Under "Remarks“ in the Initial Review
Draft descriptions (Appendix 1), the author has indicated what the pre-
vious concept of the series was under the former system, and the chm-
ilarity or changes proposed under the new system.

The continuity of some of the soil characteristics of the series
was maintained to various degrees between the former system of classifi-

cation and the present system. These maintained included: the kind

60

of mineral substratum, (e.g. sands, loans, clays, marl and'bedrock)
however the depth to these materials was changed from 12 - 42 inches
to 16 - 50 inches; character of the organic material or the botanical
composition of the fiber to the extent that it could.be determined
from the old descriptions, (e.g. woody or herbaceous): the reaction
at a depth of 12 to about 2“ inches (e.g. for soils formerly pH 5.0
and greater, as determined in water, are classed predominantly as euic
under the new system, while soils with a pH of less than 5.0 are
classed as dysic); the general degree of deposition (e.g. soils for-
merly considered well to moderately decomposed have correlated to
Saprist while soils formerly considered undecomposed, have correlated
to Hemist or Fibrist under the new system).

A comparison between Table 5, "A Key to the Histosols Under the
Former Classification" and Table 8, "A Key to Histosols Proposed Under
the 1968 Classification“, will show in more detail the similarity and
the continuity maintained in the series to date.

A brief review of Table 6 will give some indication of the addi-
tional kinds of soils that will undoubtedly need to be recognized in
future soil surveys in Michigan. It can be assumed that each of the
classifications listed, represents a bog of at least forty acres in
size. Presumably more extensive areas exist. Fifteen classifications
are listed which have not as yet been proposed for series in Michigan.
It would be reasonable to assume that at least this many'more series
may need to be recognized in Michigan, under the proposed system of
classification as it is now written.

In setting up new series, Table 6 might be useful to show the

various segments which have been split off the original series. This

61

should also be useful in predicting the inclusions within soils pre-
viously mapped and later split into several series.

In future studies on the classification of organic soils, the
uniformity of the bogs classified under the new system of classification
needs to be tested. In addition, the need for intergrades to other
suborders or subgroups should be tested as to their significance to the
use, development and management of the bogs.

This review suggests that the series concepts did evolve through
successive descriptions from the early stages of the soil survey pro-
gram to the present. It is realized that the individual series concepts
were much broader and lessprecise in the period from the early 1900's
through the 1940's than they were conceived about 19h9 and since. Howe
ever, the series described in the early reports were quite consistent
in properties reported and it appears that the guidelines set forth at
the time were being followed.

With the more modern concepts of soils, larger scale maps and
more detailed.mapping have greatly added to our overall knowledge of
the soil properties, as well as our interpretations of the soil maps.
With the implementation of the new classification of Histosols, it is
the author's opinion, that we can expect that this overall knowledge
of the properties of Histosols and the use and interpretations of the
soil maps will.be even more improved.

It seems appropriate to note that the discussion and classifica-
tion of the soils above, applies to the soil series as taxonomic unit.
These are the three dimensional bodies or pedons classified into the

classification system. It does not necessarily apply to the composi-

62

tion of the mapping units. The Soil Survey Manual, page 277 (11),
specifies that a given.mapping unit, which is the area delineated on
a.map and identified with a particular symbol, consists of about 85
percent or more of the named soil, with inclusion of other soils
accounting for the remainder. However, studies over the past few

years have shown that the 15 percent figure was not realistic for many
of our soil mapping units (8). These guidelines have accordingly been
revised by the Soil Survey Staff (13). The composition of the individu-
al mapping units of the organic soils will need continued study to
determine the number and the kinds of various taxonomic units which

occur within the delineated units.

63

E. Initial Review Draft Descriptions of Michigan Histosols

The standard soil series description is the document which
contains the most recently agreed upon classification and concepts
of a given soil series. These descriptions include a profile descrip-
tion of a typical pedon, as well as the range in properties allowed
within that series. The standard series descriptions also include
sections on competing series and their differentiae: the physical
setting in which the soil occurs, including topography and climate:
principal associated soils; natural drainage and permeability: the
distribution and extent of the series: and the time and place where
the series was first proposed or established.

Initial review draft descriptions are originated in the state
which first recognized, named and defined the soil. These draft de-
scriptions are written and distributed to the surrounding states, which
might have a similar soil, for comment. They also are forwarded to the
Principal Soil Correlator's Office of the U. S. D. A. in the region for
his review and further distribution. The initial review draft descrip-
tions are reviewed by soil scientists in various c00perating agencies
and their comments forwarded to the author. These comments and sugges-
tions are incorporated into another draft of the description. If save
eral or major changes are made they may be sent out a second time for
review and comment. The next draft is forwarded to the Principal Soil
Correlator of the Soil Conservation Service in the region along with a
statement of any prdblems in concept that may still exist with the series.

On occasion, a similar soil may have already been recognized and described

in another state, in which case the proposed new soil is drOpped in
favor of the soil already recognized. After approval of the Principal
Correlator, the description is forwarded to the office of the Director
of Soil Classification and Correlation of the Soil Conservation Service
in Washington for final review, before being returned to the Principal
Correlator for final approval.

Draft descriptions of 14 major organic series, with type locations
within Michigan, have been prepared using the previously mentioned
studies as the basis for the classification and concepts portrayed.

The data obtained from the studies made in the field of organic soils
previously mapped in Michigan (reported in section VeA) and the studies
made in Delta county (reported in section VQB) were the primary basis
for detenmining the properties and concepts of the soils described. The
review of early concepts of the organic series (reported in section III-
C) and determination of their extent and location (reported in section
III-B), was used primarily as a guide to determining the general area
in which the type location should occur as well as the extent and distri-
bution of the series. These studies were also useful in the author's
attempt to maintain as much continuity as possible in series from the
time they were first conceived through the present definitions.

The individual series descriptions appear in Appendix 1. Table 8
is a key to Michigan Histosols and shows the general relationships
among the series.

Information was also Obtained for six additiona1.Michigan organic
series, but there was not sufficient data available to fully define the

series. These soils included the Loxley, Spalding, Tahquamenon, Edwards,

65

Willette, and Linwood series. Based on information available, the
indicated new classification in Table 8 was proposed for these soils.

In addition, field notes from these studies, as well as other
field observations indicate that several new organic series will be
needed in the future in.Michigan as mapping progresses throughout the
state. The classification of these soils have also been shown in the
I'Key to Michigan Histosols, 1968", Table 8, by noting the family name
and leaving the series name blank. There have also been organic soils
observed in Michigan that fall into other subgroups not shown in the Key.
These include different Limnic material such as coprogenous earth
(sedimentary peat), ferrihumic material (bog iron) and possibly humillu-
vic materials. As detailed mapping progresses, variations within the
bogs will be studied and new series proposed if it is determined that
additional mappable and significant units exist.

VI. EVALUATION OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF HISTOSOLS

A. Fiber Content - Rubbed and Unrubbed

A comparison of the laboratory data and the field estimates in
Table 9 suggests the following conclusions:

In Clare county, the measured unrubbed fiber content as well as
the estimated rubbed fiber content was consistently higher in the labor-
atory than the field estimates. In only three of the nine samples were
the unrubbed field estimates higher than the lab measurement. In only
one case was the field estimate of rubbed fiber higher than the labora-
tory estimates, and in one sample the estimate was the same.

In Delta county, the opposite was true for unrubbed fiber content.
In only one of the ten samples was the laboratory measurement of unrubbed
fiber higher than the field estimate. The rubbed fiber estimate from the
laboratory was again higher than the field estimates, with two exceptions.
The estimates were the same in two samples.

From this analysis, it appears that the difference is due to diff-
erences in individual soil scientists since two different groups were in-
volved in the two counties being compared with analyses from the labora-
tory. It appears however that for both groups their estimates were con-
sistently higher or lower compared to the laboratory analyses. The
greatest variation involved the unrubbed fiber content. In six of the
nine Clare county samples, the laboratory measurement was on the average
20 percent higher than the field estimate. The three samples in which
the field estimates exceeded the laboratory measurement averaged only
about 12 percent higher. In eight of the ten Delta county samples, the

field estimate averaged 20 percent higher than the laboratory'measurement.

66

.pam mosseummaaamm
npfiz UmGHBMmme mm UHmHm "90M .2 H GH mwohpooam mmmam hp vmdfianmpmv mg hHOpmnopmg..

.mfimmn pflmfims haw m do dodflanmpmm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

oaamm H\n om um om w.mm o.mlm.d H.¢ moma s.m zonimm Ha mm
ofiamm H\n mm mm om w.mm ¢.dno.m w.m omma H.s :mmuma Hm mm
Ofiamm H\m ma 0m 0: 0.5m ¢.¢no.m w.m emaa m.n =®H|m H< mm
emommm m\m 3 OH om H.s¢ m.nus.n o.m ems m.sm =¢muma as mm
owammm m\m m mated OH w.mm m.mIH.m m.m sow a.ma :smumfi Ha mm
oaamm H\n ms mm mm m.am m.n 0.0 mmefi m.m =osumm Ha em
ofiamm H\m omnom Os oolos m.mw m.m m.m @wHH m.m :mmumm H< am
seesaw m\m m on em m.es o.mu©.m m.o mom m.mm =0mnom Ha mm
caudam m\mum\m m mm ma m.om o.mum.m s.m mew m.oH zomnma Ha mm
$5 a am em as a 5an 2x aa
mmmao o m mz nonfim Umppsm ponwm copnsnmb .. mm poem: mam
hundoo onwao
mafiom Ofinmmpo dmeQOH: I mama knapmmopmm .m manma

.pax mosseuomaaamm spa: emqassmpme mm eases ”mom .2 a as

oponpooam mmmam mp Umnwamopmc mm mnopmnonmqa.

.mwmmn pamfims map m do Umdflapmpmmv

 

 

 

 

 

 

gum o.s
chasm m\m om mm om H.os m.s m.m Ham e.s =omuom season
oaadmm m\s s OH 0: m.mm m.o m.¢ Ham m.ma =omuma omnpmo
mom o.e
chasm m\m mums om cs m.os m.m m.© mam m.HH =mmsmH mazes
sum m.e
oases axe mm mm ow o.ms o.m 5.: Hams m.m zmm-om madam
oamdmm . 0 mm mm a.mm m.m m.m mom 0.: =wmum nomzmm
oases H\s as mm om a.mm m.n o.m cams m.oH zosuom mousse
Anmm
smamv
cashew s\m m m cm s.sH m.s m.n Ham m.mo =mfinmfl semaaflno
oaaom m\m ma om 0m a.ms mom s.m m.o mmma m.mH zomuom soozqaq
mom s.m
oaeem . os mm mm m.ms s.m s.m osma m.m zosuom x oaaamm
.Oflfimmm :O#IM\®
oaamm =0mnfl\s mm OH on m.mm m.m 0.9 was o.ma =omusm mameeopnwo
&.pmm &.pmm & .pmm & . .
. . eamam peg . a mac . a spasm eaaamm
mmaao o m henna sopnsm henna assesses .. me nope: ewe
hpddoo mpamm
namesapqoov .m wanes

69

In the other two samples, the laboratory measurement averaged only 6
percent higher than the field estimates. The mean variation between
the laboratory measurement and field estimate was 17 percent.

It seems that differences of about 3'20 percent in fiber esti-
mates may be due to individual variations in estimates of unrubbed
fiber contents.

The average difference for rubbed fiber content in eight of the
Clare county samples was about 12 percent higher as measured in the lab-
oratory. In two samples, the field estimate averaged only 5 percent
higher. For the ten samples in Dalta county, seven averaged about 8
percent higher in the laboratory, while four of the samples averaged
about 6 percent higher as estimated in the field. The mean difference
in rubbed fiber between the laboratory and the field estimate was only
9 percent.

The confidence interval of the field determination for estimating
unrubbed and rubbed fiber contents was calculated for the nineteen
samples. At the given confidence level, the laboratory and field de-
termination differed by no more than the listed percentage. The results

are tabulated below.

 

Confidence Unrubbed Rubbed

Level Fiber Eiber
0.01 (99%) 19.0% 17.1%
0.1 (90%) 13.2% 13.0%

0.2 (80%) 11.1% 11.5%

 

Some of the high variation was apparently the result of sampling
techniques. The samples were taken from relatively thick layers in the

soil profile, as can be noted in Table 9. These layers could have had

7O

quite a variable fiber content. The relatively small portion of the
samples analyzed (10 grams) in the laboratory could then account for
some of the high variation. In the future, care should be taken to
insure that individual layers are precisely separated from dissimilar
layers. Samples should be checked before bagging to insure that unp
iform material is being submitted. Samples selected for laboratory‘
analysis should be representative of the individual layers and dupli-
cate determinations should be run to evaluate the errors of estimate
in the laboratory.

The main point that should.be considered is whether or not this
variation in estimated vs. measured fiber content affected the class-
ification of the soil material as fibric, hemic, or sapric. In six
cases of nineteen, the class was affected based on the difference in
estimated field rubbed fiber and the rubbed fiber estimated in the lab-
oratory. It is the author's opinion, after reviewing the sampling sites,
that much of the difference as mentioned above, was due to sampling
techniques. The differences between the laboratory determination of
unrubbed fiber and the field estimate did not change the final classifi-
cation even though five samples fell into different groups based on
unrubbed fiber alone.

It is the author's belief that a soil scientist can‘become pro-
ficient at estimating fiber content in the same manner as he has be-
come proficient at estimating texture of mineral soils. It is noted that
the most difficult percentages to estimate are those unrubbed fiber vol-
umes occuring at the significant breaks between fibric and hemic (66

percent) and between hemic and sapric (33 Percent) materials. Similar

71

errors occur when one tries to determine the textural class of border-
line mineral soil textures such as those with about 40 percent clay.
(clay vs. clay loam.) With experience in estimating fiber contents
still in its infancy, it may be advisable to make numerous laboratory
analyses to help the soil scientists key in on their estimates.

Fiber content is one of the key diagnostic physical properties
of organic soil.materials in the system of classification proposed by
Farnham and Finney (6). They state that the size and amount of fibers
are important because of their indirect effect on bulk density, water
relationships, and to some extent on tillage. This being the case, the
soil scientist must become adept at estimating kinds and amounts of
fibers in organic soils. When he succeeds, his interpretations for
various uses of these soils should be more precise and meaningful as a
result of the new classification.

The laboratory determinations discussed above were run.by Dr. R.
S. Farnham at the University of Minnesota for which the author is very
grateful. In his letter transmitting the data, Dr. Farnham.made a
statement which I feel is quite germane to this discussion on fiber con-
tent. Dr. Farnham states, “I would suggest you use the lab data ad-
visedly as a supplement only to the field evaluation such as rubbed and

unrubbed fiber content as well as the sodium pyrophosphate test.“

72
B. CaClz pH vs. pH in H20

In their proposed classification of organic soils, Farnham
and Finney (6), raise the question of just how pH should be determined
so as to give valid figures for this criterion. They note several
studies which have been carried on to determine the closest correla-
tion with base status and exchangeable hydrogen. The authors however
expressed concern over possible seasonal fluctuation in pH of organic
soils which had been reported in several studies on mineral soils.

They also note concern as to appropriate moisture conditions and
equilibration time to be used for determining pH of organic soil mater—
ials. With these questions seemingly unanswered, they suggest that pH
be determined at field moisture conditions (whatever they may be) using
1 N KCL at a soil-reagent ratio of 1:1 by volume with an equilibration
time of 10 minutes.

With the printing of the September 1968 Supplement for the Class-
ification of Histosols (14), the pH determination was changed to 0.01
MCaCl2 as a reagent. This author does not know the reason for this
change. It does however, bring the pH results closer to the values pre-
viously obtained with water. A. S. T. M; testing procedures for peat
materials in 1968, indicate that pH values using 0.01 M. CaCl2 solu-
tion instead of water, usually run about 0.5 to 0.8 of a pH unit lower.
They note that the observed pH in CaCl2 solution is virtually indepen-
dent of the initial amount of salts present in the soil, whereas pH
readings in water can be modified by salts such as fertilizer materials

commonly'applied.

73

pH determinations of the samples studied for this thesis were,
for the most part, determined with the Hellige-Truog soil reaction kit.
Some of the samples were also checked with l N KCL solution using the
reaction powder and color chart in the Hellige-Truog kit to read pH.
The laboratory at the University of Minnesota also ran the pH of the
samples submitted in l N KCL. The comparison of the laboratory pHs and
the pHs recorded in the field at the time of sampling are shown in
Table 9.

In looking at the comparison of the ten samples taken in Delta
county, the pH determined in the laboratory using 1 N KCL, were gener-
ally lower than determined in the field using the Hellige-Truog kit.
In five samples, the laboratory pH was lower, from 2.3 to .3 pH unit.
Two sample readings were identical and in two samples the laboratory
pH was higher (1. and .7 unit). pH was not shown using Hellige-Truog
for the other sample. KCL readings were taken in the field for five
samples. They compared closely with those of the laboratory. In one
case the same reading was recorded: there was .1 unit difference in
another sample: two samples were .2 units difference; and there was
.7 unit difference in the other sample.

Similar comparisons of the samples from Clare county are some-
what more consistent. Of the nine samples measured, all but two
samples measured with the Hellige-Truog kit, were higher than those
measured in the laboratory in.l N KCL. The average difference was
.8 of a pH unit. One sample measured .# pH unit higher in the labor-
atory and one sample was .9 pH unit higher in the laboratory.

There is no attempt here to show the relative difference in pH

74

values using the various reagents, because of an insufficient number
of samples and lack of control. These data show, on the average, about
.7 pH unit higher value measured with the Hellige-Truog kit than in

l N KCL which is fairly comparable to studies made on mineral soils
for the difference in pH value between K01. and water. According to
Collins (1), field techniques for determining pH, which are primarily
colorimeteric, are generally influenced by several factors. These in-
clude: experience of the operator; purity of chemicals and proper
adjustment of pH; cleanliness: contamination: and manipulation of soil
extract. He notes that generally, the field test results have corre-
lated closely with those determined by the glass electrode method with
samples in 1:1 soil-water suspension. Collins also noted that on the
average, the pHs determined on air dry samples with the Hellige-Truog
kit were 0.2 pH units higher than the pH values measured in water with
the glass electrode on the same samples.

Reaction is used at the family level in the. new classification
of Histosols to separate soils into two broad reaction classes. These
two categories are: Euic: pH 5.5 or more (in 0.01 M Gaolz) in at
least some part of the subsurface tier, and Dysic: pH less than 5.5
(in 0.01 M CaClz) in all parts of the subsurface tier. Further divi-
sion of these categories can be used as series criteria.

In recent greenhouse studies with organic soils at MicMgan State
University, Grennan, Davis and Lucas (5) indicate that the optimum pH
and base saturation varied for most crops tested, but on the average,
pH 5.5 or 50 to 70 percent base saturation was satisfactory for all

crops. These pHs were determined by the glass electrode method with

75

samples in a 1:1 soil water suspension. pH 5.5 determined in water

as reported here, would represent a pH value of about 4.7 to 5.0 in
0.01 M CaClz in view of data reported in A. 8. T. M. Testing Procedures
for Peat.Material. It would appear from the data by Grennan, Davis
and Lucas and the long standing pH separations of series near pH 5.0
in water that consideration should be given to making the family break
in reaction at a lower pH, e.g. about pH 5.0 in 0.01.M CaClz, instead
of the proposed 5.5.

76

C. Sodium Pyrophosphate Test

Solubility in sodium perphosphate is a method used for determin-
ing the degree of decomposition of organic materials. This method uses
saturated sodium perphosphate, to extract from soils those organic
acids that are the products of decomposition. The extract color yielded
on white filter paper is compared to standard Munsell color designations.
The darker colors supposedly represent a greater degree of decomposition.

The sodium pyrophosphate test is diagnostic for the determination
of sapric soil material and.may be diagnostic for determining fibric
and hemic soil.materials in the new classification of Histosols depend-
ing also on the rubbed fiber content. The test is made by inserting a
piece of white filter paper into a paste made of the organic material
in a saturated sodium pyrophosphate solution at 68° F. Sapric materi-
als must yield an extract with Munsell color designations below or to
the right of a line drawn to exclude 5/1. 6/2, and 7/3. Hemic material.
if the rubbed fiber content is less than 60 percent of the organic vol-
ume but more than 40 percent, sodium pyrophosphate extract colors must
have a color value of 7 or less and a chroma of 3 or more. Fibric
material with fiber contents of less than 60 percent after rubbing
must yield Munsell color designations of 7/1, 7/2, 8/1, 8/2 or 8/3.

This pyrophosphate test was not run for all the soils evaluated
in this study, therefore a quantity'of data is not available to fully
evaluate the usefulness of the test as a diagnostic criterion. During
the field trip in Michigan with representatives of Soil Survey Staffs

from the surrounding states, thirteen organic soil profiles were

77

observed in which sodium pyrophosphate values were recorded. The
results of this check is tabulated in Table 10 and summarized below.

Fifty-seven layers of the thirteen profiles were checked. Thirty-
four layers had rubbed fiber contents of less than 10 percent which
partially qualified the material for sapric. In twenty-four of these
layers, the sodium perpho sphate test confirmed the field estimate as
sapric materials. (i.e. sodium pyrophosphate extract color on white filter
paper was below and to the right of a line drawn to exclude 5/1, 6/2,
and 7/ 3 Munsell designations.) However, ten of these layers failed to
qualify as sapric based on the sodium pyrophosphate test. None of the
fifty-seven layers tested were critical for determining fibric or hemic
materials. One sample taken from the Loxley series, showed an erratic
result, with an estimated rubbed fiber content of 95 Percent and a
sodium pyrophosphate test of 5/’+.

Another question comes to mind when comparing sodium pyropho sphate
extract colors of the various materials reported in Table 10. It
would seem that some correlation should exist between extract colors
and the 'degree of decomposition in the hemic range. For example, the
materials reported in the Rifle sample range from 70 to 20 percent
rubbed fiber. Extract colors are all 7/1. Similarily the materials
reported for the Carlisle sample all have rubbed fiber contents of less
than 10 percent, however, sodium pyrophosphate extract colors range
from all; to 7/2.

Using Just the layers in which laboratory data were available
and reported in Table 9, the following comparison is obtained between-
rubbed fiber content as determined in the laboratory or in the field,

78

and the sodium pyrophosphate test. The laboratory and field agreed on
three samples as being sapric; these were confirmed by the sodium pyro-
phosphate test. The field estimates called seven other samples sapric
while the laboratory estimate was hemic: all but one of these was con-
firmed as sapric by the sodium pyrophosphate test. One sample was es-
timated to be sapric in the laboratory while the field estimate was
hemic - the sodium perphosphate test showed both kinds of materials
present at depths within the thickness of the layer sampled. On these
samples the sodium perphosphate tests agreed better with the field
determinations of rubbed fiber contents than with the laboratory esti-
mated rubbed fiber contents.

These tests were run under normal field conditions by Dr. E. P.
Whiteside using the following procedure: The organic sample was placed
in a porcelain spot plate and squeezed to remove excess water; just
enough sodium pyrophosphate was added to give a thick paste and stirred,
allowed to set for five minutes, the paste stirred again, allowed to
set five more minutes and stirred a final time: white filter paper was
inserted and the extract was allowed to rise on the paper * to % inch:
the filter paper was removed and allowed to dry until the water sheen
was gone: the color was read between the suspension - paper contact
and t inch above it. This is essentially the procedure developed by
D. Lietzke (7) as a test for the spodic horizon in Spodosols.

This author is of the opinion that the results of these tests are
not conclusive enough to make any suggestions for modification of the
diagnostic criteria using the sodium pyrophosphate test. However, it

is felt that these results raise several questions concerning the use

79

of the test, or perhaps the techniques used in making the test. Per-
haps other special techniques or precautions are necessary for making
an accurate test. Factors to consider more closely might include tem-
perature; moisture content of the sample; saturation time before read-
ing the color: point on the filter paper where the color is determined;
amount of sodium pyrophosphate solution added to the sample; and
amount of mixing of the sample with the solution. There are prObably
other significant variables necessary to control before consistent,
reproducible tests can be made.

Based on the tests that were run on the samples reported above,
the sodium pyrophosphate test and the rubbed fiber estimates disagreed
on the placement of the soil material as being sapric or not sapric in
30 percent of the cases. This seems to be quite high. However, this
is about the same reliability with which the field estimated rubbed
fiber content agreed with the laboratory determination. It is suggested
that detailed studies be undertaken to perfect the techniques for running
the sodium pyrophosphate test in the field and for estimating the fiber
content. Their relative values as diagnostic determinations in the
classification system should somehow be further evaluated. In the in.
terim, the sodium pyrophosphate tests should continue to be carefully
recorded along with estimated fiber content, keeping in mind the ques-
tions which have been raised.

Another consideration which might be given attention, is the
effect that high.mineral contents has on the sodium pyrophosphate test.
A sliding scale for soils with high ash contents might be considered or
perhaps the sodium pyrophosphate test may be waived for those soils with

high ash content which do not respond to the test.

80

Table 10. Comparison of Fiber Content with Sodium Pyrophosphate
Test

 

 

 

Unrubbed Rubbed NauP207 Unrubbed Rubbed Na4P207
Sample Fiber 5 Fiber % Test Sample Fiber 5 Fiber 5 Test
Carbondale 25 8 5/3 Tawas 30 6 3/2
25 8 7/2 45 15 5/3
50 25 7/1 35 5 3/2
35 -10 6/3
33 A1 10 -5 6/3
Carlisle 5-10 5-10 4/u 15 -5 6/3
-10 Trace 5/4 30 -5 7/2
10-15 -5 5/3 20 -5 7/2
30-35 -10 7/3
to -10 7/2 34A1 -5 -5 5/3
15 -10 7/3 10 -5 6/3
40-60 20-30 7/1
Cathro no 15 5/2 85 45 7/1
35 11 5/2 15-20 -10 7/1
40 7 4/2
35Al -5 -5 3/3
Chippeny 50 5 6/3 10 -5 3/2
30 8 5/4 15 -5 4/2
Houghton -5 Trace 4/2 36Al 25 -5 5/3
-5 Trace 7/4 60 7 5/3
15 -5 5/3 35 -5 7/2
10 Trace 5/3
20 -10 5/2 37Al no 15 7/1
5-10 -10 7/3 50 25 7/1
60 30 7/1
Linwood 30 15 h/B
30 15 5/3
60 25 8/2
Loxley 98 95 5/4
45 15 5/3
60 20 5/3
Lupton 3o 8 7/1
65 17 7/1
80 17 7/1
67 15 7/1
Rifle 7o 70 7/1
60 45 7/1
60 35 7/1
3o 20 7/1

50 3o 7/1

81
D. Mineral Contents

The content of mineral matter included in organic soil material
becomes a diagnostic property in the classification of Histosols when
it comprises 55 percent or more of the mass by weight on a dry weight
basis. At approximately 55 percent ash content, the material begins
to show properties intermediate between a mineral soil and an organic
soil. The classification system recognizes organic soils with high
mineral contents at the family level. The Supplement for the Classifi-
cation of Histosols (1968) is not clear as to the part of the control
section or amount of elastic layers needed to place the soil into a
”elastic” family. It is this author's interpretation that the weighted
average ash content in the subsurface and bottom tiers (12 - 51 inches)
must be 55 percent or more in order to qualify for a "elastic” family.
Another possibility would require over one-half of the volume of or-
ganic layers in the subsurface and bottom tiers to have an ash content
greater than 55 Percent.

Farnham and Finney (6) reported ash contents on several samples.
Their data showed that fibric materials generally contain the least
amount of ash, ranging from 2.5 to 9.2 percent on 62 samples. Hemic
material ranged from 11.4 to 21.2 percent for 20 samples. Twenty-four
sapric samples ranged from 26.2 to 66.5 percent ash.

Table 9 shows ash contents of 19 Michigan.samp1es. The labora-
tory and the field estimate of rubbed fiber content agreed on the class-
ification of 13 samples. The ash content of these samples showed the

following ranges: 3 samples of sapric material had 62.3, 15.6 and

82

27.9 percent ash: 11 samples of hemic material ranged from 16.2 percent
to 2.4 percent with an average of 8.6 percent ash. From these limited
samples, it seems the borderline between sapric and hemic materials
may be about 16 percent ash. The laboratory and field disagreed on the
classification of 5 samples: of these, the laboratory estimated sapric
on one sample which had an ash content of 19.0 percent; the other 4
samples estimated as sapric by the field had ash contents of #.O, 16.9,
23.2 and 18.1 percent.

In summary, the hemic material measured here, had an average ash
content of 8.6 percent which was just below the low end of the range
(ll.# percent) reported by Farnham and Finney. These hemic materials
usually had ash contents below 16 percent. The sapric materials measured
with the exception of one elastic sample with an ash content of 62.3 per-
cent, were lower in ash than the range reported by Farnham and Finney

It was noted in the discussion on the sodium pyrophosphate test
(section VI - C) that high ash contents may affect the results of the
sodium pyrophosphate test. Additional studies are needed to determine
if varying ash contents does in fact affect the results of sodium pyro-
phosphate tests and if so, at what percentage and to what extent is the

result affected.

83

E. water Holding Capacities

The new classification system indicates that the maximum water
contents when saturated for the three kinds of organic materials is
as follows: fibric - 850 to 3000 percent; hemic - #50 to 850 percent;
and sapric - less than #50 percent.

water holding capacities were run for the 19 Michigan samples and
are reported in Table 9. There seems to be considerable discrepancy
when comparing the water holding capacities of the Michigan samples with
the general range given in the classification of Histosols (l#) and men—
tioned above for the hemic and sapric materials. For 11 samples which
the laboratory and field estimates agreed were hemic materials, the
percent water holding capacity ranged from 985 to 1971 percent with an
average of 139? percent. 0f the remaining 8 samples, the laboratory and
field agreed that 3 were sapric. The percent water holding capacity was
311, #9#, and 811 percent. The one sample with 311 percent had 62 per-
cent ash. The other two samples had higher water capacities than is
given in the classification for sapric material. For the # samples
the field estimate felt were sapric, the percent water was 902, 807,
69#, and 6#8 percent. The one sample the laboratory felt should be
sapric was 749 percent. All reported water contents exceeded the #50
or less indicated for sapric material in the classification of Histosols,
except the clastic material with 62.3 percent ash. It appears from the
standpoint of water holding capacities, that all of the samples in
which there was disagreement on classification between the laboratory

and the field, that the classification would more nearly favor the

8#

laboratory in being less decomposed (hemic) material. However, the
reported water holding capacities are greater than given in the class-
ification system for the range of hemic material. There seems to be a
problem either in the calculations of water holding capacities of the
Michigan samples or there are exceptions to the ranges given in the
classification system. The reported water holding capacity for hemic

and sapric materials are about double the expected values.

VII. DISCUSSION

A supplement to the Soil Classification System (7th Approxh
imation) for Histosols was published by the Soil Survey Staff of the
Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture in
September 1968. Prior to this publication several drafts or approxh
imations were reviewed and tested, starting with the original proposal
by Farnham and Finney in 1965. Since the original classification of
Histosols was proposed, considerable changes have been.made. However,
the basic principles on which it was founded and the primary diagnostic
differentiae remain without major alterations. This is indeed a tribute
to the thought and research that the authors put into that original
document.

Paramount during the initial testing stage of this classification
system, was the evaluation of the diagnostic parameters proposed. For
example, it was essential that reliable estimates of rubbed and unrubbed
fiber be made by soil scientists in the field. While the reproducibility
of the estimates are not yet perfected, this author is of the opinion
that this can be accomplished with reliable results with experience
and suitable guideline analyses made in the laboratory, as in the cases
of textures for mineral soils.

Another important factor for consideration in evaluation of this
system is whether or not it can be applied in soil surveys. That is,
can the soils be classified using this system, and can significant
units be delineated on a soil map? After two years of mapping experi-
ence in applying the system in Clare and Gratiot counties, and one

year’s experience in washtenaw county, as well as the studies in the

85

86

other counties throughout the state, the author believes that this

is a usable system and should add to the usefulness of the soil maps.
Greater usefulness can result from additional research on organic soils.
The results of the research can be applied.more precisely then, to other
organic soils with similar properties.

In the revision of the series descriptions, one of the separations
the author has attempted to make at the series level is based on the
difference in soil properties resulting from materials derived from
woody materials versus those derived from herbaceous materials in the
sapric stage of decomposition. The basis for the distinction is the
difference in structure and consistence resulting from decomposition
of the two kinds of fibers. It is felt that there is also a difference
in bulk density in the two materials. These differences should be sig-
nificant to the use and management of these soils.

Other soil properties which may be used as series differentiae
include: reaction; percent fiber within the broad sapric, hemic or
fibric divisions: depth to mineral material or a lithic or paralithic
contact; and amount of coarse fragments in the control section.

Soil type refers to the texture of the surface of mineral soils
and is not directly applicable to most organic soils. It is this author's
understanding, that the composition of the surface tier of organic soils
will be recognized as a subdivision of the series based on the degree of
decomposition of the surface tier. It is not clear at this stage of
the developuent of the system, what terminology will be used to desig-
nate the kind of material, nor is it clear as to the thickness of the

surface that will be used if it is less than the surface tier. It

87

seems reasonable to the author, that the upper 12 inches (surface tier
for all Great Group except Sphagnofibrist) might be appropriate. The
name could be determined by the dominant material occuring within this
layer. The term “muck" could apply to sapric material; hmucky peat“

to hemic material; and “peat“ to fibric material. Thus, the conven-
tions which were used in the former classification would continue to be
used. An example would be ”Carlisle muck“ or “Greenwood peat“.

The experience gained in mapping under the new system in.Michi-
gan is not sufficient to predict the need for more or fewer subgroups
than are already proposed in the system. In reviewing the subgroups now
recognized, a question arises as to the need for the intergrades to
other suborders for soils in Terrie subgroups. These intergrades are
not recognized in the Lithic subgroups. More experience in the use and
management of organic soils, after we have recognized the actual vari-
ations in materials, will help decide on the need for more or fewer

subgroups.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective in testing the new organic soil classifi-
cation system in Michigan using the various studies and methods out-
lined throughout this thesis, was to Obtain the necessary information and
data to redraft the standard series descriptions of the major organic
soils in Michigan. These descriptions are necessary to guide the cone
cepts of the various series as they are mapped throughout their entire
range of occurence. Fourteen.major series descriptions were drafted
and enough data was obtained to place the remaining major series, with
type locations in.Miehigan, into the classification of Histosols.

The fourteen revised series descriptions are reproduced in Appen.
dix A. Their interrelationships are shown in Table 8, along with other
organic soils observed. It is obviously necessary to continue to write
good field descriptions and take adequate field notes in order to re-
draft the standard series description of the remaining organic series,
to test the homogeneity of concepts among soil scientists, to add to
the refinement of the range in properties of the soils already defined
and particularly to characterize the mapping units delineated in each
survey area.

At the family level of the classification system, organic soils
are divided into two broad reaction categories: euic, (pH 5.5 or more
in 0.01 M.CaClz) in some part of the subsurface tier; and dysic (pH
less than 5.5 in 0.01 M CaCIZ) in all parts of the subsurface tier.

The use of 0.01 M CaCl2 solution as a reagent for the determination of
pH, replaces 1.N KCL which was originally proposed by Farnham and
Finney. The use of a salt solution would presumably result in less

88

89

variation due to seasonal moisture fluctuations and.more reliable
correlation between base status and exchangeable hydrogen than with
pH's in water. The pH in 1.N KCL placed the significant family break
in reaction about 1.5 pH units higher than was previously used as a
significant series break. The use of 0.01.M CaCl2 now proposed brings
the pH values closer to values previously used as a series differen.
tiation, pH 5.0 using water, however there were no specific reasons
cited for this upward shift of about 1 pH unit.

A recent greenhouse study at Michigan State University by Grennan,.
Davis and Lucas indicates that the optimum pH for'most crops was 5.5
in water which would be comparable to about pH 5.0 in 0.01.M caclz.
This suggests that more adjustment of the pH classes is needed to
aceomodate the most significant reaction ranges for major crops grown
on organic soils.

Another diagnostic criterion of the classification system which was
tested using the data Obtained from thirteen profile descriptions was
the use of sodium pyrophosphate in the determination of degree of de-
composition. From the small number of organic layers tested (thirtya
four) which had rubbed fiber contents less than 10 percent, about 70
percent of these were substantiated as being sapric material by the
sodium pyrophosphate test. It seems that a question is raised here as
to the reliability of the test as a diagnostic criterion, or at least
points to prdblems in techniques for running the test or possibly the
conditions under which they are run.

A comparison between field estimation and laboratory determinations

for unrubbed and rubbed fiber contents also resulted in agreement in

9O

70 percent of the cases. It would seem that the field estimates will
need to be more accurate to serve as reliable differentiae. Samples
with known fiber content might be made available to field soil scientists
as bench marks, in order to assist them in becoming more adept and

more consistent at estimating fiber contents.

As a result of the sodium pyrophosphate study and the comparison
made between the laboratory results and field estimates of fiber con—
tents, the author suggests that'more study be given to perfecting these
field tests as well as continued studies of techniques and methods for
the laboratory determinations of these parameters. The author further
suggests that new series should not be proposed where the two tests dis-
agree on the kind of material present.

Another question is raised regarding the range of mineral contents
and water holding capacities for the various classes of organic materials
as reported by Farnham and Finney and noted in the new classification sys-
tem. From the laboratory data obtained on nineteen Michigan samples,
there is some indication that the reported ash contents for hemic and
sapric material may be more variable than the earlier reports indicate.
The Michigan samples had considerably lower ash contents on the average
for hemic and sapric materials than those reported by Farnham and Finney.

A discrepancy is also abserved for water holding capacities.

The Michigan samples show water holding capacities considerably higher
than the ranges given in the new classification system for sapric and
hemic materials.

Future studies might be undertaken to determine more precise

ranges in ash contents and water holding capacities within the fibric

91

hemic and sapric materials, the reasons for the variability, and
their effects on use and management of organic soils.

In summary, the new classification system presents semi-quan-
titative criteria based on the morphology of the soil which can'be
used to not only classify the pedons of organic soils, but can be
applied in.modern soil surveys. 'With the properties of the soils
defined in these more quantitative terms and delineated on soil maps,
studies can be undertaken to better understand the use and.management

of organic soils.

l.

3.

#.

5.

7.

8.

9.

10.

LITERATURE CITED

Collins, J. B. 1967. Seasonal variability of pH and Lime Re-
quirements in Several Southern Michigan Soils Wheaneasured
in Different ways. M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University

Dachnowski - Stokes, A. P. 1941. U. 5. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. 769.

Dawson, J. E. 1956. Organic Soils. Advances in Agronomy. vol.
VIIIe pp. 378 - 399s

Davis, J. F. and Lucas, R. E. 1959. Organic Soils, Their Formation,
Distribution, Utilization and Management. Special Bull. #25,
Michigan State University.

Grennan, E., Davis, J. F. and Lucas, R. E. 1968. The Effect of
Calcium Carbonate, Calcium Sulfate and.Magnesium Carbonate on
Crop Yield in the Greenhouse. Quarterly Bull. of Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Un. vol. 50,
No. #, pp. 606 - 615.

Farnham, R. S. and Finney, H. R. 1965. Classification and Prop-
egties of Organic Soils. Advances in Agronomy, vol. 17, pp 115 -
1 2,

Lietzke, D. A. 1968. Evaluation of Spodic Horizon Criteria and
Classification of Some Michigan Soils. M. S. Thesis, Michigan
State University.

Linsemier, L. H. 1968. Use of the Point-Intercept Transect in
Michigan Soil Surveys. M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University.

Rice, T. D., Nickerson, D., O'Neil, A. M. and Thorp, J. 19#l.
Preliminary Color Standard and Color Names for Soils, U.S.D.A.
M130. Pubs “'25e

Stmonson, R. W; l96#. Transactions of the 8th International
Congress of Soil Science, Bucharest, Rumania. Vol. 5. pp. 17 - 2#.

Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. U. 8. Dept. Agr.
Handbook 18. U. S. Govt. Ptg. 0ff., washington, D. C.

Soil Survey Staff 1967. Supplement to A Comprehensive System -
7th Approximation. U. S. D. A. $011 Cons. Serv.

92

13.

l#.

93

Soil Survey Staff. 1968. Soil Memorandum 66. Re: Application
of the Soil Classification System in Developing or Revising Series
Concepts and in Naming Mapping Units. U. S. D. A. Soil Cons. Serv.

Soil Survey Staff. 1968. Supplement to Soil Classification System
(7th Approximation) Histosols. U. S. D. A. Soil Cons. Ser.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

 

r-“‘-

.i

y

.
vt
.
4.. .
..
wk
3.
er,
1‘
LL
.
,H.
I IL
r..
.
1‘ A

 

h
..
\
(\
ll.
.4
.1.
.

 

1

0

 

Cf

 

‘I

f

N:
V: n
r .
.. .
-(a
.
71
~ we
.1 a
r...
w .
rlt

.}
r J
. l

A, .

, ‘

..

.-.
C-

r , Jr“
. a
e l

‘3. \I I c , .

l . at. q . a
I. . I- v y.
..l... .U . L .. a _ 1
u . . A .

r‘ t A r ‘ q j e.-. O

o .J .... . {L IL ti... .
- n I
... . 1.-. ... _ .
u u . v. n» _ CV . Z...
1). . . . . .. . .1 . .
‘00 v... . . A. . . .- v‘L .-.

 

 

 
 

VI. . |I
_. an. rt /

_ , e...
.. L I...
I .a v ..

.. u ...... s... 1. 9....»

ft; arc. .... H;H u“

. . . v.

0.1.« 0.5. . — ...}.
If» A.“ ‘3... 0.. l.s . .

.. .
..t. w-.. r TIL

v... .. e. . . .. .

. . . . .-. x _ |..
. . . . (a . . q: _
cw ... .I._ v. . _. .

in d _
N... .. . . 5 - I.|.

. . . .
.... r 1.. . . . . .
0. . a _ .
C .. .v.. _ . a...

. v.
.. .. . J.\
.l

f ,_ _ r.. .J

s -.. v. . I I 1. . .l
. . . all

. _ .. . . .
. v . .
. . . . 1.
, out c . n. ... . a (
._ .
1-. FL o, . r. o .
.. e ,
. . . a a.
. a I. . I ... a
l - § 4
.-. YL C . .— 1 . nil
. I. n 'L
1... a .
.. ... ..
_t\ . . u. a s
(4 . . . .f“ .
_ .fl 0 .
... ._ .v f.
‘r c
, . . . Q . a.
n n v c .
.. .... ..x f. .
.. ’
. .3. \.1p .0
. . .. . .
. a . . . \ I .
.5. 1.. . ... 1'
v u .A . n s Q s . . w
t 'i I.
a! a o 2 . . ...
.
.. 1.. n. o. .
. r .4 . . .. -
f a . .. L . . :1.
. . . .1. .w.
.1 .. , C. ’I\
w ‘ v H I
- z! . r
, - . ..
. . a . . . a .
_ .
.. . . ., n W .
... a .\ s . a . d
.... . . . l.
. . . _ . ..L
. I..A I. Q
—‘ — .
. ‘I.
too. 1.... _ . P ..
d . u .
v. Ff. '. a
G P .. (\
... ...J r._ ‘.. “.1 ... ..4
.
1.. . . n .L . u 1-.
. . - . . .

.. . . . r . r r.

o . l < 1.. . . . . I . I
. . v J. 1:. . u . I

. . . . .

. ... 0.. . . .. .ntk .

.

r . .... u .. .. . a

. .. .. ... ,. . L
. . .

... . . -. C . x. _ .

r r..- .V. 1.8. o... n.... c.“
.. a . I. ..
a . ,- .

..-. C ..- .. . . ... 0

_ .

Jun evu. . . . THU e...
. .. . n .. . _ . n D.,
e} I .. . . a.

a .a.e J . . .. er ......
.1 . ..
f r: . .a . .x

l;

‘A‘i _
. .-

...

I:

.“

. p
.
x, x
r
_. _
,.
V-
v-
.
. C
r
-.
.
p I.
. 2
.
A n
.5 9‘

. J
‘7.

 

.3 \

... 1...
C}.

7..

.I. ..|\
.«L

-...

a a

a . J v ,

r. ‘rIL

3

.lk
I...

1 .
. F
L . f
A -1.

q .

.e.

. a —

. . .1:

u
. . .
I: v a
_
1 .
. 1
I e. .. .
c \
v, 1. _ L
‘_
. . ..

.
_ v. I.
v. .
o L .
1 I
. .
r. 9..
—l.l
. .
..

Q"v‘

I...
n, s
a:
1.
.

4-
...
. a
_.

.
. ...
e ...
. _
II
e n
a. u
1.

P5;

1' f .

...,
_, u u... .
. w
., .
.v u .
'
._ ... .r.
A I u
.. u r'.
\p
v L
C ....
1!. ...
w. ., . .
it It:
‘ .
.... _ .
a .J
S
x .
v.1 -.
r .

‘1
. ..
e . .
.. .u\
1..
a .r
11.5 . .
.l'.
. ._ e ..,
.. n . .
‘.
. . P.
_
(Q
n y. 1...;
I . .
C ..
1 ..
. .4 a
J . .k
e \,
. . .
u.
e.... L
a . .
I. .
..
7. r
a... ...
1|. 0 -J
o ‘. VH
.
. IV .
.I
_
I u. .e
. .
.l- . w.
. . §
...). u.
. . fl
. ,lx
.v 1.1
....)K .
o
n/a
.Ialn
. .— n“
— ...

(‘1‘

fix.

AL

r...

 

rhli .

.--- ..

. U
' “\
‘.-....‘.' L

( .

I-

‘I.
1.

...... .L
.... r, L
...!“ ... .
v: v...

...

P.. it
C.» .mu

. ...
.AA

...

.u ...
1r... ...!
"(A fl

1I.~
,, ..
e

...) I .

\J .

... I
. a.)

J
. ,C
..
k
. V.
.(.
1} a a
.‘
Wt.
..

e:

O

‘fk;‘L

(121E?

r
A.

O .

. ...‘\,
l- [_]‘.‘l

t

.0
-
w .
.n .
p ..
OVIA
.
I;—
......
WY _
. .
a.
_
\l‘.

.15

1

L'agz.‘ of N

F‘

” ‘1

CI‘~LJ
J

. -I.
[k

. f
.
0‘...

r...

P 4‘

."q.

A

(:0 1‘.

.1.ES

. ...»

l

.)
(I

.JITKV

“‘.
$1,

‘

f.

I"
, t

Q

‘Apcf . A-

‘I
~A

pt’on

.3, ..
'-~-e‘ -h)

It

I
’Q
.L...

I),

to

12

H I':~*22.:,-:

1.9 p.

1
r
a

L‘

 

kve
-. . .
‘ .
..
y .
x .1 V ... a Q,
.I . .— .
I I. ... . a:
'0 p . u‘ ’
... 1‘. . a
| A ~
0.1.. u... 3 c .
.1... . v .
s. .3
I K It; .
; I l
. . n .-
‘ t. o. l. ‘
. A (x .
.. . ..
n. . .‘ ...” _ Q,
’sl‘x _ _ .
T .. W. . ,1.
. . a 4
Q n .V s
i.‘ w ‘
... . i . L
. N.
. . .. v o a. r1.
~ , A
. n b {w . ..
I I. A‘ .
oIL ... . J . . r}.
.
r . k
.4. ‘ . . .
Q . .. I. (
\- a . .
.
. . ..vs _ . . pl . x
.
~ , .
. .. . . . u.
,. a x .. I
.
u. ,. n . ... .. .
. _ _
. s , .. . rL .
‘ \
vy. ~\. «I I . . f\
u . . 1r.
|~ -
L Q. ....1 .t.’l
. . . I .
~ ‘ll'll w \ r . I].
. I
(M . _ . / (I:
u. . . . A J.
I . ‘ .... .-. 1.. r .
.u OJ .
. ‘u . §
.. .... . a . p
o ‘. , v .
a ,. , ‘ . ‘ .
.I . . . .
. , . .
. . . . . . w . .
a u ‘ IA
1 , ._ . p. ‘ .-

 

... o
... . ‘ .
\ V a. a. ‘ .
g . r. § . . \ _ .
< ‘ I s .‘A
‘ , t L '1;—
1. . _. y
_ . ‘ .\
o 1 A.
. . M. x . .
... . .
. V n J I r .
. . . . .
Q . . . . -
(n .6‘ hi. um rt
. . .. r“; _ .
..IJ .1. Q .9 d! , v!
. ~. .
.- ~ . . n
C r ' v
...u . . u. .. .1!
.\ . u v‘
.-
1
1 ~
a .1 . r ‘. g .. _

‘
-~.

1'.
C

C

,\ 1.

wt
.X

1» ~
4 A
All
r
or .
t
‘

. .

.

r

I..

. _
..
.

_ .
..
V.

‘ .

.

s

V».

.V ;

QL

r
a

1 ~
_" --

7.) O..-)

_.
I
a-

c

r ~
\.
o. .—
.91.
.. .
_ _
_

_

‘I

f

O
n
...
,_.
1,.
VA
...
....
r.‘

'\
7' 'J

y
A“;

~ \ "-
.d

zlo'

1'.
I"

1 .
a‘

C 0‘:

LO

Q
o .

rt .‘
v , \I\
f. ‘
.
A 1 .
x L P.
j
1
..., L
r -V ,
r . ...L

—.
.‘

-
TI
I‘l-
9.”
a ..

_
r“

n
_
o
r: 1-.
w
.I ‘s
i. ..
..
A .\
. 9

. .
. .
_u. ‘.
‘ o .
.J _
hf ..
L
...
»‘
”V
A. 1
— n
.1
.
..
1'
.L ruu

A ‘ —}u.o
1.. Ix.
V.
31., ..
<71. .
.v V .-
n. ....
c.
.
. _
o
fl “ P...
w
r .
“c C
.1.k
r .
_,...
‘rl. «A.
”w. H\

r;

-‘

 

. .
_ .. I A z
'1 O .
. .. . I I
1 I . _ . I . I . w
_ . ;
0L . ..
I. _ . .
‘I . — t '. ll . I
r... . ..
I y .. ...
I I r; . L s
, . V.I.. .
, . .m . . .
\
p . I .
.. {L .f. .... )L
. LL (R
—. V I \— .
1 . . u). . .I
~I . .
.L '1 _ I . .
. g
1 r. ,_ f.
... L n
. .
I, . I O
1.. I \
. a\ ... ,., O ,,
C .
._ .1 II
.“ 1,.
. . ‘f
(I I . ,.(
. I C y
. «..., _ . .
o .i . _
u . .,
I .‘p
. n L _ 0.!“
r , .
. . .l _
.. n» T r . ,
, .— in.
PW .. r . rt
1‘ — .
. . .. .

. g.
V .K r...
c w!..
V
1 It .
« q! . I a A

«It. .. . .I

 

.I . . II. IL
1. a. .
l , .
I, ._ .‘s 3
. .: ... .
r. .\ . . V .
_’.. ..- .I .I.
. .
T, .I
I. . N .f.
. I. I I J
. ..« l-. .. I‘ V.
t. p... ...u ’..
I
1 . .IL
I ‘l. \I
. ¢ , I. .
A ,
. a: o. I a f.
1 x .
«
‘l ‘ 4 .1-
IA . a z s . .
q.l4. It. I
. .. r. Y...
I. s m .
- a I .. .10 ...

x q I .
. I .J
q.L . . fl
I .1 Q ...E
a H n a I.\ , O _
4 \ I
,. .L . . q. ,
w. L. ,.._ . r\.
, t . L
. . I .
C . . . .
a _ . . . ,
, I . X.
-\ . I FIA— t ..
. . I I
v. . m (L r _ 1
1.x. . .
. . . .
P. . . I o:\ s
C ...w l a.
. . . , ,,
V. )L O... I‘ . o.|.
s) .I . .
. [Ix _ u '.o )1
_ _ . .
...-.. «I. I r; E . .
l J n. 3 ~
. — 0.! ”k ‘L .I. ..

 

... _ - —~—.

a...

Ir

.J‘ ‘

.
‘
\
f .
.. .
t
.
.
.
«.I
.L
.
l «

p.
.I
I
L
1.
I‘
r
g.
.I
.
I
Q
....
j
...I
V.
.1
..
x
.
a
.
.
.
”I.
.
k
.I.
a

 

 

..L

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
V n V DI
V . . . V I . V V .
I . V ...
a l
(.0 a I. V V .\ II .
. V V V. .V. . I
. w. I2L .- a
v . . V II\ F I
V: . I V IV I. .. ... . V I . ... I V V . .V
A. . v V . V 0 I’: . n . . vim r.v . . V
.
. x . . I V .
V VI. (3.. I.) V V a ... < I
n . p u
7.: . v.- V . . .I . 0.1 3.. .3 V I ...
. V . V V I . .. V .
«a . . . V ... \ r . V V
II V , .I Va 4 . .
A I. ~ c p . . a... 7 P . .v‘ a
. V . . V. V . r \ u.
.l. r- . .t V. k D . .V all 47
, V .. V. V.
w .
D .p p n .- ~\ I «,5 . . 65 v ...V n a.) . .r
I _ . V I V.. w . V I I . .V L .
. I . V n n L n . Ink . I. u
7 V V . , . I. I V I, . .u
. .V . V .... . .V I V I .V V. V . .
I ‘ u A 1 I. . .
QVV. .. LY. .1. . . a . V ‘11. O. V .V _
LL .. 4 \III L I _ . V . .. . LII/o a: .
1 V I. V I. \t - 0 I IJV
I . c 3 ,v I V i l... 0 U . , f I n .. 1v 1.5!“ ..
I L r . . ' n -
.V V .. ... ,V . V . I I V.-. cl .3: :1 t 7.; IV:
V . V. . .. I V . .V 1. V I IL
L. L . rl . I ~ I In _ V,'. . Q‘. . x {.u Pica V. I . .41.. V
V . . . V V. V. V V V I . I} .
I. V V . ... .I . a I. . . V Q V r: .0 r“
V V I ... . . r. L . .. .
(V. V r L ”I . . . ... VD. . .9] V . T . o . 1.1.
V .V . V V V . . .. . . n
V ‘V ... . .V V I V . V I .V x. I . V V I V. .
V p f I K I . . I VVV ‘ u 1 I. _
.V I u I . V . (.-. .V. ... . r .V. II. V V II\ . .V-
V . V. ... III.» . n .V .VI“ r/u (I\ ..h V 4 V .V ot.
I V V V. I I .A 7 I
o I .... IV. ... .. ..l .. 3 . 7. . V. .. .V s v“ . 1 V
. ._ . .V L :V . .., I V. ... Z L
It.» V I V V. V . . V V a . a - V
.IL ‘ n . V .V I ... «I . u. . I
I . V V V . V l a
. . v .I V 9 I . _ 1: V a. I V . a rtV .
a . . . I
.I V .L . v . . I. V x I . II 0V V V.. I V . V
.V . . . N a I . . 1 .
V V . I. I . a V V .. ... V( . V. t . v IL . I
7., r V. k V. ..D Vi . . V. . 11V. 1. ..
IIVI V I n. V .. a \ V... .V .
. L . V .. . IVV . . V . ... v . L . 2.. P
.V I V. . V. a V. V L V .VIr V I . V .V I I. I II
. I . . . . II. .V r
:V V .V pp . a . I VI w . . V L I _ L r n
I V ‘ V I. . . V . I 1 II I
I «'- .V V I V V «V V . I ...: V V. V V . 1 . I. a. . (I. V.
I . I. 1.. I u IV
. V _. VI. 1 V II. V . \ a r I IR 4 V .II. . A
V V t V I
I V . . . .I I.
. V. V.“ .I. .V o . Vr \ V VI. . . r\ I . _ V
V V V V V V V . . V .... _ L
n... u . . . I k 40. I II . o ..I V I . L .
V V ...V . . _ . ... . r V . . V . .5 V V.
I. .I V V .I I . I J .
r . ... I V V V. V a P n V. o. . .V {I V . rs . I
I u L oVI. 1 . ..V oVI. . V . V /I\\ t. V V .. V n 7 VV (\ .
V. I x V V . V V
.Ia V V 1 V .V . V . 9... f1) .. ..
I ’V . \ .V. V V V I .
(x II V VA . . (\ . I . . L
I; V . . .V V . V
x .l. \ I 1 V I . I I V V
II. ’ . I» . _ - S V . L. .I V I V A w.’ CI.” . . I V . V O BI.
V._ \.I..Vl _ . V V . . r .. . I I..\ . Vr w a M o a ‘3: . . ,V I V .IL .o
\I ..V J I. ‘I. I I V . A V . I
.3 V q. r V 1. .. ... r .I . flu . V V V .1). I: V .1 . I
V . 1 . V V .V. , . .V /. n H V: . I V
.II. V. .1. I . V V I I V II. . VI. I
I . . r .. ... .I (IV . V V V V . 1 V f L V . VJ . I; I V
V . «In .\ . . . V , V V
.Ia . . I'L . . V r V.
r». V .1 L to. u I. V I . I .I . r. V . F1” . . ‘ I I
.I. .“V .. . .1, IV.” \II I . 21L L .V a. V ILV V.” . V. I ‘ . V-
I. . V x V . ,V x . V V V V II . _ V V
.1. . .rk ‘VI ..4 r\ (I . .3 . . \ 1L _ \\ . o . I pk.
. . V . . V
.J. . I. .V.. .. V.“ . V I. . . _ .. .1 . C
V I , .V v V _ V . \o L I
. NI. . . V n a VI. V p . .. ..I . . 1 . V]
V . . . . . V . V
V, w a: VI x .. rtl- V F . V I .I I.) .,.V .‘a
. . x . . V x .2 I
.I\ V n . . a V . _ I. VI. V. J . o . . V
V L V V . .V . V I V
C II\ VI. 1 I... .I a V. . V... . I V . . VI . V V. ...,
I I I J V V I . . ,. . . 1 V ‘V. VLIV f
.1. . w. .o I. 4 I\ 1 . A II TI- V .. 1 I V s. m V L (I V V 7.. <
VI. V I. . flu... f L. V. V T -V . . a -. .
. V . l . V. . I V V VI! .
FI. I. . I, r n I .V V/ k . “I. A.I. ( — 1 VI . V a I x p.‘ IV. . 0L
. .0 a VW . . . . V I II -. 1.. .V .
o . V . FL #1; ( . 1 I. 1L (L 1h. t o I.» IVL .\ 1b. . r L r..- C (I V. <1. .1
PL
1 .I I I. .l
. I. u! I. n!
. . ... Vu . V ..I IV
In . . a I I
o.._ . V II. 1.. r _ A.” I
. . V ’
h .. V . . .
v I ‘III I V I. I II
T ( ,0 V. K V I. V 4
J I. I J:
.156 V 1 . r L r .
o I
V V . V . .. ..
1C wk V V r n u .
V . . V I
r- . a L o . V. -
1... 0 V V
1| V
I I J\ ..t V \I
.V... V. «I. n); I V I. f V
I. -. V I.
a. V. I I V. .L 7.. VI

 

 

 

. I. . I. I}
o.... I I. VV V...
.. 0 I -V V . ... VMI. V I
O n V "L .V I...“ .V . V. \/ IV. V C .I V
. - V V VII: VVV ... . V n 7.. .VV . V r... VI; V, ..-
7 U V V . V_. I J I... 93 VIV. . 0. If. UV V
m u 5 . o .IAV O TIL 1VI VV . V V r)... VVHIV C IL
aIII. ..I . II; . I III. (n 1V)t, II... 11!; V l. , .IV
V .... U ....V VV... VVIVV ...“ V V I V. . ..V VVHV. _ .5 n.
. 12“ IV. .V m .: VI, V I. M. I. .V .1. V I
,V -V ,,V .LJ .. .. V .I. V..... I ... r}. VVU V.. I I. ..I 1 ..H .V V
V I. V r; ..u IV: V... .I... (V V” . VI, U .VV ..V
Kw . V.-. J I.“ 3 III... V.... .V. V .VV VI...
H V v. “c I.-. L .V V .u _ ..I. II... ._ ....V ...V
(.,V ...I, I»... C V U. ml 0 _. .V n _. I. . . r1 IVH
9.1. C \J .V V m V C 0 VA. V. ..IIHV (IV pl
IV... Vu ....H V V V VI. U 1?. 1.. I:
In. I) _ . 9H. PL III "In a 1 a 10... r .. ...) ...;
r . n . C. (l— AIIL V L ..I. 0 2 Vs . In.“ [J 1.. .V O
.V V .VV”. . «II PVV q: .V III}. V... , ..I V .
V V T. Ia. IV ....V V V. ; .. . Q .7. . .h VV n. I.
V 1 .V V .VVVV. V .1” .V . I“ «L. ..L . V . .
V V . 1,1 I. I.. 7.4 n ” ...... Ii C . IV I V.
... I . . .IV {.VV 1.... .V I, . H rIV I V. V I..\ V V.
I. V VIII}: V V . [V V V . II“ I. “I . V I .
I. V. r. )— V1”. r o u V II. TIV .L C ”MU a...“ H. I.I.V T.
V IV» V ... V V. I V E VII.“ .VV (u
. VIII. V. . r,. I. 1,. . . . II... n .V
.I E I-. V V ,V V. V. V.“ .. .IV CV. ... I...
.I. V V ...... 9 0 c I .c VI ..L C V. ...I. I.
r). V. V. ... IC. a.“ .V ... I
.1. VI.” :1. V. V VI. VI!” 11V V... . V. V V
. V a... .1... 1.. ,I V . I. V .. II. I... V
V. VI. IV .../II 1.. . V V _. .HL. L V . I ,.. «IV
I. I u _ V . I .7. VV 0 . I. C ....I C
1-. I V . V. .V . V ”V. \I. , .. V 1-“
IV. C- I. ”.V .V V I V. r. . "I.“ AL I V I V .VV 1V V...
I . ..L .V I V V V II. I C . C I... V .VV...
.. n V f... I _ 4 ..i . . r)‘. V t n
II VI: VII. . .VIh O I) . .1 M. a V V .u
..-. .(V V _ V ,V V V VI,” ., -m ..m V V...
, V V ... I V. V”... V. V,V. I .V 1.). .VV V.L.
...H V.. I. V 1.. . . VIIVV ..I V... .1 r V V. V
I. I. IV V. .VV IV l.\ I- V“ r: ....V ...V.
VII, . It. \. J . V II... V I ,.,
.H .VI _. V... 5 . . _ I. I? 1 1... I. .V.“ II...
V I ..A 11.. VI. . IV V I . V VI. .IV
V V. I... V V I. V. III V 2 ...» V- .V “V
n I V V V. V I V. L If.“ V IL. L I. II» V V.
x 1. V V .II IV. V 1.x. V.. V ... .IL .. . V. I V .
. . V . V . ..I. . c... I V at n“ ”I. ...V V V _
V ..V. I I! .V n. V. n J 1i /. . V .... VI ..J
rIIV . “I. rI/n IVI. 1. I. IV .V
u .I ”I . V «It... . V V ..I... VII” I Q ~ . .HV. r V.
rGI\ I V r. I V 03 V V 0 IL 1 V V.. .V 7”
I .V VI II. 1.” V VIV “ V _ V ”I. V I wt;
V...” v V“ _ (I. ..L I x v ......V. V» .II\. r try a V L
1" I V V V I .-V V . u "I“ . . .
C .0 V .rIv V U V. V . .RIV . ... u «I . o
VIM. _. .V 14 V., . . (V . V .V V. o “I V I ...u V. V. Us I...
V. V..... .VV V .... V . V .VIV .1! 1a.. . V . I. I.
w! VI ...V T. ... V .L C V..., 1. VI. V. IV
, .. I... ..., V ...,V I V ._ , .. V- V . .... V...
I 4 V . V II. o I. IV... . VIII LL mVV ,IV PI; 1....
I . : V II t C VIIV "VII. V. .-. "VI LU
. V II. I Ml II I . I V u... C) 1V. I . V
r). - V, V V _ h V. I” .I... . r. C o ”L
V. V, .V “.... ..VV 1; . V; .VV.“ (IV. I .. V-V I..-” V... O
r). I 7. V. .V .. . . h. E O r C .... .,
... V ID. I I. ”IV rI. VL . V S 1I r-" I.-. V. IVJ
V . Vi V.” ... u. . V as, 3 V: T. C 5.
VA..- .» VIIVJ V; n: V.\J V. II. n“ ”V VII. VII. «HA V. V V. V.
"7. 3 II. 3 1; In.” a... In... .1 V .V V ,V. C ....
V In... 8 2 I _ .. V V .V L ...-V I. n c. Vr“
a.“ ....V ..IIM TV. my V. .7... "IV I"... .V... “I. a; as
.... ...V 7. C .1 In.“ 7 VI.“ In. ”I... ..V V-” V) In... I .V-
,1 I. S :0 ..II. n. In... C 8 ID 2. v.2“ VIE t O 8

.‘I Y". if if.

I

1...

-.
.x
.
‘.
, ‘
. d r
‘l u .
\ .
0 01»
VI.
0
.
o
‘
.
A—
r .
‘
..
. .
. . c
.
A v
.
I
,
a
,
.
a r
C
.
c .
.
VI.
r. 1:
1.
‘
. .
. (u.
.
‘
c
.
, V
11* ,
.-L.
.
I ‘ .
n V
1 I

it .1.“ (k.

'1'. r.
‘. s .'.

\

 

n.- u-

u‘...

,
L11

O .

f'

‘4

(A

r~r~
.~.

l’:
\ u

l

'A
..

of U:-

9V.‘
s
.
.
n
r
w
.-
<_
16.
1.
g
I

o)
1 .
k
.l
..J
.1
r._

1|.

r;
,.
.l
\
.3
v.
I.
r.
a.
a , t
1‘.
A t
‘
1
o ..x
1 \
r‘ ‘
V v
«u
.
....
.
J
i
.
.
.
r.\ ...u
i
~UJ
7A ,
.
'1
v‘ .
a‘L
. ‘ a.

\I
”L.
c
.
v
«I .L
.o
.
T I
V .
kl
.. vlt

i‘:

..
...
_
.
.
.
.
.-
.
I
o.
r
.
a.
v.
.I V
1
.
n
.
..
.
u,
. _
.1;
T:\.

Quin

.-
._
.

r

o ..
g.
|

.
. r

..I

a.

V .
n .
L._

J
~. .

Iv.
..

.

 

 

O
-...
.
yr...
Fm ..

 

.
-—

 

. L
1 ‘
. A
.
. .
,
....
.1
. .

I,
..
‘.
a a
~ .
f.
c. ..
Rf.
.
.‘

 

1
I

r _
. L
‘5.
....H
...
..1.
it
~ -
<

‘0

 

i I;

(a.

 

V I
,
1‘

 

 

’12'

10311

,—

. .
q (- "
.~ L) tn ‘

C011:-

" t

‘
.-\
L

.1
7‘ ,A
U(
1
L)

. ) x... .-. C
1a..“ mum .....1 l. .... m n. -.
C 1‘ ”1.. Lia .1. VIA O 3k
a: 5 1r," D .l .U 0 Va hr
.mh on «u L.» .n; an“ mg n“ h L ”.L
.....t. .. M ... J 1r. . «p ...m. 44.4. AIJ
V“ v“ n» mm. a» no .3 a“ 1‘“ ,0-
..l p C r C C. x.“
.1.“ . > T. 6 3 I r .1.” LL
«H 1h a0 9 k .... U n. C V.
L W” C U: H I ...; .”L p b D
3. a L. "f a.b C LU
W «M. .nU (\ d .i U 0 RM 8
d ..U, 6 f T. l..- LL
2 e r 1 a .C O . )
..L. b LL ...... 41.... .... S 1G O 7r
C L- t.-. D .L m .,. H D. m a.
an nu w“ aw L;\ an» my VL an cu .m.
C I 1..., an, u b C 5 2-
C 8 u U r.i S r H
”J \I/ ..L n; T. ...; U. .... G r
«1” 1L 6..“ . 2 .U. .7.“ C C
nU I! fit VJ.) AU & Lu 1L an
. \./ a!“ 1. . i). n. r) ..W .l C ‘...
O n... .5). r... 1“ u at an". 00 (L GU
5 .w \\ 1‘” oI_ ....s c 3
H “A a; u nu_LanJ\l my
.ww a-» —«J Lu flu my r, n. H. ... I. a;
$1.“. .F . (K x n. C fl. . 0.. 2
Cp. .-.. .1 O . . t £1. 1.; 1L. Q U... ..l
. ..-», ...H. 1..” kl. r... r.“ . ac. . .. V
r). H .. mg. C 8, a. u} ‘1. T. d H.
.r, 0.. n, . 3 C . ._ ,.._ . ... ...- ..I. x ..
n. v” C .1 s. a. l 1,: in La ...n . a“
I C ..D u- a ... s . 0 ., h. ru w
,1 f ;.L _ L. U Ni m... u... ..U v ~ C a .J
C . ....L. ..U + ..u. ah. . ,.. K T. (U :0
— ..y . ‘1. ...). a.“ n .13» ..L / ¥
c w. 8 .i ...L I... LU A _ . . a n1 " h .H
ul~ I u. huh . ~ C LL - I ... 1L; 0
3 z 7 L .. L 1h. . J Q r). (
1M : T. \J S .... . x.) \J «D C \1
Ti ru 1» in 0L , \ 11. ml“ 1,.L 1:“ 7.“
CL .4... I/ 1. u. _v\ l/ ./,o H. r u “.1... III
C ..J 2 a. .3 S n1 n1 I l. .7 FA
1.,“ .C a r «I. . .L 1., ..L
Nu xv “k ab hr my \ fl. .JA ,\ «L an H“ wn
n... .1 C q . V. .‘ C v: .. . .u 5. 5.. ‘ .
L r\;. O - 9.... 1| . r I. L). Ly “...... rxJ
9 r. lu\ I... ..-. r1 C (i f. . 3 l.\
.0 Y ob T VJ.)
Mu. L 0 Lu. .T ,5 . a. 1,“ D. C ....” (a 1.;
L Luqi J U «AH.\/ C M D.C r C
.1. .... . C ....R. O L ,J O P C .l O o.
Yv. n . PU 1L. 1” 0.1» at. n./_ ..I. . I 0 I. p, .|._
C /\ D 8 f C H B L... l S C “I
.3 M _ 4
I” E I O — “ —
T I. . _
t I. v . _ m I '.
I. .— ..e» I. . _ O. I.
S :L. 1 ‘ . H 1 OJ
LL C . Cu 1 2
3 n). . n _ _
.....M .L 0 6 1|“
L P: m u 1
up “u” .
C ..L. \ M . "
1.x“ 3-.. “\ _ w _
( ..u. c; d
3.» . J. p .
h 8 ma. 1 2 l
u.-. VJ. r. C ....u
a 0 ml: 0 O 0

”18h

v~-

'CC

J. 1'\ >

' \".‘,

(“L

'.\
. l\

\

f

1'—

r‘ .’_“ f").
. L_‘ ';‘

U.,.f?
LLLQS;

1.. [-1
T

c-

A C
) m:
IK)1

1'] X

'/3

C
./

‘ Y‘,;
LOLA

‘

3:: (“0:9

(
t.

xr‘

5/2) with coma

bx

rV‘

\

L

2.3
.3) ”:13;

I

"n (
/

c
J

1

r1y»
' . .
J-.\

)

LJ

(

,,-
O‘

‘I

if) \

..

f
b

.. ...-

h‘

Cathro Sgrjvg_m2

1318.1A3:t3 zw1nav1} :r3i1 tFTLrinfgif'fii Irrzg,rfl ;Erva; :fxéui: 37 to ‘(VC‘ F. Tin: SkygvaLC
tier (0 to 12 inch; ) uxnluffiw; of 3W1=Q ngfiae littrr o: RUSSCS, 'S congiiflei
of Ina ’C or sxv' {C 1 ";ri:4 K Iii Ew’ Uw“ii}ujd filmcf cm i :1: t7v1: IGLQXEJ fro 1
about 20 TJZKJJL- to 57 I. m- ‘ of L?” th,‘ 1C V\;1‘ d. Lgifi' ? filfir CazfiL ut

is 20 1):;2'.‘c2.;r_‘t L0 lea". £315.; 313 14:11“: S'-:T: 153‘s”;- (if l‘verh 1.51/31: and 11.11515!
peat will be facagu4r J. 331 5*rchu‘c of tH* Shirin KL“? r‘nggd from u;qk

to moflcrata fin: grarvlar. ”t apprfira that etymctwiv grade becomes strong“:

as the :nount of recvgnia b3; wand; n .011‘1 incrc:.;5. The suksurfsrn t11“
(12 to 35 inch<s) is domfnarcl by Qrpvic u"t:“i£1 ; V CCWQTISC" Lnlc Lh.n

half of the OLguuic Literjal 350?: th: 10:1; Stiff-ELLW. Th; unrubbed fiher

.1 -r v.1 .7 - ‘1 4-1-. ..c . ,. .~ ~ - “firm ,,... 12 ,6 ”.4. ..
a cenomngu Lh_Cmg;Qu UL lean Lhuu 10 1nhugo. 4DC3m “Le cu4611y thUcLCDub

.- ‘7 ‘f 1 ""»v~“'. "r‘ "’3' ‘fi “" ‘." ‘ ‘1' " "1. “" .P‘~ '- '. ‘
and gumcxully CUup;ihc wake thgn SO pLquAL 0L pus ““111“. 8150 01 {JbCIS

-~~- , a ~\vv4 r- -' ' \ * ‘~‘ r‘\ f 0 1 /‘ 2‘ .' ‘ ’\ " " r‘ 1‘. . ‘ -“ ‘ ”v" v 0 . , 1 ~
are comhonly 0.5 to 0.15 hA. LdLuC? f;.3__aL& ale 3; Sicily mbody. Uocoy
Instan‘ial C(“WWYJEJZQ u» ta) 5” In*XCCiv* cu L%r* ]:wW' 17;r'3. a f??wcr é‘ftffl“ ItiXJifii .

A U
1"1 'rur“u1(2 ,. ‘Zm*1 sicrizls 11 LLO rflkaF" L101 ”M: dQHilh‘-t1V Iclwxive )H”
, C . x L.

. C‘ '1"?N In) ~' h “""(‘l""."") 1‘1 ”‘4“7'" N“ J’-"‘ ' '; ."‘ ”I: W ”‘3“ 7“ :'~ ‘1‘ 3“ 1" " ' 1~"‘r"v‘ . W.‘ r
In \DOI‘ ‘_,' p'_\1'nil.v lJ-;L‘)_a-‘_\lk. U4 ‘.’..'_‘.‘,1 (A. (A! " J; I), :‘fl-l‘ (»I_L 4’: -:-_ K4111. LI‘.’7L J! ‘.L(‘L\. llnpx)

,,- . . . . --. - .- -. 2",. rup-‘ v, .~ ,., A r...., v-.
EiXqul‘ $131u13ug s llJC’ll.O cw- tun»: p]x~uca. L ILM.CLkw~S LLLLLLJ¢L13 cdwg d a.”~

nintly m3€FiVQ brag gun to rcrk pl?TV, mhilc the van y Lgtcrifilfi feud tmwprd

more blockiu “s wiLh 2 grann3zr scuynfwr; EizuCLva; ash confirm: of th: ox; mic
layer just above (L; lo;my subst“nivm Lg; LC as LUCh {s 50 percent. Th9

IIC horiron haa Lac 0? 2.5V, 303R; 7.51R my SEN; vaWun cf 4 LhTowuh 6 and
CHF(‘1 C: J 0- 2. Txx-x inel"‘ " ‘L 32 J 30 ; :“L 3' 2 JIIHL (1‘3

1 ~ ‘~ ~ ‘ ., 1 T‘ ' I: ' f 1 3. <. ' u ‘ 7*, ’ L‘ ‘ \ '0 —‘
L(, Sth ,, C‘ ‘ --a, 143.1 - ., 2.1!].‘5 5.1"“; L. _ “3 .‘ nun, Luxq E.-]]\.‘.LU EA); 1.».

"“r .v’ -- ~ ' ,1 " ' £— ‘ « ‘ OM r»“ —-‘ .va . ' . f: . ’ -‘-—~ 33‘ V ‘3 “T A1 . 1."; .~ ’
C9; 90114.11; , CT- . ~ 7 w , 1\-1x -..u , CL".(. \“‘"_'.!_Lz '1‘3 C-'.I.~. '23 (3:; uni Li .Ukl'g'q 2.11 L¢y12 (ML)

1 ,-.- O 3-. Tv-F V.'.._ ‘-. --.:L . ‘.- -... n -.1 F1..-,-,., .-..71 . .- “.41‘ . ‘_,_ \
tLlciL‘. 5 JILCLUF') (3.2L)! ILLL» (“liflp’L’QL Li‘s I-IC. . 1”. L1 (Jud. Jimufif‘ E'L'J.‘ S }l€§"."(l>- SpLQ-J) It L.» Lia.
y: ~' ‘ ‘ ‘ ’- 1 r- F ‘I ' ’7 " r v 1 '3 ’. I‘ ‘r". " ‘. " ‘3‘ r . ‘ -

8'. CL 211-1.) (2. .1. LC ..Id .' - ‘7:) L 1 '- .LI'. (4.4-1- L_‘-( -l ‘ '1 1 ’L' {‘14: C. 1.“. C ufl‘ld CO'LLLUl .
' . J -A " ' “i — . V -\ m ’n .~ ’ 1,, . -~‘L ' 'J ‘ L’ , — . J- . ~ 1 — l .' ..

5;)Ct1{1'_tl I: .‘ 4._\ J C .J‘ ..‘: L ._ L"L\l\’.‘.1 - “1] (3:2 1 .. L. 1 ..‘..‘——11 I .1] L- '.A_J C(Jkt 5.1. (.3 SI‘I" L-.. ()11,

uruhzrlrvfu b)? c143,f; r:i*;1£aQL 3L IguLEw: of 2L6 tc:.SO irmflzcs gull h"\12 a n. in
annua soil ta ; [ith? of more than 470 F.

EFEIEESF CaLhrn soils CC :snly occur in relatively small dcpres&*onnl are-
within till plaixz, torafincr, eke plains fin? outwaci pla’ns. The average

rach {a size oi thtce afiil areas is frog about 10 to 100 acres. Slopes

are 103; Lfiom 7 p;?:cnt. 1h: g1ovwa mater caLLyinr nincrdln from the sun—
rovnfling Lp3r J, influcnhcs th; compacition of the organic deposit. The
climate is }m¢mhi CGntimnntal. The nmxnazquUhl precipitation r: {fins from
about 25 to 35 1“” no.

’;§1152Lp2:[_[ff“df 71:” l_f§i:‘F': 3310\rW 2"* thfii Crnhlfiti7ig CW4~03AIC_JV amid Iiifléz

-1. “‘7-‘ )f‘f\"1'. (1*I-4-14.‘;~‘,1V ...;YV'r‘Ig-"l c 4‘! 311-3. 1- rv-r_‘ (\w r. Txy fi‘rfic. ‘r.;' 'A xi '—.' -‘ r.
01. VC-] Pnr’u"u.J s :C-pl.x-k'. 11. lz—uLa. s O—L_._.._' ‘6-»».C~11 LL C "“ 'I’WJ C.J-JO~.‘_C --L 1-.- (‘ L‘i
,1. ,, . W. ‘ 1
CugCJ of tuQ va.
C I C r
DraJM°Ft (”J F“ ‘Wslltc: V’r" pCOLJy UriI1;C; Surfiecc rUfiOfL in paupgd.
..-“... ._ .-_‘_‘_-_..., .._,..‘_ - - -‘- - .- _ V,-d_-

)A“ 1‘: < - r. . 7 - .. ,.- . --....‘1 ' . - v .-\ --.. V- , , _ 1,
Iu;.11:€‘3L-‘J.l._'.,.L." Jr. 1‘1)..';-L'u,C LU 1.-(R.(_I"l.,1|-C].' Ln; dd 1H thkj OLSJT;J,C IJULLlOn 8;}:“1 I;O‘n~'

L. . ,‘ _‘” ‘- \.,' -A,- .» Av ,- .
t0 moficrnnuly Sjwj i“ LHC Mlhilhl Sfljp.xfiibi.

v 1 ~v . '\ : ‘ -" O 1 - a
,— — . n ~ H - u -— — / ,-~ O ‘ - »‘ 1
URI: (113 \L ‘ I" ' ‘ wt- 0' LL~- -' f)’ _'. kn; .L'l LKJ‘E- LLJ. \LU"U -LC‘L' thJ
1 'A ._ V 3‘ w '4 7 1.1-, ‘1- r 1 ' j ' 1‘ a , n q A r
$1-: Q Cu \ 9 (1' } ‘ . , l J 1 37-‘7 ) €-‘ 3 k ‘1', < - ‘ -_ L 1'_ I a 12. L( 7
-~,.— A..- 4 ‘ ,, " \- ‘ f, 7- -‘ - '. ~
aLL'C.‘ L ' \ (Alnj-‘il u L ; (‘ g' L, L‘ ,‘-k' J Li‘. 1" Al" L.

:4.
U)

Dix firJF"iif ' f ,‘ }"s*‘“1 It; Eh w.« 3 I ‘.’. a] 1 {z-' t a 2” 1 ‘nf'ixg
..- 0...... _ __,.__ - w.“ A LL 1
Hichigan. Po;cfi%lf nDIL?-in H'Lur29;35 1~.ihiln V} awn {A u 3 Up>or
Elv:}\1fi1. 11 ‘ SC‘ 3 is (A: s“ 11] 01.: 1'.

.§§li312:lmllff’fifT"—;:3 17;;fg: La {*C":ut;‘, 3'3 :11}; _.; J§?5??. f‘:--'« ; c»? 11:1 :
vill“"fl in LTP7 ? CF: Afi',2"'.f; g.

i§933;:j';_: 311;. C'\1I z- <3\_-* 7;~L 'rvw is: L? 6* £.i1 L at T;..;'1 t(‘ (1:j'51 , L;;,. 1271
in Itich {4:1 r3513; t?‘:13:r SQHSLL51(Tr c}:‘fiplf1: 1t1.11 (S:u1 } -1 J£N3C).

{U

..°-‘..° -- -, A , ..Hs.‘ - 1. .J. him 1 ,. 1w h
dog-Cl .Li’LJ 01‘. 1;) b: 3 J. (L1 9 5‘ LJJL]. .1 J-‘-.‘.“i otnquY 3.111 LiviLci r3 ‘1‘} b1!_(“.L-JS£‘
* “ \‘. ' ‘ .J " 1 -’ 1 ‘ r ‘ ‘w‘ v—. . 11 r - -- ‘11'|"\'1=-“ ’ ‘ “‘ ,- ‘r " m
811’. a ICJ'F'H 0L 17.9L.(1;.,;__ , c“. 'AL,:\JC‘-’_'EA_-._§ Tuck‘i‘vu L11;~,‘2.L_‘1}_\I-1’L_ Lizc 81..-;(2 ab
,. V ,. 1 ... .1 ..1 m - .o .‘ ,3. , n- , ,1“ ..- 1 ‘ .1\ .- _..1_ 1 .- ,. W .
Ccith by Lily, v.“.’c--L]‘ M] Q 0 - .1C.‘ .L‘I'LL‘JC Ju‘QLG‘.’ c .. '.. p11! 111 muLu Su J. 1 SU‘! VL'y I‘CpOl‘Lf-S c

1‘ .‘ .... ...‘.‘~ ... .-.--,.‘ \ ‘ . Mr. ’.

lne Cnflhlo FQJJUL 12$ pL'»Jovwly Lhdduu
. a 11_ _- . ‘

Posed organi vrchgcn 0:11. 0 flow 1

J—

uudcrmain by loemy n?;eri

.
U063 prxnn,

from Lin

pH. 7.0 to 8.3 in

tixcd

A!
[I
U‘
‘N
k'.
4

also unfailain by locuy pd crjgl LHL COHEiflcxcw L0 hi‘c CISLflrC w»
derived privarily from nflrsh vcgeirtion (re'fls and 906398). Pa1mq
as }anirq; dCflfclrgxgd Ixjirrfl‘fil" Titan I ;”,:uiwmss n*‘i(u:fi:3£ {H16 T- hin10d
as having d;vclop;$ prihnrily frc. mo~£y f}1;r. Th" dfirfer.:e
likIF to brjggg out 3:: 3031 (h; Tv; 1 frniitmaod; L teri:]x: 92(15

.r 1 ‘I‘ ‘ q _ ‘ _- 11‘A 1 ' __o~ l1
{SiciC‘Q (LL 51:111( LL: I; 1(af_n;»1 tt'»:1 t11;: 1-1:1u
Uf'lfiff’ll‘wii‘n. PA 1':

- ,.. .3 .151 ." ».-~<-
IECUJILL _.‘:1L;]_Q {lb-g- b.

well dOCO-n—~

to 110 in Lbs

'v
...—g.

 

4 n.
a u A
. l‘ x . .
00.] . . ...
( .
.
1. , 4. . r. n .J :1
. I.
:1. .. ,_ v1
1\.. ... n‘ o . 1, u g.-
. . . . .
. . . ..1 .
.
c . .
4 . m .1 . .
.. .L . .
1 .I ( _ I
'4‘ u ‘ . \‘l
1.
1 n .y~
“ . . . k L)
..\ Ix. . 1‘
I . . , p .I
n. a .. f k . . a
1 .... a r) ‘5 .L
a .. I... . . w .
rtv ... . . ‘. 1|;
- l. .
.1” M a, I . . ‘
. \ a. my . ... 1 . J
‘1 . 1;. I.q
.0... n. . .. . 1 1 . .t - w
. a :
byk «1!: 57
x: y 7 .
n I
r. . 1 ..l . . c r ‘1.
. v i
r.” .1. y \A I
1.“ 1 . \ -
.1. ll. . 7.... q._ r... .1;
. . . In
. . \ fl , L V -
1 1 u - ..-.“ o
S ..|.. . re. . 7:. as!
. . 4 n . c r
0 .. r . 1. d

1
c 0 l
. . r v I. . 0.
~
, . . 1 . n. l. . r ,
.I q ,
vs, a . ‘ '1 1 !\ v C . -. 1
\a a [I] c .- .1
.1. 1 ‘ I v.
.3. f . .,. , I ( {Iv I
~ 1 ' . I :A
o\ . ('1 v 10 . ..\.
. k a I . 1.
r.\ , I. 1 . r \ I."
. .. . ..1. A /.\
.. . . . - . 4
. ... 4 ‘ 1 q .. _ .
. . n — It . \ L
Q . . . . t .
2 . / _ ,
. r. . . I n. .. . a

‘ I I I
l.‘ we .. 1 1| — .4 . \
. . !
9 ‘ . a, V v .
u'A a <
.1; .1A — .. f, 2 ’.
. . . .. _ 1 u ,
. _ \ _ 1 . I
. : . . _. . .2.» v J _ .
. A I 11.. 1 p .
r ‘ . I." Q 1.

- ‘..3 »\
\JL'A.‘

(

.—.w.

5

,—
3‘.

 

Cr

 

C‘

'5

C .
L‘.

— ‘
_'J

P:

 

fr.

 

\‘6"

‘-.,‘

C».'.

P1?

.. f ,. ,
.‘_\.‘-F‘:

V I F
-. *‘.C L.

‘o

I

.E

’n

1\

<7.

i
9
‘

13...-..

_. . ......‘

 

l
1 V-l
‘ J

.....I. .
'vl -- 'l-u
.. .
. . .‘1
a},¥ Ir,‘.
. a O. k.
1.. ...
Au fi..
:3.’ T.“
4 ..
‘ ~ 1.5
d . n
vi a h
.7.
_ ..L
L
V
.4 . J
K . A
,. . fl .
n... . .
.3.
. ‘
v ‘., I;
.
. .
Ar»
.7:
‘ ,
. .
4 .
. .x
. . . _
. ,4“
_.~ .v
a. .
.- .
/
I I,
.,
«f.
< ,J.
I, r .
1. . ..L
A.
, . M.
_ ._ L
a . .
. ,.
as»
.
L .1,
o
.l
. .
. ... .
. .
a .
..f

2

1
v ”M
Lb“,

E.--
t‘

 

 

-5131 £14-.

’3

U;

‘A
.—

Y“
.4.

t1

 

.
T”
..o.

1:.
_.

.1.
r.

p

c... A. _

~ .

. . fl
.- .

. n
I. V
. .

. _ .

p

. _
l. o —
1.-

r

... .

 

 

T
. J
_.,
1
.5
.nr
a. .
. ‘
(IA.

w L
.
.1”
11L
; .—

c.
f.

U
.K

r.
.‘ ....

o

_

_

A
a ,

a‘

o
n

,

L
1|
‘
«L
n.
AV

4
.

u
a. A
. .
. x.
0!.-

«1..
,..
.
p.
.x
_-
.
.r..
.
1 ‘
o.
_
.
I,“
.
ml
1’.
—

 

- .4

17'
,’ m

C\

 

r
n
f
...
v

a
i

I‘ 7:21.

 

——-_—--—-.H

 

I
..
.A
1“
0
v..
I;
,.
L
.-t
..—
. .
O. I
.,.
‘
...J
J‘
. J
a!“
o .
..
'
_
.—
x,
.P.
2,.
.&
...
-s(
o..—
._
’L
L
r)
to
_
I
.
,
r p
7‘s"
.
‘J
u
w n

‘
n.
..a.
_
0..
...u
...

;

rL

...
\-
_
-.
.4

 

 

—

 

 

 

 

 

i

. _ .. .

I. V .V

. I 1:. I

p V II rI.

. r.. a _ I .

. III
... ”II ,I A. I. 0.3 _

., V
r . h a .I I I I o I»! .
...-J IV.- .I. .I _ I. -
~ . In
I. .- I . I r .. v.1
V . I . I . I

fit! PIN. ~I. n . ‘VJ .2 1.. u .

Q . I III I § I I —
. J I f, . I: I _ 1 I . . I .

.s \I I. x . . . . V. ..

I n . I . _ . Iv
. V I . .
r. , ~ .. I. . ,. . F g
III II. .I _. , a. I _ .. I. . V .
v- . .
I O a .
. .. .. . L _ . L I
I ’ u I a
l..(\ HI. I o I ... I. . I w

.' h T I. C.’ I . .VI’ _\

. . I I .

.. 1 .. VI. I . I l

I (t . Cl .
I ..II/ . . _
.... o. . \ a .I I V
. t I! .
~ ~. f I .. ‘I QHI. ..r I . I, _ J
. .1 II I . .I . I .J I w. ... a .
.I‘ _ II! I L . ! I .
I 1. I A
~ I..- rIJ . .I . Pt. . ~ I. _ .
I I I . . I
\ . J . w I. _ \ \..
I ,s . . .J .
... I- . , _ .). 7. . I _
I N I _
r. ... . . ... I. I \II. I. ,
. v I I .
_ . u .l _ _ at . .
r. .. ..l. . I II. .. Z I. V .
. ... /u\ I V . . I I I .IOr "I ) . I
I I .
‘ . . I . I _ . V. . I . .
..II. I, n .. r.- .1 1. .IV - I. (.x ~
. II . II
._ .. L .. V V C . _ ,
I I . I II . I. .

. I. . : . I ... I, u m . 9 v.

. 4 . .
I. I It. .. .II. II I . . .
V r .
.I . II. . .. V. a . .J
II !. . I . I
.V . I I, 3 \_ L s... . . V I 1 ll ... {It I 1
. I : ..I I. ... v . . \I. .
I o . I

. _ I .3. . . u I I..

I . . . J r C I. n. . .I. I. . I 0 r V

. I I i . . I V. .
I .f I. . . .. . ,V c. I , I. I

, V. ...., . V F \I. I _
u v I I \I I \ V 3
I. . . I. V - I -. Ln. .I — AV \ l . I
. I . I \ «I
. .. . .V . 3,- L .. .-c .
, I._ . I . . I ... “I. i: .

.I. V. I .. HI ,. \l: .L . ... .

.. ..f\ .1 . , I ... . V

a . O A

. . . . .. . .
. I. I. q _ _ V I . .I . I - . k
I I .C _ I ‘ u I . ‘ u‘;
.. . I. . _ s . ._ q . r. . . 4 .k _ C .
. I t ‘
l.. .l . . I .I I w I
- .I . III. I
.\ a 1 . .. I, . .l . ( J . I .I : . . .
. I I ’ \
AI r . . . . 2 fl . I . I I.
V . V \_ J v .
r; ...I . . \ 1 J . I
I. II, III . I
a) \I. . I I n r . . . _ .I I IL
. , I. _ . I . I V I/.. . _ _ I I I r _
. I p 1 I. . A I .2 . V \ L
._ _ I V I .
f at. .HL h .... fI .... .I» . . . . r
. . v-” . f!— I... V. ... “s 5 I.
. I I. I I .. , ..
I . . I: . . o, ”I o I I 0.. A ~ - r I
. . I. . .I I . .
r\. I . ‘ . II. I.II. . . I. — V J .
I . o .I . 1 Q . .
I .
. I g . n5 v. ._ I ._

t I I I 2;. .14. I. r\ II. c o r\ . II. IL I (I
I v I . I I. I O I I
I .T. -J . l. . J . .

..I .I ‘ III V.I . _
. I I0: I. . u r a I a I (a . I nL , .
o _ .

II. \III I \\ l V L . . rxv ..L . . 0 .
. . . . I. .. I. I V . .

. V . II. I . . a I g I, . . . . . .

. I. II. ... . . ..l .V.
. 0.. .4 VIL /. ,1. r :I II.- I. l . (t. .
«I I.\ .| , I . I
g . rr. YDIA ? I/s ..IIA l.\ r; ( IL 4 I
h 7 ¢ I
_ u .
h . _
L . wit.
a 1 I!

\'V
til

t'r
4‘,‘

I

v .-
. V In;
.
L
.. ...J
.4 ‘IF
.1; - t
,1
I.
.i, p-
vtl . F0...
ow~
'4 . .
7x.
.A
A».
,
u
- I.
. u 9
7.
s
.‘
V.
VI C
.r\
II_
I 4.
.
.,
n.
; T
V ...:
_
.. I
a
w‘
k
v,
. .
.
In!
, .
.
x .
V
.
. ., .l
.h ...

.
.
..x
u
I _
.1-
.
.... .u
' i
‘\
3
it ‘
x
y
A ,
1. . . .
r, . .
. _
1 ,
. . ....
. . L

.. L

1“ w”:
L..--..

. k‘
u.

A1u—.
ta...'... ,

(A
A,“

rn"
i‘

 

-A

y.
(

x

f
Y\
I:
_
\l.
f
...
. ,
..
.
T
3 _
.1
'(,
~--
.I..
(x.

f.»

 

. a
_.
f...»
w
9A.;
3
i .
\.

fl‘
.
._
.
..
.L.
w.
I
O.
.
...
..1.
m‘
_
..
7.
“1-
.
1
.
.
7~
‘
Iv,
.
_
_
.
,.
._
L.
o-»
..
r.
u“
..
\II.

e

 

V(.
r
.
r‘
.1.
u.
.v.
,m

. ~_-_

 

 

a A
.
r‘.
. ...
r:
...

r.
1 L«« h.

.7 r“

I

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

V .
V V V . y V 0 V) . . “I. V
. {I v V \.
Q — \ r _
. V . . V. . w . . V
. J .
V ., V V. .1 V a V V .V V v
n V 1 I V . V . .. .
. I . . .V
I II FVI v . V Q V. 5 VI . .
. I . . , V I) V
A V V ... . V
1 a a V .r .
. vIV V
. V ... V. . V AG . : V
., ... . .
V. -V u. n .1 . l .. n, . J .- ... .w. . .
.. . VV ‘ .
A . V. 1 .V — Q. V q n In. H. .o V a V
V, A.) . V V _ ”(J . ) LIV V v . V A
. . V .
_ . {.\ V . V- . r V _ .\ (V .4: .
u . Q 1 A V V V . .-
. . . _ 0‘. ...
. f . a .
V . _ . h V a . V n J ..J V . A
V . . V . V a- A
.. L ... . (.11 ~14. .IL . V V V V a u x
. V V _ 01
V V. V . V . .. . .
.V . .V V 1 . . . :1..V .V
. . . .V . u ‘ . o. . 1 . . r n .1
I . n
I l 4 .
1 A 1A. .... .4.» V... . f. a. V .V V .
.-.. . . V .
. ( V V .,_ V V .... 3 ... V ‘L . .
. V . L I: IV . v u 0 .ll 1» l
. . V r 1 V V n . V V ....
V all. . V 9 x. v V o a (K can
w ‘ n O I V I
V . if ..t a. n . .. V .1 «W. .
V , V . . I\ ._ V , Q-
n V O.V .5 On V 1 . V . . c \ nu . [14 r V -
4 V V . V . _ I . V V V V .V
.1 . . .\ n o .. .
V.“ -\ {A \J ...l r \. fl \ . 1 e, V . VV. (\ .
V V . . V
V . .... “.... r .n A . .V V (k .r . y r
. . r V. .
.. V V. V
V. _ . V\. .,-V . r.— “ V q
. .l. . ... . 14 V. I
I I
_ V . V r . . V V... . ... . V- . V. .V V
.. . . V A V
.. _ A V m A l
I x . a V . VV ~ . .
. . . . o V a; V _ . . _ V A V . V
» .l \\ I . I V .I» _ .. C. V . V x .
x V V 1 V ,V _. _. . . . ... r... .. .V V.
‘ - . ~ V A _ V.
V . . {A V V . ..L c . . . V r\ A .1. . V . V-
a V . . vV . V I . 1V P. V . V
V r.. a V 1.. n V I 1 V V IV . rV
V w \l t .V V _ V V
I . o .r .a' I a O V ...” r V R. I \ .
. . . I
V _ . a . . V
c 01‘ \. J AV. .. u I. a. I II . V V
. . . - . V . . . . .
V ,V .V. 0 V \ . Ia . .V V. C .3. . n. -V V V . _
. . V. V
V V V. . _ V V . . w. V. . V .qV
. .v . _ . n V V 1.4: .
v y . . _ V, 1 V . c r. a. L . u .
v a V. I. 1.. V . ‘ .. «V r A...— l p. s
. . . .l
. I V V .l . V
V . .- A . . a V. . V . rV
. ... 7. .V . V i ..V _ .
. V. V . V V -.V . V . . V.
V V V . 1. V:
_ u _ _ \ V r:
. I . ._ . rV\ FL . V _ V. I .. .. h‘
_ ‘ . ‘
V v V / \ VV 4. . p . .\. v . A
1 . II v
r. a . D n V f In .
. t .5 ...V . V rs A ...; .I... V ., V. . . — .V ’. r . x
V . \ I \ V .
rd V ’~ g . V ..\. . 1 —
. ., . x -
VV V J V V. 1 V v . . V V . V, _ V \ . . V .
. V: . . . . V
V _ VV V . . .. . . D a . . F: V . .V
a . Al V V A . a .. v V I l\ V . IV . .V .41 b 9 V. .A
. . 0.. V . V . V
V .V V V.“ 1,. C .r. V. .1 rVr. V . 1.V .
V . V. _ . . 4
V . V .7 V —. . V a V . V
l V. I. \\ V A a. V 2
1 V. T. ...v 4 . V V all . . v. t 3 .14 V o
. .
u u . A ... .
. . ... V: 1].. 1 v. V. .
V. IV .. V . - 1 u. o . V . A _ u . (L V V
. V . vl . f: _ V . V ;
.. . V V V V
V 0 V 1, V -.. V. V V fifk .. V
v _ J . < V _ .
w A. .. u. V, V- . J . r; V . . ‘ V. . . ..
' V . - . u I. .‘v ‘
.\I., . V v V . __ . s L. V n . V q u . ‘V
. . 0. o v}. c. ‘ . 1r. _ F. . I . H . .
I V: ... «V. V V V. V J L n ..L L . .. . V . -
. _ . . . F .. x
V o _. ~ —. 1-. _ fl . q a I
. ‘0 r u ‘ V . ' l . V . .C .. C V r
I .\ . _ p V .V I n! .. a a .- 4 p r:_ C... . 1 . .. r; V .
t .. . V V I I .3.
V r-» . V V. V . V
. V V .. V 4 _ V . z _
. . (L Io.\ ..V . 1.. V . V V c... . V. . V I. .
,. 1 VV! . . 4 o r . V V. A ... J .V ‘H V 1 . .
Al.. V “Vi. ... In .t. TIV or. .. AA \I.. .n V. l. .I:.
V I c \ V .V-
V ._ u.u V . t. .V V g n V V .
I K ‘ m V . . I: 5 V A M V . .. V V. w “I
V .x . . V VI V . V . . .
V . . IV - | 1...] .L s a f .J .l V . . ..x . . V _V
V. u s
V . . V . . V. .
V‘ .. V w 1 (I. Tu rx E I. .T... 7. . .V...V .1 V . rk _ r.
l I .
\. t V . s ‘ V .t ‘1.
. H V. ,V .V .V V
V A
.. V) i /
. W... 1+. L m 1'. I v. V
.
V o V . H .
n I I \ ‘. .’ 1 ’ V
_ Fl C r . r V
V V 1% r rd
C V 1 .M a
. I\ q . V. . .
. V. V
l—..“ V m u
. . V V. g
V
.-L. V V A. _ V . .

 

b(\

 

 

 

 

-
‘1.
.-.
.-
.
P. v
..-
r.
ll—
.4
.
_.
_ y
F,
‘
\.
_
_.
O
.

' 1.1177";

,-
L'

It

 

 

C.

L‘.

 

rlJ

 

/.
. .
F..
\
f;
a.
.-
I
u L
I.— ~
.\ .
C\\
.|
..L
.s .....,

.
...
T.

.
.\
r-
x
. .
I,
.2.
0| .,
z\
, ‘—
. .
.—
....
V.
s.
x,_
Y

‘\

a.
.

..

‘. p
.

a ,
_

x,

. ,.
A

‘ .,

OK
#4

.-fl
M .

:..
7|...

7 , v.1.
‘
t
.
v . ._
n u
. . q .
. 1‘
1 V
7 .
V
-
L
n.
_. ‘
Fx
:al.
.
. . :
.l... 4 .
‘ _
... .
_ .
v I n
.
| _
a “ x

'.|
..
1
.U
x
r
’ _ .
_
.\
.
.
_
j.
. A r:
.u
a u]
.l u .
1r... .
.
1.. _
w
.
..
r
. ,I
‘ d 1“.
1.
a at
_
.
~ ,\
..
. .
..
.. .r.
\L
a V
~
3‘
,.
...M
J
v .. .
JO.
\

v
~
‘
.
.
.
.3
,a
‘
.
1 .
.
_
.
./
.V
i
V
.|
...L
79!
.r
H‘
,
1|,
-
.,
a,
v

 

A .

S.

\\l

.
{ .
. x
... s
«L
...A,
_.

\I[

.r .
q. ..
. .
~ ~

f
a. .
1.,

FL

N
.

 

 

,.
(-.

(4

xx
71
v V
V. .
..I
rh-

..
1L
....
..‘
,.
1Q~
/
w,A
-

° .
. .
. a s
1..
«y ..
.t.
. .
m;
‘.
.
. .
_,
J
.h
_
11.
.
v.
a
‘
. :
o -
.-
PI‘VN
o

.,..-—

.
VJ
...
1‘.
"I:
o
u.
_
V.-
.3
t

u...

(I
)k'

l.

.1.
N1

,\
Q0)

. (3
\'o.)

.‘L (15‘.

a.“
.VV
...
~
,L
a...

VI;
7
.Il.
. .
. .
.....

a‘
_
J

,
_.

'l' 1

.6‘

9» J
k, -'

~ - rr r~
SUI. JP»;

1

10.-

wt.

r.
L.

13/“

l

a: {--
- \J ‘—

.0
'- :2 J I

t) '

C

 

1. .
I-
I
,
. ¢
.
‘ .
.
a \
.
9L.
..
f
I -
1|)
«-
.
1
.
V.

F

.. ..
.. .
.1.»
..L

r/.
1J

.1.
. .
.1

TL

«I;

.Pa‘

ill

-0 . -..

L

A],

ufi‘w

 

 
 

\4

Ir

1.x

 

'v

...:

L) C I: 7.

.ypb

LJ‘

(1

xv.

.,
x .
.
.o
. . r
.
l .
.
‘ x
C.
. . .
,. ...
. J
_ .
in. ~ . n.
V ' 0‘
r .-.
1 ‘B
. .
.IC. 7
a.
. x.

.. C nl
. Our
‘L
‘.
, . V»;
1
_ flu
x.
.y Y.
1‘ 1..
._
.
,... .lJ
... ....
I ‘I.
.‘ .
_
L . .
.-
L
‘ b
\| «
r‘,
\I V,
w
A b
« r.
_ 49
.. r
V
.x
.
x
A .
v w
. ‘
, .
w ‘
. v.
u- I;
.
( 1 .
a ..
’..
,_
.
a n
I. ,
\ x
\. ...
.
a 1 J
‘ ..
. ...}.
a.» 5
a}.
1110 n s
A
| {A
‘
. . 0..
A
7|:
it L

a
'-
1- w

A
Ll

.-s.

“3*: L .

 

I-
..

 

 

 

 

f‘f

.
J
.
I

 
 

L
._.t

 

f1:

0

 

 

 

 

 

'.

.~ .
r .
9 .
.x y.

w.
w
4!.
I4
I
s y
7 t.
.
_ , .. s
is .
r\ .K
‘.
‘ . x
—A\ -
. r
14.. ”I
at.
. u
a
I .
Q... N
1 .
Y...
.
1 ‘
s
‘
VI
A _
t \
L ,
1}
‘ _

IL

(ck . .
«.
7;.
r
.‘s. ~.
.I\
~
‘ .
.1.
..
. 1 .

C V

v ‘_
u‘v

‘1.

. .

.. , .

_.¢ _
Q

A.)

_ S

n
.) .
1i

:. .

). w

I o 1‘

7..|

r1.

1‘\
l

L

r.

I‘-

‘-,.

fi-- r‘
‘A-

1

p C- L; -

a1
..
OF'.
.I.
. ..
_
...,
. ,
. . .
i
..K 1
r1 5

U
. a
2... n...
l— I.
r I...
y-.. .-..
C ..sL
U
a.l. ‘..

1.. _., ,_

...»

qrw .H .V

,L r
1.L

‘Ib
.VI.
-, — 51.
fl.
‘ .
\I.
1 I.
....I l..
I». ...
(L a .
.1»
WI
. a
1»
a
. Q.
. ..
:L
a- _
u . 1
It \‘A
.! ..,
..ol. 0,.
... .w
‘
171 r\
c J
i.
I
\1. \
I 11
r . I

n; (
o5"
Cu
1:2, .r
FJ an
X!

‘ a

\
4k

')

,.
\

0‘
u x
r. ¢
‘1.
.
a.
VIA

C

1‘] lll.|.ll:l. ‘II III" I

 

 

 

 

\
«
|
.
I
4
,.

a ‘1 An , \
,.¢L I . ‘. m. . 4. .
.. o a
1.2. . . r. r... o . r
I .. .. . I .
L T, A x at .1 J . -_ \ (J . o ..
.I . u u. I . . _. . I,
I. ._ 1.. IA PIA . o . .I I. A _ . .._
1. ‘ I. _ I _ \I. 1
‘0 n; . VII. ‘L .. I a ., , _ It I
. I .. I ~ I
L .. «L .C 1.- , . . .... .. r , L a... .
-.. I. .-. .. 1 . . _, , : V D .
r . r.\ . .-. . (I ‘1; I. ‘ I .. .
I ... a. . .I . . , I . . , _
Pk .I . CL ; ql~ Y. r: r I . I \ . l. . I.
‘ l I T .
u . . .. 3‘, (1 (a 9 1",. . . .
. .... . . 5
: .... A . ,_ n s u .1. . .
I.“ . I ‘ . I I .. r., v _ x Q I
F - rt v . I 1 a 1L! . I. — . .
I. , . I . . I. . . ‘
..I. V VI . . . 0 o! . (IL 2. 1 \ C
H.. m. ... ”.... ... ...... 4. v . V T. . o- .- ._
I 1 .. \4 . 0 I . ; I r
, (I I ._ 1 . L ._ r. n... .r. . \v I _ ..
_ v o I. .I H'. u I ‘ I 1‘ q. r I
I r 7L ‘3!» ’ L I! . . I . I. . II:
, , . ~ 1. ‘I .
I 3 . . I.I . ‘I' O. . 1 1. ~ . ( ‘ . r v
. .. ~.. .4 . ) . v n f
'I A n‘. 17.4 r| ‘1 0‘. I. l .\ I. - A-\ ...r. n
.\ . _ 4 I .
; . ab .1. I: .q _ .II. ., L .. - T
. . f .. .. . ... . . n. .-
I. , .. fi . , \( - I 1 u . . r 4 I
n y 3. , C .I, \ n... a. ..-. . . . . .. .
. u . 1.. . ‘I . I w ...
K. . I. . 5 . L . - I I
.. _. n“ .u o.” o”. .II. .. I .. .... 3;
fi _
\V .I .. . u! . ‘
. I. .2 L I r (4 . . 1 r. u a. V u r.
. . - . . a i u _I.
III» » 4 . . ‘I/ t 4‘ ’1 g I, L .
. _
. a) A. . .. \ 1 an. fl 0 . I.
I II .I r . I, . a
_ u . x 7 k f “L m‘. I. . r s V f . .
. , - Al. ‘
. IwI. ...v 4.1.. fill. «Or A a v . , . .-.
,.. I- to. .,. - r .. I . I: ‘ .
r . a L A . .l . s, I . n .\ ~
.. 4 ... .. WI“ 9 . 1.. .I L . (s
. 1 . , . : (J ..v I A 1 . , . .
I J. A. 1 . . I ‘
V. C . r. v\. . l .
. I I .‘1. IL , . . — . ,_. I .
. . .... 1 I I . «I . . q .
.I L . 7.. t .. . ... L p r. .. I .I
.x. .... b
rIJ II. ‘ .. O 7 A «II . ' . P . .
I .1 ~ , , i, . I ,
v . L I 7r: 1 . _ . . .I _ V , 1.
_ . . I I.
4 .1.. 1n.» a . I r: k . _ . , I r
c. . . O a.I. o I .I . . . t
, I r . . i 1 . .II . I . . I
. . . I -. 'c . .f 1, . J . . x L
i ‘ > A u _ 4 I .
~ ‘ v1 . rt I;- f\ r.. all» I . . , . , fl ‘
. . . _ . I .
:I * .» aL club ‘r 0‘ _ ‘ I i r , u .1
, .. I. . . w . I .
. ..l . tn . ..y a fit . x I v u
I I _ I. . . :
1.. , . I \ . . C. a . I J
. I I . . I
. . Q I . A a \ I I. .
- \ 4 . — . ’| , ‘ p 0 .
_ . ‘1 I . L . L . . . A . .
c . . II. I .I .
. _ . II. _ if» n I cl“ . .I (J m . I I, r... . t 'lv
_ i . . , V I g .
_ I... .1 F. .. «k ‘IL .1 $1.. C. N , r.
, I . I .. ... . q. _
. fi 0 u u, . an JR (0 , . rut . _ rL _.
INA. I I .I. . v .I... 1.... I. F . . .4 A o I
....~ .. I . .1 n.6, a -_ ...... f; , . L . . ...... .. . .,
. , , . I «U .l. _ _ I . ,
. . . ‘ . . . . .
. I..\ Q P _ A . ..g .4. . ... .1. , r 95!.
I. . I _ I . v 1
. _ a . C ._ . r 5 e , . . . I
. . . . , C x... i; C ..e_. w .. -. L... .1.
,
V I _. 71 ‘ . ,I. ‘. V I
v I W 1 1,. .... .k/u . .u . Cb , w _ _. a. .
.. . . . , .. I ..L
nu.‘ _ _ . _ L ; ... . C .. Y\ I_ I. T.
v .. _ I ‘I i. . V _II_ ,
J x ....J . II. FL _ . . . . rk . . .
a .. . . . A . .... .(r .. u 1, V _ .
. a . . 0“ ~ . .
p 1. _ a. C . a I r ‘1 - ... x .
. _ .. A . .
. * . v. . .l. V L \I .I. . . o
. . I I . I ‘ .
‘ ) ,T a . f» .\ 11. L . ....
_ . . _ . o I. c . on: I.
‘ . a . . . A I I .l. .I I. J . _ I .I .- .
I . . I. _ . v, v . . w
. I L I, . L ; s l I, I _ L
p . . . . . . \. . A .
I I . u I.‘ .,. OI‘ I _ . a L 1 . w
‘ t . . 1 3 ~ I. I .
. . . . ..l n; .-I . . ¥ . 7‘ VI.
. . Q s . .
. A c . n( f r 1“ III r. t. - . _ .
‘ . ‘ I . I _ . I
f\| c. . . ~ «I. r .. H41 1 . . cl L _ rIIJ
I W. i .I 1 fl ,
a 11 1. I- ...: k a. 1. A f. r. ..,
I . . I T . II. .
C l L .L I . C ;
.. .I ‘ . N I I , . n a . 1.. II
. .. .. cm ; r ..J T. .. f _ - T 1. c
I I .Is ‘ I ‘ Y H. .I I .
... . a: I; 1'. r TIL .II, ‘ Ii I.\ F; . I
\J x. . ..., \
. L 14 . . f\. n .I
A
I. . . I . . ‘. . L .II . 1‘ I.
. .. 0 . r . P... .l t O n . _\ 10 A h .
. II. t |. 3.. a I 'i a u 1
1; a.-. ... _ A. ‘ Y; .... . . . _ I . P;
. . . ... .. I. ’ . I. I A. .
v . fx (. I. .w If . L 0‘. ’. II. 1‘
. ..
.

S“.

C ;
.1.

i

s i
am.
war
t5
ti ~ .
:Cn
{3
LC
fJI' _
v

c.

f

p

”L

i

(11”..

C‘ r. ,‘.
‘1‘... (-

L"

 

01v

1
_‘ .
a
‘
.
IL
mg
I —
e .
\
~
.V.
’
n o
.A
—
I

f\

 

 

~
\ I

 

IA;\

‘ .
.
‘-
...Cr
_
1
\._

Q
L .

.——

0:1?

'2

/

2

 

...

~,

W
-,

v-V
.»
\.
y.
1.

o-. -—.

.. ~1-

.
.It

"I

r- ,r' H
_o_) ""

I‘. f‘
l .1 J ""-

-‘_...

“:\

H ’2'?

 

.-

Ȣ

In.
r.-. , \
v. .

.)
1... T.
.. ...
.,L .\
.. .
Pi \
. .
.. ..
u. «a

o. L
a ..
.C c

I‘ II
n I: . .
A...‘ TA

. . A
r-
‘
r!\
L
... [L
T“ C

7.. I...
.
Iv . .
v ‘
....
.. x e
. .4 .
~ ‘
.L.
n
«k
llk
\l44
_. ._
v
r. ..H
L
1‘. ..l.
I "_
r .
.
(c

’L‘ 1.-)

(u

‘ ‘

VIA

‘1.

run

w],

.k‘

 

....

(“’11:

0 .

 

.1

 

\
t

b
.
r.
p. .
a!»
‘1
In.
.
I
r. v
o
I
.
. 4
c
I
“
~ 1

‘.
.

1";- r‘

I.

. .
.I r
l.
‘+.
.
.
a L.
.
. f
(n. n
1. s0
sIL f
1.
I,
. U
. .
.5
..
. .
.
.
cl v‘
.. ., .
r
.
. .
.
o
‘
1
o .I‘
1
x _
.
v
C .\
.
. x
A c A
...L .
.1
5‘
_
w
..
...K .a
V
IL
..
...
V...
_ .
K 4
‘ 0
.v
V.
.—
(.L x
.
fl . .
r
.‘
..
...)
o .
. ...
L “I
. .
.. f
i .
(
.4
.. .
.a
. . ~
. ,‘
. . .
.
K...
J
.
w. T...
r.” .g.
L.
~ . x,
. up!
1..
x.
o . I

»
/
cv
p
i
h
2
.
n
‘
v1
.
u
.
.
.
r—
.
r»
.
‘.
.l
r.

'-
_
c
.
D
o
‘1 .-
'\ _
w
. .
IL
.. _
(. .

(h

<9

'1

r
L

“Ch ; L17-

3’.

4 2

to

"~

(\
‘\

F‘ 7‘ p“\
\, -.“ \-'

1

k}

. f)

5

\4
II

Q»

. .1

O z

.4

T.
\
.(.

GI.

.
A}.

.
. .
\.
I.

.
..u
.

a
1

V
“\
..
...
r
...A

T
r.
.v‘.
v

.

1..
T.
.x

\

 

"Iv

O

.
e .
u
.
t. . Jr
. ’
.
1. .
.
a , .
. .
p . .
...
~
r I .\
a.
.
. .4 u
‘ .
.
0‘,
v
. .
o.
I
.4 a.
L: ‘ u
‘C ‘

. 6.
I; r.
. a
.,o ‘

I.
..
J.
...
n .
. .
. I .
n I
m
1 ‘.
.
. v. ‘
...
I.
,
n
C
. .
_
r.
..
...,
. .
..
. 1 A
7
n‘
. .
nCl: -
.v
- .
«r.
r -‘_
‘1.
w
‘3. .
f .

..L 5..

O .l
.

(x...

1

 

:3

O

.n‘

n,

1 ...

rk

 

.
.
A
.

;.--

C

:7

Cf

\

 

a.
s
r.
l...
.
.IJ
I
In
.
I.
a
.
v _
.
II
.
_
. .
\
.
.
.
.
_
~
V...

b~
n.—

1.
u.
. .
.2
..
...
I. a.
. .
I
. .
._ .-.
All).

Y
o...

. D

. ...
‘\ .I
1.,

(w. .
I. \,

..‘
\
rl
..

\

. 1.:
x. 0.\
I . ,K
1-.

u.

I. .

.. .

...

rut ..
v

1

x

...].

1‘

l

|,. .

s . A
I ‘
'

'A
.

1IJ .
n
. ..
U .
‘4
A I._
{k
v.
x
7 ._
\, .
1L
.
4 K
a! L
x
. v;
.1 S (‘J
0.3..
u . v
7‘. .\J

r

I

'\.‘~
I\.-'\’~

l\
.
.
V\
n. r
.u. fl.
.»‘. (
.
3
.. r.
.. 1,
~
r r.
...
f

b
v
. «.4.
hi. 1
d It
.
1| .
..-.
n» .1.—
t.
\ 4
a J
‘ ‘
..
I. .1
r ~
‘ v.
... ..i.
I \J
. _
.K ‘ .
.
T. .
L.
4
p‘.
Vv‘ >'Yt.

.l
,.
...
(V I
I ~ —
. I
1| .
\u/ A
(It
0 C ;
\i
r»
\Ia
'- a A
_
I I:-
.J r .
x. u
(..k
u o
h/ r r.

1 ‘ 1|
.0 C
I T...
f f.

l) 0'? .

'u/
L1

 

(i‘f‘

 

..J
..

.‘
rf‘
n
‘.
.7
ll.
‘
V
.
w
.
‘ _
.
.
'
1
.
X .
.
Y.
.
.
o .
.
1
.
u.
A’

..l
’.n
v.
x‘
—‘
-
«I.
“C.
1.5.
s
n
.
.,~

.1:

:v‘

1.
It.

Q I.

IL

G
J.
N.
t

a-..

 

n0
.
~
Ix
.
O
....
. .
.. .
;
\l‘
r
I
Pl.
.1
n i
_ .

I

,.\, -

27,330

‘-I \\ |
L. ..1 x.-

1
u
1

”‘1‘

I
C'.

p
Q
‘1‘
v
‘I
. \\.
.i :.
..

' u \. ‘
u . 7

...!”

all. .

I... r1»
3 l
.r. . .
.UL

0..
.
.. .
p
I.
.4
..
.
TA
1
y
.
s...
.4
..
I .
a
.
v).
. I

1 t
.
.
..
I ~
..
x 1
It
0
.—
pl
...
...
. ..u
.-
. r
. I
.
.i
o u
_.
... .
rl.
r..
.
9
r. . .
N,
I
. .
1.
.
. .
O
l-(.
I. u .
h
, .
.
_.
r, .

 

 

...
. I x
. V/
. . .I
. ”1
r5
. ..
. .
. / .
.‘. .
. .ztv,
.I . IV.

V .
.-.
. ‘
..1
(
¢<
‘.
.
. ,
.
1"
‘Ir
. _
.
(-
ll
.I.
1.-..
»

 

 

 

 

p
.. .
.
.
. . .
r .
a
u
.
I
.
‘. v.
—
.
.~ 1..
. . .
I. .
. u
1
.
. .
. o
1.
¢
..
.\ . .
. .. u
:-
Is I
. .
. . r.
.
a . ..
.
_
. .
. . .
.
.. 2 .
a
..
,1. , ,.
.
... . .
. . .
\ .. _ .
7 . «
...A. .‘
c . . .
. y
. . .t
. X. 3 v. u .
I. II
II ll
.. .
n. ._
a

0‘
..
.
-
.r
.
x
u
N.
...-
.
...
\
r.

.J
...,
M.
_
r.

.
1a.
.
..
..

..
.u
I.
\\1 a
.. 4
r!

x'

V..

VI\

a

s
I.

v
n..\
.
u.
.

.
4‘

\
...:
.
a...
I 1.

 

 

L.‘_

~~~ r‘ r,

‘.

.10)
1 .
.7...
(s
-
1t...
...
\
.
:V
I
‘9.
'34
.-
u
‘
\
...
. .
L‘
.-.t 9‘
. \‘t
”L. r
n
.» <I'
I x
.L .
I,
u .
n1. .
1’.
1\ u,‘
I.\
... .
. .‘I
.\ IIK
...
..- ..L
. o .
.L ~J
rl.
. H. r)
.«I. .

\/

fx

'7.
1
~ I
. ..

c
1.
...}.
(

OI!_
7"L

.__kl

- r.
:1:

CO

:1

1.

a.‘ \—

C

..4

51.
4
1..
p.

_’_.-

."\
In.\.

i l

b..(:

1

t O

r
4
I

R 1'

..
....
‘1
41‘
1 I
fl.

*1
5.1

in

\— ,, '
lv

L

4A.!

 

\-
Ir

,. ‘w
I

L.

"-" ‘
x.

(3 r It

.‘(J

tm

 

..
,.\
‘I‘ - .
Y. r
5,. a;
a1) .0“
L.»
.V_ ”:1
7.
L
on \ 1
r( I .
. ‘1
I .
‘94 \1
.l. pl »
T-..
L..
.1...
a . ...
./_ I
. 5 v L
1“ al‘
p;
pr f. .
' IA ‘ g
. .,
. .. C‘
....1 .
fll\ 1 . r‘.
Q F..
C
1 ‘
0.1. I.“
'4 . .;
'—'A l -.
“(J x.
r). . H
a. __
I A. t
x) . ,
r. . .... . .
‘ . .
.ml v.u
..L (x
. . n.
IAI- Q
I. .. .
L- C I
. . .
’- ‘ . .
_ W.
.T ‘ .u
Cl. I
w... ! .V :L
n. M... ..y.
1 M .L
: .\..
r. L
F,,._ W 1. ...;
C H
s
.r.
Ti; .
1.. 1-
«LI 4..“
r...
3 A v C.
N
V; _ . ,
I.» . . \
, . ,
J- v s «I .
v I I. .
, .
V“ ‘ ‘
.x. 8.. W...
1 . C;
.1 o. J
... rw. “‘4.
F . Pr WI .
I.‘> ff:
t ,, . ._
.I. .
Y:
a. W . .
\ v J1.
.7.“ 1. . o o
r H L n
. \.
.1. ...L n
-. S I.
1‘. . -
.... 4_DV.
.‘Ir . .
V... AC .I
T

 

 

 

B

,wu

.~.-

.

~

..

,

L

...;
I

I.

. .
.‘ ,
I.\

a O .

.rg .
r r. \
a»! T.

1

VI ‘71
L .f. ...x
v a.»

_ a .
. rk
.
. _ onu
‘ a \ .
rx, .

.
"F—

R.

Q I
'—
. \ .k
...
7‘, F.»
1I.
IVI.
IL
I ..C
. ‘
1 ‘
nu .,
\. 4| k
Ifil. H.‘
I.
«1‘.
Fl.” ‘ ‘
..
.. LL.
....
, p n ,
- _ ..
. .
(C V
11. f
m It,
.
—
. _
.. .
_
3 7.].
Tu
’
. J
1 J r.
v 1:.
....
r. ..-.
f‘ .l"
.1
r.
‘1‘ ‘L
L. _

 

Es:

r1

{1'2

1i

i

a ‘
any .
.2 y r
. o
I \ r
. . 7
1... u . . p . c
C. 2, .. g. ._ k ....”
d. \b an]. n » o. _ . . «x; a)
«I! a] C n. .4 fl... 7: rs; a.._
Wt ‘L h. .I\ . a n H u
w t .1. 3.. C x . .. . ... 1. ..u _.l
.. . r... .Ur. .. \ A . .. 1 . ".... a...
I} I . 5| . . I u.
I ‘U a... fix. 0 .H Q / , I. I. I — v A r;
. a 7... L .. T. F. ,. C

 

. \4. . . . . < . I.
« . L.-. X, ..A . . _ . s vk
\ ‘ . 1 . I ..
m1. r—Il. IDA ,1 a. . . V . . ”is ~
I ~ g _ ‘1'; ‘0‘
K. v .- I
1.- a ‘ .p D l\
. ‘ ., \u‘
_, n . O I . I I. . .\\ u
\I. . .x. x . a
7‘ . . x y .1 J ; L , v . _
‘I‘ _\ A. w. 1 7 \D
r ¢ (5 r J .I . . . TIA
fl IyA \ . n ‘
I x ' . ...
,.. r... .. __ . . .. ‘ ....
a ..-. 1.4. m. u .. ... ”.1
J. Q‘ ; _ r x ..
D , . , . . .
r p . . , x _ or.
H . , ‘ ._ IN!
‘I_ t a . ‘. . .y .
. . .. . _
~; n. . . ‘ . . . o O a.
u. _ _ o .l
a . 1 . _ u. n
_ V V
. ‘ ¥ .-
‘ I u
f x . 0 a. c u
a .1. _ ‘ ~l\.L _ . . .I..
‘L . I k 5 j u I
Ya T: .l.\ ._ ,. _ .
_!l_ . , ur a . . .1 s. .t
.l. _,.J. r ‘ .. . .. . .. . . .
1 . n 4 fi — . r
I . IL fil ' q r a
_. .. . , . V _ _ / 1. . vlr
‘. .v fi . f. V I
. I . . .
. I. o m. ‘ x . . . _ ‘
. . ~It. . . ‘ . a . .
L . v. ‘I. a u.
Q \ r .x . . _ ~. .
.1, . f 07 I\ 0‘ . h v. .
A l‘ t l n, . \
.l‘ ...8 1r. I.s f . fir; z
c _ . n. 1 , . . \
/L\ at t . . .3 .J\
a A r; h. ..-,
v n . ‘A
y . 7‘ I\ . .
I _ . a, . n .
k k .. 1... U .u\ I. fly . . . .‘ fl
A‘ . 1 , ‘ 1 u. , y
. , L 1 ~ \ r. ‘ n L
x x L .. .. m . . a. . o u l
. . , u .
1 O F - _ . . .
. \ . ‘ \
~ q A. \ - C. r .
1 . . , .
C Y (L g . .
n o n . c .
r. r , 1 ..
J A A ‘
my ‘ . _ _ x I
C . . .Li. . . u ‘ 4 ...ya
- I V v
v v. u L 0.14 a . . f. . . . I .x
n... ..‘ _ fl! . ‘ :1 . , L .
1 .u H . a . . o . ...;
. 1 ‘ A
1‘. .1 : Ix. .u L ‘ . .
r I m 14.. \.‘4 IV . . u V
0 _ r. . F . C . . . - r , . . ,-N
. , I I: V. v I
f x. _. n. I\ . . i h
‘ .l‘ 0
ex r ‘ A, r; . \ , u . ‘
‘ ._ T . IO.
.1 .1 K ., “c f. .. .. - . . .. w ..L
A J _ ‘ .
. J . . . ..-; n. 4 . r . . . ..J
. . _ . .I.
L. 1.. _ s; V L 1.: .u _ _
\. ~ ‘I 1 a . J.
n\ I. _ _ C ~ r . u . ;\ “f.
...; .8 ” LC .. . r... 1 . f. . I A. C . ._
. A . A . .
I ”t . V . wt. N‘ _ . l .11
. . . .
C , _ n. C ..J . _ . . . . ..-.
‘1 u \ Q a . f .;\
(p ch .1 TL» 1 AJC f (8 ... . .— . Ow — cr I

A

‘l
'\

l

’x
\ K'
9
I
I

"am.

It
I

I a
y l. .Ik
- /.z
\ .v .I
n \l.
‘ n
n I.
.c p [I]:
_.-. ‘1 .
My

'3‘
‘ U

I
L."
'J

1 cont?

0
O
\

t} :9 8"»?

.79
0:.

'._ } ~/"\-<"": 1""
.,(_. 1.1 I... U..\.'_l
.

"s.

/
‘
J

of

i

' 1 ..
b -.L‘”

1r{--

E

U

k “a .'

I ’ I

-— c- i
\a

.. ‘-
I;—.’—'~~J—L\ [ L;
\1

A
La

OI
1‘~
..
3. ‘
Q. .
~. .
Yr.“
. .-
r .
. ..
s...
CINE.
—

- n.
J: v
_
y
r. ...
w L.

3 abou‘ 20

~ 7

‘ .FO’"
~ bl¥“-\a\

“nd p‘

f1: C‘ '

1

‘4. V;- .o..

O
" .

‘ ,

‘JQ/l) ‘

123? (10‘

_\
4’

038“

C11

4

\ .7

0‘
r~ "Jv
i 51.4.2

b.

‘ '~~,-.~.—'
J O

‘l -‘ .'—. I.‘

V. .‘vV.-~

I
\—

b

‘P‘.
‘ ‘____

-
l

r.» n
C»)

8"

"l

0.

-.~‘

. , 'l
-A. .L K, K-
1 f‘

')

"A

C'.

‘9
C.J

‘6

11C

ff
.HJ

11
I

l/"\
v x

L Q ..

“Q

r.
,

IIC

11:21-

- . I -- La. -' I -3 ., r‘ ‘, -. 2. ,.- . C ° .- . . 3 .. "u .3 1. .v .' V. 1‘ , 3.. AJ-’
Pr: ,"9 .on ( '.""_~r:L.g-"." :_._'_C, : 1.; _} (gr, ';,.‘L; Srfu-VIHF 5:. I)! cf‘x, r“. 'L‘I'C o L‘.) C" -~_,;1
, _ . . C- .n --. ., . .-.- _- .. . .-..... . __ . - .--L,
...... . .. .. --.—------ ..- --.... .. - -..... -
- ‘ .. - .'. ' _ " P 9 'V I I
O“ . . r - T,— ‘_ . _,. 1 V . L... , .. . ‘. - r -‘ ~. A - E . . ‘ f‘ — _‘ r. - — .‘ r‘. ~ .A - I“ ‘ - - no .
tC’ 1‘ J 1. .i- K- .1.‘ -- ‘- -~.-’ ..u}- .L - ...!l I \ _ ~-.' 11 K - 3(J -‘ I m1 _ .-‘ A‘s-J. .L'-\: C— V .«AJ C C v ' \' -x4-4‘~

n -‘._. .I.‘ .- .... ----, -. W4“ . z .‘ . fl .. .‘A, .‘~ _. ...-. ,3 . -
OJ. 'L-s...'.;' CC‘LIJJQJ. L‘~.‘CL~-‘-‘".; 1v (3‘4.-.‘».~._“t. L--...-7..:7.3r’ fill 1.3M \.'.~k‘....\,.‘.3 I.'.“~C':-'.'..L..".].) LT'C L: C'i‘

-l\ o r. I C _. _O _ Q fl f5_-- ‘ H
s~ ‘I’ ‘ " w. . - Iv" - , '- .. v r r - ' - - ~ P -.—-r‘
up to 5J 2 ,_- Vc; ; Cxa-u._k H‘~4. _ . C-V .V.‘/3 -r; C guv‘J. 3,; J
. 5 n v 0 9 O r. o 0‘ O i O I '
..C" -.., . ‘A:.. . “'ro , ._ ‘ ..‘. . . .‘ ,-.-2 . ”- ~ 1 . -.- - J ,.‘ I; . .’ ‘ . ‘. ...... “I. ‘.' .. ,.
‘uduu; LJ; ,. 1‘“. r._\,: v :‘x a ...... i:».i 2 c“: Ca~., Cu r 1_wwfl_u 241 c c>,J EwJCthtl

.._-. ..._- ‘ . .1 1 .1... K -.-._-,.‘~ ,3. _.... 4-”: . ,i- . _. ~._,___. -... 1 , _ __.‘.,_-
8.:1 f. ...‘,"..‘L'IJ..J. 3:) LO .LO DU LO 1....‘.\~.:T.-u C- 9:“; "J-.t.' ..I OCCLLS t‘tli'w.‘g;i3.15 L113 0 i . ..:;_LC

-1 1,5 - .. .... 3 °C ,. - -.C. v. ‘H f ““2 .. fl . C‘ .n .,- ,1
rkitl-..«.'\_L Egg-.1 P. C.La'~?«-'., 3.1'.'..l‘\.1\.'...-) C. LL ..J C'i Ink-4",, (05:21:, L SJ. .: ‘\-.l ‘1.) .L. 2 01" 3 EMU.

‘- u as- --., ---—- - w - ... . p v .
con rel accflgofi. I‘yxrs of sapric ag7/cr fl: ’3 I LCJSCl O;Cn£ D;lCJ i

.. . .. .,_..- .‘.-_ -...o ~~-- “V, An.‘ . ,n .-« - .......v ..v.. :- -‘ .-_ -VV
ti? 17..- w“ {‘1 CC-_.-,L.’..."L.. (L-.'_’,' 1‘...~.".'.:.,-. fl 0:. 4141".) '" 1:. C I.“.b‘.;l“_'_v"-.15 13.23". ,S 11’in

. v. v . . .. L. ‘bl

i-

- — a - O '. . ~ 9
Ii 5.5 to can tain 7.0 in 000:% C901 ; b: gVLr 1n 9043 ycdenz, lmygrn occur

15H' 3 11»; L‘:tt 3{¢ ta 57’ T. @a, nivf\c" uscr in C’ 1:J(u1 of E 3;:c 03

h; 30 3.L;riclt, Lu.; ;“ cc 1 LLCain 1’32 a Su,flC” i'tt 0: ll?‘”“ 8§5“”NW1
I’W‘C‘ 0 ”L0 6 ix--;‘ ‘3. 1115;. S “1:“ v c of {33219 C" 1‘“ 7.0 1 ‘i‘fl‘lf-IS is x J" to
LC"3-L? 3*.1; :“1 is p_\5 Clr‘dily "v=.14"“ ”53‘. Tie structovf 0; t2: ogg‘fiic
I‘W): 1r::® Cd? t?:: E FLAJffle: 8741 Lvnqu 'tirWV“ id 1‘;‘T. g. ml- {2‘1 11‘0111ifi; 5"‘“‘197

J

Plfii‘ . tlca“; formic Sit: Jfi'vv: er; I‘Jfi1T;. The color of 03: 11C“ 17:1;cn*

0? 533; T Tr; of 5, 5 Cr 6 rfid c7rg;i o;

1212
.

3 ~ 5.1 {1}"? 7,} t“ 33.“ -
.QEL“"iifnr.fj7€ii_i_§'fljé‘£52: 1C7}:Iffwfg’~uj_ L 3 '1331 Jr €11-11f v 55357:: ifiafljvi? -
Adri:d, C bhgu, Efi 31; G 9-er33, 14W“: Q, L r2;y nglc, PL1.3, {“3 8:1164u4.
Cat-TWO, Fig.7 3 {and L-' .031 1‘: gig: Ci“.1“'-'3.C 3.1131111. (A~ 71.691, 1?; 13123 (37"SLLZ'.'§.C 11"31-‘3102‘;
of th: co.tn01 sccticnc Pin .;1 521 ELT‘; P 1; a r;an rrhuzl soil tgur:;aturg
of Ij‘-.:-:':: tit". l~:-T° I“. it". 5.3:, I? i'TSC 1, I'm-7.11;." ":27 fix -.3 cells 19:53: er :‘.ii.t;.;:'ifz..7.
at & (7.2-pm of 3.6 to 5'3 inf-Z. 3.3. (gm. 1'."’.-'-:.‘ .2»; grit: I. =tc1u ac]. dc : 2:19:11; in the orgmic
part of “h: on frol 5231101, In LJCitica, 751193 soils hav: a L331 anuual 3311
'21 :rctur: of rose tfi u LT° 9. Rifle, Gficwzrcci cud 33‘1fl1n3 soils have
ddv;log;d in Ogggnlc rifle“iala L313 thin 51 inc.vu tnnpg.

o .L.L . ‘ . . rm.— - - .. .. .° " ,.., ..... .. .. ...
..~':w..-*.:' ;. .Lsc- C .71 12.0.3.3 own; -2...-
~fia‘.I—--.-»'. rh‘

\

'V‘ "

Cu

' r‘ - v" J—‘. -. -~. I '. ‘. " ".":’°\ .'
rug; MLCJLH tAll plaihn, ngyhn;

;. "

q
fl

lake 1135? {2% 01L? 3) plr*r” T}: 5143 of imuivjfiual hogs riygn frfi1 ELT11
enclo a; 69:“C‘3ifig3 of orly & ch LOSE» to bfigs of sevsral hururud acrcs. 810;:3
are 1;-3 thifi 2 vergext. B933 are ca”.0b1y o; the 107 UGO: tyre. TL: clima+e

is cool L31 h“ id. ?;: TCTJ {anusl prcc;37t:tice lLrgzs frog about 25 to 35
incL?n.

3:51.13: ‘F.1';-.‘E‘i:r.7-..‘:“ D331) Caz; 11:10 9 (4.1.2: L'? £3.61 8 2.1:: £".Z;1Cu.if-r.'1‘~_,5. with Sitcorgsh
inclufi: Czrln d If aid Liffi: 991190 flvgr-ic;, 3.: er. 0'; P10« 3 and Witfiack
soils use ; ogly 61‘3n'l . 16“; 2:45;: m ich tr? an an associetcs ngar

thn c5”: of $3: bog {mg as Incfir'zoxz vitl~a tiz 1“;;133 unit in ca“: arcesg
lgffi‘fmgvfffwj‘ ;‘:‘f7jtfi' cry Ijfi'ly 6r&i?tfl; afirf c: rUJQLf is Very $107

or Ir‘i-flo Tui ; tiler in tbe Of”'JiC ITfQTxfll is r7iér;+9 to 13;..Ct+1*
qupid.r1vi 1;;f.:1443 tc):.eiuxr”F€];' CICJ' in.iflvv 131+:rtfi- s ‘xrtictA‘ao
yfigwflfihyf;fj:ffii;§ I ayt av."3 the vsiisd or in b11'fle V~“,t;Lio~ w" p 1*trlly
tiyg zflxifyr, €4":-11, xi iit< (.ii'tf a.-1 t:- “1'2¢‘;, 1‘i*?2 EC :3 tri1“” n 1233, \jxif‘e lercfil,

(:3. 7.; £27.71 '3. 7'0

I3i r‘%n~?‘ anrf.' ~ '~v.3 *'- F ”2° [7;n~’}9 ~ ':R# ‘17.“. (a? I.'.C‘ 5.’2'T7 :‘113-'tl‘:- I ?c—in. .11; r-ia't (If
-..:li-... :‘ .--. “1 ‘ ‘1’ K. .. ‘ ‘3 ‘ _- 7-. e L L - _. k , - v A

Q

1

—- ".
.‘gyl

h.
5..
‘L
.
. .
...,_.
.
7.
.....V
Z...
Q
...r...
.
L
r.
..u
'7'.
..

. .
I

t A
'1”
c.l.
l.

I .r
/ .I
. . {3 I
.
~
.
,3 . r ..
I. t .
fl , 3.
a .l
f. v1.2
_
~ .. .
. «I
I
I ‘7; t ,
I 3, l
A C I v
I, 3 ,‘
. t
9‘ . .\
.- .
TI. 0 (I, z
x
.
urx
, It
_ ..Ilv»
» 1 .I l\
1 . ,
. . r , , r
. /
. x, x
/
3 . . /
//
. I . n
. . . r .
l , .
. . .
.,l- 11 .
l\
3L
a
N
\
4‘ ‘
r .l
. ,I ,
.. . .
,_

.I «s.
v .
r-
.
,L
7
.r
4.. ... ,
W1 o. _
u
r»
.3 L PD
.Iwm
(
\I
V‘V’ O
. .- 3!
_V. (by
I I!
r-
.’
, a;
. .
1..
.
‘
.u
0. ..
.. . .....
. .
V :IL
.
‘4.
.
\v v
.
V
~
. .
.
. .
n3
.
3 .
O. .
v .
t l
w
L.
0 7‘.
,
\‘I .
.. .
0" v
a
— . n

_ .
. . .
3 .‘k
.
, 3.
Fl , .
I
.J
..
, ‘

‘.,

0.4 .
u . _.
o ... "J
._ .ly
. \

~tL

. k C
v ‘
.. (3

.

.

‘Ik 'u‘§

fix. a}.
.

‘—

FL .A
V I .
'7‘. 4

. . .
, . v
.. 3
. .
‘. a .
.l... 0.
v 7 on
C V;
3, ,I ..
I 1 ~
... _ . n3. 7
. r
. a
‘ u. . . . ,
_x I
. . ~ . ,
. v
.
. _ , . .l
,
n ‘
w
l» ‘3
. a 1 a:
. .
_
A
‘ (
v .
. . . .
.
.. ,
. ~
. .
a . ¢
... _ fl .
3 —
‘
.
t v
. ..
— _ .
3 J .
.
y .
w . n
.
. ,_
r/
o \g A. .
~ .. s 3 . I
v r _ V
. 4 ,
r .
b3 u
. .
_.
, . . .
. , . , . .
.
, » J
, .
. A n
4 . . .
/ .. .4 « u .. ti .. ‘\
u n u
.3 .
. 3n, . . . v v
«F 1 . I. .
. . I . . q
. . 1 <. f .
y
. A
v s w. .x
7 y , .3 l
p
... all ..1 év ,«o. 3 . h 4 _. ;
.

‘
1.
.
.
1.
..
...
..
o1.-
.
.
. .
o,
_
n
1
.
—
,
on
.

..
u.

r
,._
.. .
T.
.
.
I

1

n /
..‘l,

quid

r‘
\
\-~l

()

P

M
.1...
II
II 3
.- .
. 3
fi .
(I

‘Fj‘f'l
Ix ‘K‘L-

1

to 12

n
‘
J

s-
...

C.

1-

KH‘
1.
I—
uL
. .
‘t‘
3..
r.

(.L

.1
3‘

p
1.
_.
~3
_.IV.
a
.
.
r3
.
.
0..
3:
c.
.
V
A
....
3
.
-

ru/L.
n

«no

 

Stf”f*

I

“Y“
kL

.'(

1.1—

.

 

h;

o.sa

.-‘-

A. ‘3‘
k r A.

(2"

\-'\.

 

L

..‘L

.- .--.

.~....r..

 

 

4‘,

.3».

a...
.

.3
\.
0..
..
1‘

.
...
3.
..
..

_

.
3

A

1..

r..

o...
‘L
a. ..
.. b
o ..3
21..
.3 .72;
.
.....n w;
H. ....
II
M L
. . \
n . A
...
L
w
a ‘
V .
...L W.
. C
a
.. .
.
Pl ‘l3‘
..3. 3
fi..
. . .
_ . ..
n. a Cl
— |
1h. (,5

0,4
..g
S

ll. lillllllllllll I If! 4'

 

_p
7..
.
r
"n

_
ML
‘
~.
. .
1|.
.
SI 3
u
.4
Y.

9
1
...
.k
..
.3.‘
..
.
T
..
..
..t.
...
3
v.

 

...s
o...
ul.
r.
.1
I
..
.
1..
a

n
L; o

 

4.
3
‘3 . In.
3 .
3.
.
U. n
. .
C .
.
vs
a ‘a
l\

I»

. 3.
43L ..s.

o.
.
—

1. ...
ll... <74.
a
O

..

. . .l

“(x ..

.
3 (3 .
.
C

...s ..

.
a

.

. 3

c .

n v
\
3, ..I.\
3

r.

l . .

p.
. v 33
I v\
..

.. 3
...

a.

.1.

<3 .

.
r . .
x
V
_
. 3 3.
3.
J .
.
... ..
>
. .3.
~ _
v .
.
__
). 7
.fi .
a

.3 d .

. H x.
‘ \fi .
. .. ..I.

 

( 3

n,x .

.3
._
L
.I
.—

§
7-.
a
. rL
.3 .
r‘
3....
l\
V
p.
.3
._
1‘
L
r .

‘ 3
.

r"
(__ |_.

 

 

.
....
T3.

\
3,.
.1.

(,3

1.3
O
.
t
.
..IA
A
y
..
..3
I P
3
a! .
..
..l
f .
..
. .
Av . p
I 1
. 3
3-
»
.
vi,
.1
.3; .

i ll3il
I.I-1l|l.l||'l|||| ' Illill‘ I

APPENDIX B

F?

thi«
moi:
box,

cont

full
to 4.
&flm&4

reweig

148

Appendix B

Laboratory Methods and Procedures Used for Measuring

Physical and Chemical Properties (at the University of Minnesota)

1. Maximum.(saturated) water content (dry basis) and water con.
tent as received (wet'basis).
Using an International Centrifuge Co-moisture equivalent'box
which is 2" x 2' 1.7/8" with a 20 mesh screen on bottom covered with a
thick filter paper (Whatman No. 50 or thicker) fill to 3/4 full with
moist field sample of peat. Place cover on tared moisture equivalent
‘box, weigh, and immerse in water in a deep metal tray or waterproof
container. Let soak overnight. Remove samples after soaking and place
in a humidity box (this box consists of a watertight container about %
full of water which contains a coarse screen above water level) for 2
to # hours to allow free water to drain from sample. ‘Weigh saturated
sample. Place in oven at 105° C until dry (preferable overnight) and
reweigh.
Column headings:
A = wt. of box and filter paper dry
B = wt. of box, filter paper and peat

C = B - A = wt. of peat as received

D Saturated wt. of box. filter paper, and peat

subtract .7 gm for wet filter paper

E!
II

D - A = saturated wt. of peat

0:;
ll

oven dry wt. of box, filter and peat

149

G = F - A oven dry weight of peat
H 8 E - G = wt. of water held by peat

I = C - G 1.100 = percentage water held by peat as received
G O

J = §.x.100 = percentage water at saturation (maximum water
G content)

2. Ash content (mineral)

a. Pre-Ignition.method

The oven dried samples from maximum (saturated) water content
analysis are removed from the container and ground using a mortar and
pestle. Fill a small porcelain crucible about 3/4 full of the dried
ground peat and place in an oven at 105° C for about an hour; Remove from
oven. place in a disiccator and weigh. Initially burn each sample on a
porcelain triangle over a bunsen burner. Note: do not allow samples to
flame from heat but let smolder until pre-ignition is completed. Then
place crucibles in a muffle furnace at 4000 C for 4 hours. Remove from
the furnace. cool in a disiccator, and weigh. Loss on ignition is calcu-
lated as organic matter. Weight of ash over weight of oven dry peat before
ignition times 100 equals percent of ash.

b. Low temperature method

There is some recent evidence that it is not necessary to pre-
ignite slowly over a burner before placing in furnace. This part of pro-
cedure may be eliminated by placing weighed oven-dried samples in crucibles
in a cold muffle furnace and set temperature at 400° C. Leave the sample
in the furnace for about 16 hours. Data using both methods are essentially
the same.

3. pH determination
a. Distilled water

150

Sample of moist peat is placed in a waxed 1 oz. dixie cup
(No. 101) and filled 3/4 full. Add sufficient distilled water to form
a watery slurry and stir occasionally. Let soak for about 30 minutes
and determine the pH's with a potentiometer. (We use a Beckman
Zerematic II.)

b. Salt solution

Follow same procedure as above but substitute 1.0 N KCL"I
solution in place of the distilled water.

4. Procedure for determination of unrubbed fiber content of peat.

l) A representative 10 gram sample of peat of a moisture
content as received is weighed.

2) At the same time a separate sub-sample 10 grams in weight
should be dried at 105 degrees C overnight, or to a con-
stant weight to determine the moisture content.

3) The 10 gram moist sample is placed in a one quart milk
shake container (metal or plastic), add 200 milliliters
of a water solution containing 2 grams of Qalggg_detergent.
Let stand overnight.

4) After standing overnight. shake thoroughly by hand for
approximately one minute and pour over a five inch diameter
100 mesh to-the-inch screen (ASTM standard sieve series).
To wash the peat on the screen use a rubber hose attached
to a water faucet or outlet. Avoid a jet or high pressure

water stream which would tend to force the fiber through

*The 1968 Supplement for the Classification of Histosols
substitutes 0.01 MCaCl2 for 1.0 N KCL.

a Peat

reagen
contai-

Spot p:

151

the screen. wash once with 2% H01 solution to dissolve
carbonates if present. wash until water passing through
the sieve is clear.

5) Invert screen on a large porcelain dish and wash with
back pressure all the fiber off the screen. (Note:
porcelain dish must be larger than sieve.) After
allowing to settle pour off excess water and evaporate
to dryness on a hot plate. Place sample in oven pre-
heated to 105 degrees C. Dry in oven to constant weight.
weigh to the nearest milligram. This is the fibrous
material over 0.15 mm in size.

6) To calculate the results, use total dry weight figure
from No. 2 divided into weight of fibers over 0.15 mm
(on 100 mesh screen) from No. 5 times 100 to get the
percent fiber content over 0.15 mm in size, EXAMPLE:
Original dry weight of organic matter equals 6 grams -

from 2. Then, 3 grams of fiber (0.15 mm or larger) from 5.
251g x 100 - (.5 x 100) = 50% fiber.
8“

5. Solubility in sodium pherphosphate
The procedure for determining the degree of decomposition of
a peat according to its solubility in sodium pyrophosphate is as follows:
Use a saturated solution sodium pyrophosphate (Na4P207 + lOHZO
reagent grade). Note: add excess crystals to distilled water in
container so as to be sure it is saturated. A deepawell porcelain

spot plate like the ones used for pH determinations is filled 3/4 full

152

of moist peat using a spatula. The saturated sodium perphosphate
solution contained in a large dropper bottle is added to the sample in
the well of the spot plate to bring to a thick paste. Stir with a glass
rod and let stand for a few minutes. Place a strip of Whatman No. 4
chromatographic paper approximately 2 inches long and * inch wide in
the sample and allow color to develop up the paper. Determine color
with Munsell color chart.

 

APPENDIX C

e - Q ‘, .. ,) .0)” ‘ ...,. . , .0: h, .t. .11.; .
...]..AC C....L.;A., rrk rank“ wl r\r(r\..l.. . .C; “(.55
_ .

..ly..qele fl.esseel<ol

pgwnte Ocmon<cwhmv

 

 

Manet messes coop zo.

 

 

 

 

‘I‘A...'l.l|.vl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ~.'| l I a. I
.l x; x. I. I. . .1 n ,3 F. v: .
.... 1\( AIL._ roofs _— _. ‘_./L (.C" —
( I)
t, ‘ .r .V.
..t l a »\. .1 .,|\ .
g r I
1..
U . f .
.
l. s . \. .rksvrx l
..Otstltlll. All...
\ a
. . e . _ .
‘ ... ll."
_ -‘.1te|l‘l‘l!
\.
I . K \_ . ... I».
It" ain't-Ix...) ill) I!
. \
a . .1. I . .
I I I A . .\
. N _ . ., L ...... vi La (cftv. — .
\ I~ ‘! lW'i§(‘!
r _ . l! .. .) l i. t ’11 i
. . .. .. . . it uni-)1! I .II .\.:.\I\ “1..| 1!...
.. . .2 ...k. ,er C(T... .C .,.\.:_L_.C.u_
I _ y \K IN
\. A i
_ .
{k t .. ..:\(\ I .4
1 . . .
\v. I r l l. .\_\1
r . ..‘K f\_ (in. x u . .L(\..—l\f\
v»\ .nlus‘llltlllilullll
. / .. a”; - -.) m1)l..\, A.).I....)-. .v.. ..1‘..J.
W n y e . A ... n
\ ... .'l at. xf\$ Is an.» _. ./ .plt ... 19.. ,._ Fri... I . f.
Illv. 2‘!
I
llrla‘ll
If] 9...!

 

 

 

 

‘5" ll lillol Ill .3" II

 

 

 

1.!!! II IIQIIII

"lli‘l’ ‘Il‘l

.\ Sumac.no +0 60c3mmn< O

I...

 

4

——n
.—
.

_lacnm_ o

-.«
U:

01.-..|l-Iubi.! I I I.

\J

“-... 1 . ...-CU.

ll-a§ln’llltl, . ’!~II.|

|le’l‘l.l1 It! lI'OII

‘ll.|l0 I d.

.\u .
\

./ . .....W.

.nIl Illa»... {Ii l'.|l.ll|l1, -. - v.4 . A: ‘1. ,1 ..

 

...liillu'vtl'n I!

 

 

.-—-—... _.—. - --..._ ... .

.....Dflw. mt.—

0034m34

...-Q

 

..n-_...

-—.~——~

 

...- - .—. '-_..~

--.—_— “‘— —

 

 

 

-..lll-IIII'I'I‘III I|u I,

I. l I. t It... I ..l
...I .II" I .l
-.. - h ‘1' '1'.

IIIIII‘. II

_ - . .... . .

log-I. zit-1...-..I.

p. - ...__. —~——..__-

_-—. .. .-

 

 

 

 

. - - ..— -__.—_..- _.___. __ -__——....-.—.

 

. -..—...

 

IVI .--. I .ill III-Jill:

N
yt ..a. ..-
.x. r v > .-\ ft.
A|l. . .
J. 1..-u
....»(.1. IL!»

.... .).t .- -
.. 0.. (Fill/l

...wrp,,.~,-u..p.,n.0r_:. I. L.)-

__-L_ -

 

 

 

y.__.._ .

 

_onu

u: Juliana-Q 0.9mm so

.1) La.\
CFO. ..rku).

11.))

..Q

I\

 

 

.C fling-...; .

little-It‘ll

._
.0 ....-

. - ...: _
. ... _.
“ll-II...- . .hluu:l
: M ; .\}.: bl. a..ua ..
_ _._rt_._ .1 ”(_Ix..l. :U.’ - __,..nc .
— h .
II . .l n\) l
pl!) l... .\r-1_ “ . _ )-)\I‘-J _ .4 -
U-y rho. L. 1|.“ “Pk ./ll\r "wk..(( _ .\ T.
w .'II).'I'I"II ‘i
._
_ . . .
_ n _
l ..
.lnivlilll.-urctl.-
_. . ..
. _ _
. .
.
m . _ z -. ,-
—i- c
. _
. _. _ ._
_ . m
. . - t 1.1-- i It
V _
_ l _ .
u . m _ _
_ .
. . _
. . .
_ . ..
V . _
m l _ l
N _
. a
v .
_
. _ _ .
-
l V.
. .
l .
_
V _ .
. . _
l . H
n _ .
_ _ .
n... r - -“--q--: l a) i. 1-“,
Ior \.rV 4.x» . r... I . _ "..Lm, . . _ r . .

y — .1. .l ..I I . .I -... u ,.
...!..L 0.1. _Zr\_F-u:-: L C. CIT...

-1 ,H) -:.. ....-.- I -...;.
....“ ”.CI.» p . a. .Mr‘ th.( ...’|\_ n » .. r\ __r.\_ ”If
I\ (k
_ruo : ..r» l... ....r..r\..t
‘ - i _
y s I 4 .0 J
\.-O “Ire/..rL. x... C..r.u. A! t a. O
y .\ . . l - .-.
; - r l .... 2.
1." ft... h. \ '3‘.‘ P. — . ls” .u.. e .n
c
.. 4. a -.. 3.... .1 - .-
'.u \L..-(..(.. r...r.._ (U..\A.tt _. ../\ .a,t_Io
.n 1| _ - ti 1 ) . .--.
. L.) I A .1. .I n _ l
.k. _ “1‘1-.I\._fnp\ f- —C.JLV L.....L‘( \ . lixwlLV /.
\ v t _. v .... .I
L.‘ s I .- .lla I .. . ‘
(I . .(fulx..rkr\ M._ .*rr\ ...-(e—rt. r: \— u .
- x- e . .
by“ .r _- (ark. _ e
la
. w- e. . ).. . - V: - .. .. -, .5.
o r|’\.(, ._.,-r\. ...,tl (Zr-...,TKL l: at: .....LL. ..

I.

Cw. ’\fl\.x r... ...w... "0.)” NU «_-P. _/. .....L. ..L. . Lair-1.,»

“....O “ Cruz

. . . . uh!
)7 1.) ...JV\ - ) . ,.
...w pm.rs.._uc __. ...rk

(

th’KM firO..I.......r\..;.l.. o

...I 5.1 ....

u “iv-ur‘ I- .

urn .Inl .. .

 

Illll‘