MMEMLOGECM COMPOSITION OF
GLACIAL MATERIALS AS A FACTOR IN
THE GENESIS AND MORPHOLOGY OF
SOME WCHlGAN SOILS

Thuisfwfhobmolph.b.
MICHEGAN STATE UNNERSITY
Ham! Hudson Bailey
1956

“WWW

NINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION OF GLACIAL MATERIALS
AS A FACTOR IN THE GENESIS AND MORPHOLOGY OF

SOME MICHIGAN SOILS

BY

Harry Hudson Bailey

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science

Year 1956

\I
Approved 0: L. Era-12 I

(Hg'r

Harry Hudson Bailey

ABSTRACT

Mineralogical Composition of Glacial Materials
as a Factor in the Genesis and Morphology of
Some Michigan Soils

Studies were made of the texture and the mineralogical composition

of the glacial materials beneath 23 soil series in Michigan. The re-

lationships of the prOperties of these materials to the characteristics
of the soils and their classification were investigated.‘

Thirty-nine soil sites representing the twenty-three soil series

were studied. Samples from each site were treated to remove surface

coatings and stainings on the mineral grains. They were then separated

into sand, silt and clay fractions. The mineralogy of the clay as pre—

viously determined by other investigators was reported.

The sand and silt fractions were analyzed by X-ray diffraction us-
ing powder camera and recording Geiger-counter goniometer techniques.
Quartz, feldspars and plagioclases were determined quantitatively and

expressed as weighted percentages of the total, using the percentages of

sand and silt as shown by mechanical analyses.

The data for the various glacial materials were graphed to show

the relationships of their mineralogy to the calculated number of par-

ticles per gram of sample. As the number of particles per gram in-

creased: the percentages of quartz, K-feldspars and plagioclases de-

creased, and the clay minerals, especially kaolinite, increased. With

increase in number of particles per gram of sample, there was also an

increase in percent of sample unidentified.

Harry Hudson Bailey

Generally there was a greater amount of clay in subsoils than in
surface soils, except in the Humic Gley soils from coarse textured ma-
terials. On coarse textured materials, both horizons showed small in-
creases of clay over that in the parent rock. 0n finer textured parent
rocks, surface soils generally contain less clay than the original ma-
terials. The subsoils of the Gray-Brown Podzolic soils showed increases
in clay over that in the parent rocks, except on those containing more
than 45% clay. The surfaces and subsoils of the Humic Gley soils from
northern Michigan decreased in clay content but the subsoils decreased
less than the surface soils. Above 45% clay in the parent rock, there
was a loss of clay in surface and subsoil compared to the parent rocks
in nearly all cases, however, the subsoil clay still exceeded the sur-
face clay content. Thus it appears that texture of the parent rocks
has a strong influence on profile differentiation.

Summation of the mineralogical compositions shows that the Miami,
Conover, and Brookston series are a true toposequence of soils. It was
concluded that field identification procedures appear to be reliable in
identifying soil series within a tOposequence.

There was a tendency for the percent of K-feldspars to increase as
the available K in the solum increased. Frequently, low available K in
the solum was associated with a high percentage of unidentified clay.

Few geologic or soil investigations of mineralogical compositions
were available for correlation. Standardization and improvements of

methods or techniques are needed before reliable cross-referencing can

be easily accomplished.

Harry Hudson Bailey

0n the basis of this investigation and the results of others, it
was concluded that a recording Geiger-counter goniometer X-ray diffrac-
tion technique was a rapid and useful method of mineralogical analysis
when careful standardization of equipment, techniques and interpreta-

tions is maintained.

 

MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION OF GLACIAL MATERIALS
AS A FACTOR IN THE GENESIS AND MORPHOLOGY OF

SOME MICHIGAN SOILS

BY

Harry Hudson Bailey

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science
Year 1956

I...

”5/17/5y7

$1248

"I-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Doctors
E. P. Hhiteside, A. E. Erickson and R. L. Cook for their unfailing in-
terest and guidance throughout the course of this study.

He is also indebted to Doctors 8. G. Bergquist, B. T. Sandefur and
Justin Zinn for providing reference mineral samples and assistance on
geological matters.

Particular acknowledgement is due Mr. D. E. van Farowe of the
Michigan Department of Health for his assistance and c00peration in us-
ing the X-ray spectrometer of the Health Department. ‘

The author also deeply appreciates the financial support of the
Great Lakes Flour Association and the scholarship provided by Michigan
State University which made it possible for him to complete this inves-

tigation.

—L___—

IN MEMORIUM

DR. STANARD G. BERGQUIST

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INWRODUCTION . . . . . . . . ......

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III WORK OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATORS ON THESE SOILS

Iv EXPER IMEMAL PmeURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Mineralogical Analyses of Sand and Silt

Preparation of Samples .
X-ray Diffraction Studies . .
Powder Camera Technique .

Geiger—Counter Technique

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Cleaning on Size Distribution

Distribution of Density Fractions
Qualitative Mineralogical Analyses . . .

Powder Camera . . . . . . . . . . .

Fractions .

Precision of Analyses Using Geiger-Counter Goniometer

Quantitative Mineralogical Analyses

VI RELATIONSHIP OF MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION OF GLACIAL
SOME

MATERIALS TO THE MORPHODOGY AND GENESIS OF

“1C" IGAN SOILS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Morphological Relationships .
Soil Formation and Genesis . .
Soil Development . . . . . . .

8011 Fertility . O O O O O O O

Page

15
16
16
21
21
23
3O
3O
35
41
41
46

53

67
67
72
80

9O

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page
VII SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
VIII BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1x APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Sample Calculations of Weights of Constituents in
Horizons and Solum of a Profile . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Basic Data on Soils Arranged by Site Numbers 104

Table

IIA

118

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Identification Of $0115 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10

Key to the soils used in this studyx. . . . . . . . . . . ll
Gray-Brown Podzolic Region

Key to the soils used in this study:. . . . . . . . . . . 12
Podzol Region

Effect of cleaning on size distribution of sand fractions 31

Percentage distribution of density fractions of sands from
the glacial material samples at four sites . . . . . . . 36

Minerals identified in sand fractions of different densi-
ties by X-ray diffraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Major characteristic diffraction angles (2 O) of reference
minerals as determined with a powder camera . . . . . . . 42

Qualitative mineralogical analyses as determined with
powder camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Estimate of precision of mineralogical analyses by X-ray
diffraction as percentages of the sample . . . . . . . . 47

Intensities and d values for characteristic diffractions
of reference minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Quantitative mineralogical analyses as determined with

a Geiger-counter goniometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Summary of mineralogical composition of glacial material
samples arranged according to increasing percentage of
quartz I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O 63

Comparison of mineralogical compositions of coarse
fractions of some comparable soils by different investi-

gators O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I 71
Summation of constituents in sale and parent rocks of

Sites StUdied O O O O O O O I. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 74
Summary of available potash in sale and representative 91

subsoil horizons of the soils studied . . . . . . . . . .

—"-'“:......——:"" ' ‘

 

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

LIST OF FIGURES

Location of soils by counties . . . . .

Textures of samples used in this study . . . . . . . . .
Tracings of characteristic diffraction intensity peaks of

reference minerals (quartz, orthoclase, microcline, and
anorthOCIase) C C O I O O I C . O O O O 0 O C C C C C C O

Tracings of characteristic diffraction intensity peaks of
reference minerals (sodium and calcium feldspars -
plagiOCIaseS) O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Tracings of characteristic intensity peaks of several
soil samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Change in size distribution of sand fractions of several
glacial material samples as affected by cleaning . . . .

Distribution of density fractions of sands from the
glacial material samples at four sites

Deviation of X-ray diffraction samples from the mean . .
Mineralogical composition of glacial material samples

arranged according to increasing percentage of quartz,
and compared to number of particles per gram of sample
and percent of acid insoluble material in the sample .

Thickness of solum vs equivalent thickness of parent rock
Percentages of sand in the sole relative to parent rocks.
Percentages of silt in the sole relative to parent rocks.
Percentages of clay in the sole relative to parent rocks.

Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sola relative to
parent rocks of Podzols and Ground Water Podzols . . . .
Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sola relative to
parent rocks of well and moderately well drained Gray-
Brown Podzolics and one Gray Wooded soil . . . . . . . .
Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sola relative to
parent rocks of imperfectly drained Gray-Brown Podzolics
and one imperfectly drained Gray Wooded soil. . . . . . .

Page

19

24

25

26

34

38

49

66
76
77
78

79

81

82

83

Figure

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)

Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sale relative
to parent rocks of Hunic Gley soils . . . . . . . .

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons
relative to parent rocks of well and imperfectly
drained Podzols and a Ground water Podzol soil . .

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons
relative to parent rocks of well and moderately well

drained Gray—Brown Podzolic soils . . . . . . . . .

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons

relative to parent rocks of imperfectly drained Gray-

Brown Podzolics and one imperfectly drained Gray

WOOded SOiI C O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O I O O

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons

relative to parent rocks of Humic Gley soils . . . .

D

J

age

84

85

87

88

89

INTRODUCTION
The problems of learning the constitution of soils are as old as
agriculture. As scientific knowledge and techniques in related fields
have evolved, they have in many cases been adapted to the study of soils.
Recent developments in the use of X-ray diffraction ( 4,7,8,15,46 )
techniques applicable to the identification of mineral species have
spurred interest in the determination of the minerals in soils.

In 1951 a comprehensive project to include physical, chemical and
mineralogical studies of important agricultural soils of Michigan was
outlined. Stolzy (43) and Vollbrecht (47) have previously reported on
the moisture characteristics and clay mineralogy of some of the soils
included in that investigation.

In this investigation the mineralogy of the sand and silt fractions
of the glacial materials beneath the soils studied by Stolzy (43) and
Vollbrecht (47) were examined. The mineralogical determinations were
based mainly on x-ray analyses using a powder camera and a Geiger coun~
ter X—ray spectrometer. The relations between the mineralogical compo-
sition of the glacial materials and the properties of the overlying

soils, their genesis, and their classification were summarized.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Some of the soil profile studies and geologic investigations that
have been made in Michigan and other states prior to this investigation
proved to be valuable guideposts.

McCool, et a1. (29) reported in 1923 on the chemical analyses of
sixteen soil profiles in Michigan. The SiOQ contents of the samples
studied varied from 40.04% to 97.53%. The soil series involved in that
study were not identified. They reported their findings in terms of the
chemical elements and their oxides rather than as mineralogical species.

Mineralogical species were generally not reported in pedologic
work in Michigan until Johnsgard (23) reported in 1938 on a pedologic
study of a Ground Water Podzol and some associated soils in which em~
phasis was placed on the petrographic identification of mineral species
in the profiles studied. His work showed a marked depletion of horn-
blende, augite, actinolite and feldspars throughout the sole of sandy
Ground Water Podzols and Podzols. A Half Bog soil did not show this
tendency.

Matelski (32) reported in 1947 on some heavy mineral investigations
of some Podzol profiles in Michigan. His work included petrographic
observations, mechanical analyses, chemical compositions and Neubauer
tests on Kalkaska, Emmet, Wallace, Rubicon, Roselawn and Grayling sands
collected from sites under typical native forest vegetation. The Kal-
kaska and Emmet sands (hardwood cover) showed greater amounts of Ca and
No heavy minerals in all horizons of the profile than did the lallace,
Rubicon, Roselawn andifirayling soils (pine cover). In the same year,

Mick (34) reported on the pedology of several soils developed in the

 

calcareous drift of eastern Michigan. His work included mineralogical,
mechanical and chemical analyses, as well as field descriptions and ped-
ologic interpretations of profiles identified as St. Clair, Conover,
Nappanee and Brookston. His findings are discussed later in this study.

Gardner and Whiteside (12) in 1952 reported on the zonal soils in
the transition region between Podzol and Gray-Brown Podzolic regions
in Michigan. The soils studied are commonly called double or bisequa
profiles. The surface sequum was clearly that of a Podzol and the un-
derlying sequum appeared to be that of a Gray—Brown Podzolic profile.
The Podzol characteristics were more pronounced in the soils formed
from sandier materials while in those formed from finer textured ma-
terials the Gray—Brown Podzolic characteristics were more pronounced.

Allen and Whiteside (3) reported in 1954 on the physical and
chemical characteristics of some soils believed to be of Cary and Man-
kato age in Sanilac County, Michigan. Their work showed Cary drift to
be high in sandstone content and the Mankato drift to contain more lime-
stone. Cann and Whiteside (5) reported in 1955 on a study of the genesis
of a Podzol-Gray-Brown Podzolic Intergrade profile from the same county.
The latter study entailed the use of a modification of the resistant
mineral method used by Marshall and Haseman (31). Quartz was used as
the reference mineral instead of zircon and they determined quartz on
the coarser fractions of the soils with a Geiger counter X-ray spectro-
meter. Their work is discussed later in this study.

Petrographic methods of mineral identification have existed for
many years and are still used by many investigators as either a basic

or supplemental technique. Marshall (30) set forth in 1940 a petro-

 

graphic approach for the study of soil forming processes, with attention
to statistical treatment of microscopic counts as a possible replace-
ment for chemical methods in favorable cases.

Jeffries (18,19,20,21) has reported on soil mineralogical studies
in both the United States and Puerto Rico. In 1937, he reported on a
petrographic heavy mineral study of some Pennsylvania soils (18) using
regular petrographic procedures. In 1947, he made a preliminary report
(19) describing the X-ray spectrometer and its use in the qualitative
determination of common soil minerals. In Puerto Rico he used both
petrographic and X-ray techniques to study primarily the quartz, feld-
spar, mica and clay minerals (21).

Whiteside (48) made an extensive mineralogical and chemical study
of Putnam silt loam. He used X-rays in conjunction with physical and
chemical studies and the electron microscope. In 1948 he presented a
quantitative method for determination of certain minerals in silt frac—
tions of soils using a powder camera technique (49). In 1954, Pollack,
Whiteside and Van Farowe (38) reported on the possible use of X-ray
diffraction of common silica minerals in studies of soil genesis.

Phillippe and White (37) reported in 1950 on the quantitative es-
timation of minerals in the fine sand and silt fractions of soil using
a Geiger-counter X—ray spectrometer. They reported reproducibility of
results for silt samples and non-reproducibility in fine sand fractions.
They attributed the non-reproducibility in fine sand to its having been
ground to below silt size which caused relative intensities that were
not truly proportional to the amounts of the minerals present.

Slovik (40) used chemical, petrographic and x-ray diffraction

techniques in his study of Collington and Sassafrass soils. He conclud—
ed from his studies that the CaINa ratio of felspars in the light sand
fraction gave a measure of the weathering processes. The Ca-plagio—
clases were less resistant to weathering forces than were the Na—pla-
gioclases.

Others beside agricultural workers have investigated the use of
mineralogical analyses of soil materials. Mueller (35), a ceramic en-
gineer, reported on the analytical aspects of X-ray diffraction using
simple chemical substances and a Puget Sound glacial clay. His work
showed one of the limitations of the method, 1. e. - some patterns were
so complex that other identification techniques had to be used.

Considerable work on mineralogy has been done in the field of geo-
logy in Michigan and a great deal of it is of interest to agronomists
and soil scientists. However, in many cases, it awaits correlation be-
fore its maximum utility can be realized.

Leverett (28) reported in 1911 on the surface geology and agricul—
tural conditions of the southern peninsula of Michigan. This work is
often considered to be classic and it is of great use in the interpre-
tation of glacial, and glacio-fluvial features. Most of his references
to mineralogy and soil textures were in very general terms.

The petrology of the Marshall formation in Michigan was reported
on by Stearns (42) in 1933 and can possibly be used as a pedological
bench-mark away from its outcrop area. She reported quartz to be the
most abundant light mineral, making up the bulk of the sample, but with
minor quantities of feldspars and kaolin also present.

Considerable geologic work has been reported from the Upper Penin-

 

 

sula of Michigan. Hornstein (17) reported on the extrusive and sedimen-
tary rocks along the Carp and Little Carp Rivers in Ontonagon and Coge-
bic Counties. He reported qualitatively on the presence of andesine and
oligoclase in the rocks of the area. Other investigators have reported
the mineralogical composition of various sediments and areas. Tara (44),
Hagni (l4) and Engel (10) reported on various areas in Marquette County
and El-Khalidi (9) on the Porcupine Mountains of Ontonagon County in
which quartz, K-feldspars and plagioclases were present in significant
amounts. Their data, while not precisely adapted to soil studies in

the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, gave an insight as to some possible
sources of glacial materials that were found in the area covered by this
study.

Several students of geology (9,10,14,44) have made detailed miner-
alogical analyses of hard rock samples from the western end of the upper
peninsula of Michigan. Even though it was highly improbable that these
outcrOps provided much, if any, material to the glacial drift of the
specific sampling sites in the lower peninsula, it was interesting to
note some of their findings. El-Khalidi (9) in his study of the sand-
stones and conglomerates reported 70 to 90% quartz, 5 to 30% oligoclase,
up to 20% microcline and various smaller amounts of kaolin, calcite and
other minerals. Engle (10) in Marquette County reported up to 62.6%
quartz, 43% orthoclase, 16% andesine and 25.5% microcline in various
meta-sediments of the Dead River Basin. Hagini (l4) and Tara (44) re-
ported similar finding from Marquette County. These findings in them-
selves had no direct relationship to this study, but they offer a pos—

sible insight into what some bedrock sources might have been like.

This thought was especially plausible when it was remembered that the
gelogic strata of Michigan have a "nesting saucer“ arrangement with the
possibility of one particular formation outcropping in a long arc around'
the state and in the path of glaciers from eastern and western Canada.
Gregory (13) in his geologic report on Arenas County stated that some
clays had large amounts of finely divided quarts, feldspars and other
minerals. He also reported that clays in the bed of Rifle River were

rich in feldspars. Here details were lacking, but a general parent rock

composition may be inferred.

 

WORK OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATORS ON THESE SOILS

The sampling sites used in this study were selected by E. P.
whitesidel during the summers of 1952 and 1953. Locations of these
sites by counties are given in Figure l and the legal descriptions are
given in Table 1. These soils represent about one-third of the soils
studied in a systematic statewide soil characterization program being
conducted under the direction of A. E. Ericksonz. The description of
each profile studied is given in the Appendix.

The relationships of these soils to one another are outlined in
Tables IIA and 113. The differences in the textures of their mineral
parent rocks (or parent materials) are shown vertically and the differ—
ences in the drainage conditions under which they were formed are shown
horizontally in these charts.

The vertical order in the tables is from those holding the most
water in the upper five and one half feet at the top to those holding
the least at the bottom, when all are drained. This is essentially in
the order of the average texture of this layer from the finest at the
t0p to the coarsest at the bottom.

The soils formed on the best drained sites are in the left hand
column and those on the poorest drained sites are in the right hand col—
umn. Consequently, the arrangement from.left to right in the table is
from the soils formed under the best drained conditions to those for:—

ad under the most poorly drained conditions. The soils in each column

 

1 Professor, Soil Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
2 Michigan -
Associate Professor, Soil Science, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

45’

 

“O

 

 

Figure l.

‘3'“

 

 

‘2‘N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘2.
is
‘%

 

Ola/[ISM

 

 

cm

 

Location of soils

by counties.
Numbers indicate
sites.

 

p...
(a)

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MONTMOR ALPENA

. WP
38

 

 

I
I.
n

 

 

 

 

fwus’u

COAWF'O

05 C OOA

ALCOIIA

  

 

 

  

 

 

MISSAl/lfl

ROSCOM.

 

 

OGEMAW

 

IOSCO

 

 

  

LAN!

 

05C! OLA

CLARE

LADWIN

 

 

  

4
’69

0
C?

   

 

”m 760

MICOSYA

ISABELLA

 

MIDLAND

 

     
     

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

MONTCALM

 

 

 

”is"
19

If”?

 

29

cur/or

 

 

JAG/MW

       

6

 

out“:

 

ION/A

 

CLINION

 

20

 

SII/A WA .

 

 

 
  
   

 

 

OAKLAND

 

22

J 56A”

33

 

MRRY

EA ION

6 17‘

4 5

 

INOHAM

LIV/Mam

23

 

 

 

VAN BUREN'

mum.

1 10
14

CALHOUN

JACKSON

 

WASII’EMW OVA YNE

 

 

 

CASS

 

SZJOJ‘IPII

15

 

 

um” mum:
32
9

 

 

 

XI

 

 

 

1mm?
31

MONROE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

7 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O"

05'

 

10

TABLE I

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS

 

 

 

Site No. Soil Series County Legal Description

1 Berrien' Ingham sw Corner mv 71 Sec. 19 ran an:

2 Granby Ingham NE 40 SE Sec. 24 T4N'R2W

3 Hillsdale Ingham NE 40 SN Sec. 30 T4N RIM

4 Miami Ingham m: 40 NE Sec. 31 Pm Rm

5 Brookston Ingham NW 40 NE 2 Sec. 30 T4N R1"

6 Sims Saginaw' NE 40 NW Sec. 33 T9N R3E

7 Nappanee Lenawee NW Corner SN i-Sec. 15 T85 R3E

s Hoytville Lenawee m Corner sw i Sec. 15 rss R3E

9 Boyer Branch I! Side m 40 N" i Sec. 23 res R714

10 Kalamazoo Kalamazoo 8' Corner NW i-Sec. 4 T25 RlOW

ll Volinia Kalamazoo 5N Corner SE 40 NW Sec. 7 T25 RllN
12 Cbloma Berrien SE COrner NE 40 NE Sec. 33 T45 R17W
13 Berrien Berrien N Side NE 40 NW Sec. 26 T55 R19w
l4 Vblinia Kalamazoo N Side 5" 40 SE Sec. 19 T45 Rllw
15 Kalamazoo St. Joseph MI Corner NE is». 26 rss R12“

16 Conover Eaton NE Corner SE Sec. 9 T4N R5N

17 Miami Eaton en 10 m: 40 ss 7} Sec. 14 “MN new

18 Granby Ottawa 51: Corner 55 4o 5!: of Sec. 35 m 915w
19 Saugatuck Ottawa NE Corner NW i-Sec. 4 T6N RlSl

20 Conover Clinton SE Corner Sec. 35 TEN Rlfl

21 Granby Allegan NE 40 NW Sec. 21 T2N R15N

22 Berrien Allegan NW 40 SN 4 Sec. 23 TlN R14w

23 Hillsdale Livingston NE 10 so 40 m & Sec. 28 ran R6E

24 Guelph Sanilac NW 40 SN Sec. 13 T13N R15E

25 Kalkaska Antrim 5E 40 SN Sec. 34 T30N R6N

26 Kalkaska Antrim ss 40 Si! is». 34 T30N Row

27 Mancelona Antrim NE 10 5" Sec. 19 T30N RSI

28 Goldwater Branch NH Corner SI 40 SN i-Sec. 35 T55 R6N
29 Coral Montcalm NE 10 m i 5!: 1} Sec. a T1111 39!:

30 Paulding Macomb .NN 10 NE 40 Sec. 25 T4N‘R13E

31 Hoytville Lenawae ss 40 m: Sec. 12 rss ass

32 Goldwater Branch NE 40 NE Sec. 20 T55 R7!

33 Nappanee Allegan NE 10 NW Sec. 33 T2N R12N

35 Nappanee Macomb NI 40 NW Sec. 26 T4N R14E

36 Pickford Oiippewl NE 40 in Sec. 25 T4611 R11:-

37 Ontonagon Chippewa ml 40 m Sec. 19 T46N ass

38 Selkirk Iminmency SI 40 5! Sec. 25 ram 345

39 Pickford Arenas ss 10 NE 40 NE *1 Sec. 17 non R65 .
40 Selkirk Arenas SI 40 sw i Sec. 9 now no:

 

f

11

TABLE IIA

KEY TO THE SOILS USED IN THIS STUDY: GRAY-BROWN PODZOLIC REGION

.ocoun05«~ u «a madman u an announces» u an mcnwzoaqe>

.oocsooo "so: snooonooo: not
.>p=vn mace ca hashes: swan ow women nuoxoaun c“ nusnazz as

u sodas» unnu>aum u >sum

”occauaw>ounn< s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nmxnmm

ANN .mn .Hv on soon

neoconuuom Ho>o Joana

stop...» 8001NV

Hosea >anq use» >aaoa

ou ucam

ham .mn .mv .nn 1.
spouse oases” m3oz...»

"coumwasuposcoz anew
Away . H c savaga

excflam can .nn «soHHo> can»

moononoouooicoz sagas

I 3 .5 3

awcfiflo> counaaaax 304 one can.

Amy [Ixmflm . nso-o> new» can

uo>om on xanu ~o>auu co

. Loononoanom soon socam
“mm .mv an" «numua

ofiaomaamz can .mn mso~He> awo~

mosamuuauunicoz >vcem

nldmw; «dwinoav Asa .vv ‘qmquunnlqnfluqnunr.

cepmxooum uo>ocoo “an“: ”soHHo> ow >auu

«nonmauauuulcoz Idea

hum .mmv .mu uma nu «a mum” Huang

nopasoaoo so~He> op >snm o» Eoo~

oouuausnuoucoz >a~u >uc~m
Nam m. “mm .mm .5V and man .5“

e-a>u>oz oocaaaaz «refine» on >~um >a~u >u~dn

.oodmwannpnucoz ou >a~o

#102 1.3! Jana

maucngd «so-s> on >aum mfin no>o

«commaumuunicoz >a~o ecfim

xmmwl. AmHmH<mav omzH<mo omzH<mn issooaozqu nimmmumuu
Gaza: SMNHzamm >qhommmmmzm 44w: mx0400
ILIr, m8mm:

 

 

UHAONQOQ 230mml><m0

A<~¢MH<¥ hzmm¢m

 

 

 

as... ~AH.‘ 1 .3 \- (v—wv N Holdalu‘ai can. \ .~(t.~ 5‘ a N (\uf — 5L ~1\4\.‘

."J"

TABLE IIB

12

KEY TO THE SOILS USED IN THIS STUDY: PODZOL REGION

.aouoOA nouaxuucaonu sass
.xcsvn was» cw oneness ovum on human naoxonnn cu oneness was
.ocoumosau t ed nuance I an “decompose u m» acn«:o~Ho> u adage» agefixuum t xonm «ocoduauaounn<_as
.oanncucen
more” on» me «and cuozvson on» an nsooo wagon owaouood esonmusmno on» swans nuanced on» nous
poumfloomnm confine“: we wanna uoaooo on» c« venom one >ecu .uo>oso: .nawon oaueuuod cream-saga
ow sawmond on» c“ onscreen agony can «confine: mo nocux cw Hedgehn >us> one «Aden cocoon >an0.e

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 3w. . my 43! i
sassfiauv xozvomaam axomxaox arcane»

11+ soononoonom neon
«nag .xmmm .xomnmx

acoaoocm: op gnaxcua ~s>oum

woodmapouunucoc one

no commavauvm scum

doaqq mason nemqpr, 11inu.
can no .oEad

sea ”nuance“ smog

.ooamuaenaoneoz >ucqm

 

 

t~«mg-..:nunmqgmmmgmmgauu

 

gonooo .aess some

.soa«o> op >anm
1i» «voamavmuvuucoz awed
3 8.3 t 1 1.333
.:o .oeau someones ca

”cmfivcou op nowadaa awed uoao
soonoaoaooo-ooz sownm

I so Bozo: r . :5 3341!}:

 

 

 

comm op cefixcfin

.1! -cooco .ooaosoosom
iiodmmv snooxonm dov.mmv tenanauqanwmunu soao
unsxsow op cannons sons.

nooaonoouoo-ooz on sane

 

swam amza<mo owznamo omzH<ma a<Homz hazazas “sooaomhnq 44
SEE anEmoE 3mg SanmmnE llalllllalulomzHéo in; II i. 2.38 $5."me
.onm<m

 

 

 

 

*Qmoooz ><m0 mAONQOQ 4<Hmmh<s Hzmmsm

 

 

 

 

13

of the table have similar profile characteristics SUpsrimpossd on the
variations of the mineral parent rocks (parent materials) described in
the left hand column.

The soils studied represent four Great Soil Grbups: Podzols, Gray-
Brown Podzolic, Gray Wooded and Humic Gley soils. The Podzols generally
occur in the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsu-
la of Michigan. The Gray—Brown Podzolic soils occur in the southern
part of the Lower Peninsula. Gray Wooded soils were very similar in
kinds and sequence of horizons to the profiles of Gray-Brown Podzolic
soils. However, they were found in the cooler parts of Michigan asso-
ciated with Podzols. Humic Gley soils were all develOped under poorly
drained conditions and occur in a11.parts of the stats.

' Infiltration rates and field capacities of these sites were measur-
ed during the summers of 1952 and 1953 and laboratory studies of mois-
ture retention and bulk density were measured on core samples of the
major horizons of these soils as outlined by Uhland and O'Neil (45).

At the time the infiltration studies of the sites were made and the

core samples were collected, a pit was dug on the site, the profile was
described and bag samples were taken from each major horizon. The bag
samples were dried, passed through a two millimeter screen and mixed.
They were used for the determinations of moisture equivalent, wilting
point, moisture content at tensions from 3 to 27 atmospheres, mechanical
analysis, total carbon, available P and K, pH, and mineralogical analy—
sis of the clay fractions. Portions of the data have been assembled and
correlated by other investigators. Stolzy (43) reported on the effect

of mechanical composition and clay minerals on the moisture properties

14

of these soils and Vollbrecht (47) reported a correlation of their infil-

tration rates, permeabilities and pore size distribution.

i5

EXPER IMENTAL PROCEDURES

The methods used for the laboratory studies are briefly outlined
below:

The bulk densities or volume weights (gms/cc) were determined
from the oven dry weights of core samples dried at 105°C.

The pipette method was used for the mechanical analyses. Ten grmm
samples of fine-textured soils and 25 grams of coarse-textured soils
were treated with 6 percent hydrogen peroxide to destroy organic matter
and 1 normal hydrochloric acid was used to destroy carbonates. After
being washed free of chlorides, the samples were titrated with sodium
hydroxide using phenolphthalein as an external indicator. They were
then diapered by shaking and washed through a 300 mesh sieve. The sand
fraction of each was oven dried, weighed and separated into size frac-
tions by means of oscillating shaker sieves. The material passing

.through the 300 mesh sieve was poured into a sedimentation cylinder,
diluted to one liter and placed in a 30°(3. constant temperature bath.

Assuming that soil particles have a density of 2.65 gm/cm3, Stoke's
law was used to determine the depth and time of sampling for the frac-

.tions of 4 50.1, 420» and < 2» at 30°C. Two aliquots of 4 2).: clay were
taken. The first aliquot of 25 milliliters was used to determine the

percentage of material less than 0.2u in equivalent diameter per sample

on an oven dry basis.

The second aliquot, consisting of 100 milliliters, was used for

mineralogical studies of the clay fraction by X-ray diffraction .

 

16

The percent of total carbon was determined on the upper horizons of
each soil type using the combustion train method as described by Hopper
(16).

The available P and K and pH were determined by the Michigan State
University Soil Testing Laboratory under the direction of Mr. John
Shickluna.

The results of the bulk density studies, mechanical analyses, total
carbons and mineralogical analyses of the clay fractions have been re-
ported by Stolzy (43). Results of the mechanical analyses, total car-
bons, volume weights, available P and K, and pH determinations for each
site are given in the Appendix. The mineralogy of the clay fractions

as reported by Stolzy is shown in Table X.

Mineralogical Analyses of the Sand and Silt Fractions

Prepgrgtion of figgplgs: The sand separates of the C horizons from
the previous investigators' work were re-combined after sieving and
weighing and were cleaned according to the method of Iatelski (33).
The cleaned sands were re-sieved into their respective fractions, weigh-
ed to determine their new size distribution and stored for possible.
petrographic analyses. The original and cleaned size distributions of
the sands are shown in Table III and the average size distributions be-
fore and after cleaning are illustrated in Figure 6.

The sands from samples 53, 9B, 134, and 167 (sites 10, 17, 25 and
32 respectively) were designated as control samples and were separated
into several density groups using S-tetrabromethane and nitrobenzene,

adjusted to density with acetone, as the separation liquid. The re-

17L18

sults of these separations are shown in Table IV, and are illustrated in
Figure 7.

A portion of each of the density separates was mounted in Canada
Balsam on microsc0pe slides to be used as needed for qualitative miner-
alogical studies. The remainder of each density separate was ground to
pass a 300 mesh sieve and used for qualitative X-ray analyses of the
powders. The results of those qualitative studies are shown in Table v.

Based on the previously determined percentages of sand and silt,
new samples were taken from the bulk samples of the C or D horizons of
the soils to be studied so as to provide at least two grams of each con-
stituent. The textural classification of these samples are given in
Figure 2. These samples were treated with hydrogen peroxide to remove
organic matter and hydrochloric acid to destroy carbonates. After wash-
ing free of chlorides, the sample was transferred to a mechanical stir-
rer and dispersed for 10 minutes with sodium hexametaphosphate. The
dispersing agent was added on the basis of 10 milliliters per 25 grams
of a coarse textured sample or 10 grams of a fine textured sample. The
dispersing solution was prepared using 10 grams of sodium hexametaphos-
phate in enough distilled water to make one liter.

After dispersion, the samples were transferred to 600 milliliter
beakers and the42): clays decanted and discarded, using a time interval
and depth of sedimentation calculated according to Stoke's law. Fol-
lowing one decantation, the samples were cleaned according to Matelski's
methods (33) and the clays and solution again decanted. This was re-
peated until megasc0pic examination showed the particle surfaces to be

clean. This cleaning was deemed necessary in order to remove surface

A'EOtUCE NV AUUD ell I‘Ufiu.

 

 

 

 

$2.5m 25 5 new: meHQEmm mo mwuqfixmh .N 0.33..“
ocom Eoocon . ...,

o o o o o ,
we...“ .\ 00. Aw % t W moo o 1 0% o 2.3 $00.

D / 3.. 2% ._,_V
4

’!.2mm 024 o. ,
06 a Q C‘ so. wN_ l a a a 00.- .Qn- u'n_ ,_
a: a: 8. 8.2.3. 7.
i‘ . .4 8 5.8.3.8....edze ,
9 .> > > >ng s

0 mm

K

.0
M\ < < < </ 4.6 23 on
O

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amp—9.2.: NV 3.0 o\o 00.

 

20

coatings that might interfere with X-ray diffraction.

After cleaning, the samples were washed through a 300 mesh sieve,
to separate the silt and sand fractions which were collected and oven
dried. The resulting silt samples were thoroughly mixed by tumbling in
a large test tube. The sand samples were thoroughly mixed and then sub-
sampled by pouring through a long stem funnel centered over the juncture
of two small inverted tin troughs interlocked at right angles to form
a cross. Squares of filter paper were placed in each quadrant to col-
lect the sub-samples. Opposing quarters were combined and redivided un-
til a 3 to 4 gram sample was obtained. The sand samples were then
ground to pass a 300 mesh sieve. Initial grinding was in a steel mor-
tar made from a steel block 3 inches square and lfi-inches thick. A 3/4
inch depression was bored to 1 inch depth. The pestle consisted of a
6 inch steel rod having a diameter slightly less than 3/4 inch. Grind-
ing was accomplished by placing a very small quantity of sand in the
mortar, inserting the pestle and tapping it lightly a few times with a
hammer. The material was then tipped into a 300 mesh sieve where it
‘was swept lightly with a soft camel's hair brush to assist in sieving.
This process was repeated until about i gram of sample remained on the
sieve. This coarse material was then transferred to a hard surfaced
sheet of paper and a small magnet moved repeatedly underneath to re-
move any iron fragments broken from the mortar-and;pestle. The residue
was then transferred to a small agate mortar and ground-until all ma-
terial passed a 300 mesh sieve. The ground sand sample was thoroughly
mixed by tumbling in a large test tube. These silt and ground sand

samples were then placed in vials, labeled and stored for X-ray analyses.

21

In addition to the samples of the C and D horizons of the above men-
tioned soils, pure reference minerals were obtaineda, ground to pass the
300 mesh sieve and retained for X—ray study. The minerals used were
quartz, calcite, orthoclase, microcline,anorthoclase and the six members
of the plagioclase series: albite, oligoclase, andesine, bytownite,

labradorite and anorthite4.

X-ray Diffraction Studies
Pgwggr Camgga Iechnigue: The Norelco powder camera used for the
qualitative mineralogical studies required the mounting of samples in
small hollow cellulose acetate tubes that could be mounted in the path
of the X-ray beam. The cellulose acetate tubes were prepared according
to a method described by Fricke, et a1. (ll).
The powder camera was 114.59 mm in diameter giving a circumference

of film surface of 360 mm or 1 mm of circumference for each degree 2 G.

 

3» SUpplied by Professors Bergquist, Sandefur and Zinn, Geology Depart—
ment of Michigan State University, East Lansing, Inchigan.

‘ In this study it was found necessary at timesto group the reference
minerals for identification purposes. The following groupings and
definitions are used throughout the text:

Feldspars - All below

Undefined feldspars - Analysis shows that some member(s)
of the group are present, but with
insufficient evidence to be speci-
fic as to the species.

Other feldspars - Any of the grOUp not specified in
a particular passage or table.

K-fgldspars - microcline, orthoclase and anorthclase.
Plagioclases - include both the following groups.
Na-plagioclases - albite, oligoclase and andesine.

Ca-plagioclases labradorite, bytownite and anorthite.

22

The camera was mounted on a Norelco X-ray unit with an X-ray tube con—
taining a tungsten filament and an iron target. A Mn filter was used to
filter out radiations of shorter wave length than that of Iron K¢aC .
The X-ray unit was operated at 10 milliamperes and 50 kilovolts.

Each sample of sand, silt, the standard mineral samples and the
2.60-2.80 density fractions were irradiated for 6 hours. Samples from
the heavy liquid separation, except for the groups between specific
gravity 2.60 and 2.80, were irradiated 12 hours. These exposures were
determined by a trial and error procedure in order to get a maximum in-
tensity of lines and a minimum of background irradiation. All samples
were continuously rotated during irradiation to provide the maximum num-
ber of random orientations and to prevent spotting of the film by in-
tense reflections from a single crystal. The film used was Kodak no-
screen X-ray film and it was developed according to ordinary procedures
in a constant temperature developing apparatus.

The X-ray diffractions of the samples were studied over the range
of l to 90 degrees 2 0. These represent d distances from greater than
20 R to 1.365 R. All lines recognized were numbered and assigned a
linear value in millimeters, which, because of camera dimensions, cor-
responds directly to 20. The film measuring rule, wdth vernier, used
was produced by Hilger and watts, Ltd., London, England, and was ac-
curate to 0.05 millimeter. The patterns of each film were checked vis-
ually and numerically against the standard pattern for quartz and cor-
responding lines were designed as quartz. Remaining lines were compared
numerically to those lines obtained from the other standard minerals and

designated accordingly. values determined for the standard minerals are

23

given in Table VI. All diffraction lines from the total silt and total
sand fractions were identified as belonging to one or more of the refer-
ence minerals. Minerals identified qualitatively in each sample are
shown in Table VII. Some samples from the heavy liquid separations pro-
duced lines that could be identified only by checking against published
numerical indices of X-ray diffraction data (1,2). Table V gives the
minerals identified in the samples from the heavy liquid separations.

Geiggg;Counter Iechnigue: Quantitative mineralogical analyses of
the silt, ground sand and reference minerals were made using a Norelco
x-ray spectrometer with a wide range Geiger-Counter goniometer and
Brown electronic recorder. The X-ray tube contained a tungsten fila-
ment and a copper target. A nickel filter was used to filter out ra-
diations shorter than copper KcXI. The X-ray unit was operated at 15
milliamperes and 35 kilovolts.

The X-ray diffraction patterns of the reference minerals and the
silt and sand fractions of the soil samples were all measured within a
space of nine days. The recorder tracings for the principal diffrac-
tions of the reference minerals are shown in Figures 3 and 4 and those
for four representative soils sampled are shown in Figure 5.

The X-ray diffraction intensities for each sample were recorded
as the goniometer rotated from 25° to 30°, 20, and returned to 25° so
as to obtain an immediate duplicate recording. The goniometer rotated
at the rate of one degree per minute. The angle,of rotation took into
account the d spacing from 3.55 3 to 2.98 X which includes the major
peaks for quartz, calcite and the entire feldspar grOUp.

The samples were irradiated while being rotated in a Norelco Flat

AH." 3h ~h .lh lb

AV
KUE~JITU.S\

mlhfzafJV~UOei

I‘..w

VQ<

\

miss

 

PEAK HEIGHTS - MILLIMETERES

2251i- QUARTZ

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3358*
, L
J aw
ISO
IOOqL
ORTHOCLASE
34§58
ANORTHOCLASE
3J958
MICROCLINE
yazsR
50mb
O .Wacxsnowvo LINE ( H , b T
O 25

3O 25 3O 25 3
DEGREES 2 6

30 25

* Rushers indicate d values. Peak heights all to same scale.

-_-_

Figure 3 . Tracings of characteristic diffraction intensity peaks of
reference minerals. (Quartz, orthoclase, microcline and
anorthoclase)

M.IA~.I.§MUQ

.J‘

C

‘

!

 

w...

1,

1—v«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALBITE ,, 25
,3.208
250--
J,
Jf .,
OLIGOCLASE
I50“ [3.l93
(I)
id
0:
Lu
F-
M ANDESINE
E a
.J 3.l9
.J
2:00»
I
U)
1..
I
‘3
‘3‘; LABRADORITE BYTOWNITE
i ( 3"358 3.:353
Lu ANORTHITE
‘L a
so“ 3.!85
. BACKGROUND
0J 1‘ ‘1 ii. i i ll Al :‘ LINE
30 as so 25 so 25 30 2530 25 so 25

DEGREES 2 6

* Numbers indicate d values. Peak heights all to same scale.

‘

1figure 4. Tracings of characteristic diffraction intensity peaks of
reference minerals. (sodium and calciun feldspars-

plagioclases)

225i

200"

ISO!-

PEAK HEIGHTS — MILLIMETERES

 

NO 00031.57 ON 3.20 3 LINE

 

 

 

 

 

 

26
DOUBLET ON 3.20 RLINE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site 35
SAMPLE I75 A
SAND PRACTICAL
’ 3.35 3
Sit a
SAMPLE 42
SAND FRACTION
3.35 8
Site 36
SAMPLE I79
SILT FRACTION
3.35 8
Site 25
SAMPLE I34 A
SILT FRACTION
Jag ‘flr if $13335 A
3.203
3.208 .
3.208 3-208
5‘ OKGROUND L [NE .
‘30 as 30 25 30 25 30 25

DEGREES 2 6

* Nunbers indicate d values. Peak heights all to same scale.

__

Figure 5. Tracings of characteristic intensity. peaks of several soil

QWIQSe

27

Specimen Spinner mounted on the wide range Gonimeter. This rotation in
the reflecting plane reduced the effects of preferred orientation of
crystals and exposed a maximum number of random orientations to irradi-
ation. The unit rotated at the rate of approximately 100 rpm. The sam-
ples were mounted in a shallow “cup" of a slip chuck that could be
quickly removed from the sample holder. One sample “cup" was filled
with a ground quartz standard which was inserted and X-rayed between
every sample so as to give an immediate check on the reproducibility of
the equipment as well as a standard reference for each unknown sample.

The technique of filling the sample holder was to heap an excess
of sample into the shallow "cup" and then using a clean glass slide
press it gently into the cup with a single downward motion and then re-
move the excess sample by two gentle horizontal strokes with the
straight edge of the slide touching the rim of the “cup”. This result-
ed in uniformly smooth sample surfaces and was thought to retain a
maximum random orientation of particles.

After recording the X-ray diffraction intensity patterns, it was
necessary to determine the boundary between the X-ray diffraction in-
tensity due to minerals and that due to general scattering of x-rays.
The labeled background in Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrates how this was
done. The recognizable peaks above the background line were measured
vertically in millimeters and horizontally in degrees from the mid-
point of the readily recognized quartz peak (26.6°, 20). The degree
values were converted into d values using standard curves prepared for
that purpose (36). In non-quartz samples, the angular measurement was

made from some other major peak for which thelgbniometer angular scale

 

28

reading was recorded.

Intensity values for all reference quartz measurements were aver-
aged and used to adjust other intensity values to a standard intensity
based on the average intensity value of the 3.358 diffraction of the
quartz standard irradiated immediately before and immediately after each

sample. This was expressed by the equation:

Si .
k x I Is
where: k . average intensity of all quartz determinations

qa - average intensity of quartz irradiated before
and after the unknown sample

I - intensity of diffraction peaks from the un-
known sample

Is adjusted intensity of diffraction

The d values for the peaks recognized in the reference minerals
were tabulated into groups that could be readily resolved by the in-
strument used, Table IX. Resolvable differences in d values were found
to be 1 0.0253. Using this tabulation, the unknown samples were identi-
fied accordingly. It is interesting to note that the doublets on the
3.20 R diffraction peak of the Ca-plagioclases (labradorite, bytownite
and anorthite), Figures 4 and 5 are a prime aid in separating them from
the Na-plagioclases (albite, oligoclase and andesine).

After identification of the various peaks, their intensitites were
compared to those found in the pure samples of the minerals and values
expressed in percent. The results of these mineralogical estimations
are shown in Table X. lhere a peak represented more than one mineral,

it was necessary to identify one component by some other characteristic

29

peak, subtract its proportional intensity from the total intensity of
the compound peak and then assign the remaining intensity to the other

mineral or mineral group present.

30

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data necessary to characterize each different soil profile
have been arranged in tables according to the site number and are in-
cluded in the Appendix. The mechanical analysis, carbon, available
phosphorus, available potassium and pH values were averages of two or
more determinations, except as noted. Volume weight data were averages
of a number of cores taken in a given horizon, usually 10 but varying
from 5 to 15 in number. The percentages for each type of clay mineral
(Table X) were the result of single determinations as reported by

Stolzy (43).

Effect of Cleaning on Size Distribution
In preparing the sands for petrographic and X-ray diffraction

analyses, the surface coatings were removed using the detergent and
builders procedure as outlined by Matelski (33). During this cleaning
process, what appeared to be large quantities of clay and silt were re-
leased. To determine the possible significance of this loss, the sand
fractions from the previous investigations (43) which had not been
cleaned by this process were sieved, then the separates were recombined,
cleaned and resieved. The effects of the cleaning on all samples are
shown in Table III and partially illustrated in Figure 6. The average
loss for all samples was 1.19%. When samples from sites 36 and 38

(clay soil textures) were not considered, the average loss was 0.91%.

”— .a—g—u—vn-
. ._ —_ .»—.

‘ £_v—IV . .

 

31

TABLE III

EFFECT OF CLEANING ON SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAND FRACTIONS

VFS
5
8

FS

 

 

68.2
65.5

10

17

1.42

1.50

29

34

38

DC

42

47

53

10

~ 53A

10

38. 9
39.1

31.8
31.8

18.2
18.1

75
88

1.10

59

11

35.
35.

50.0
50.0

12.
12.

63

12

0.12

\l' 5
2 3

40.3
40.1

3
.8

7H7:
33

.34

87
111

54
11.

11¢

67

13

0.13

72

14

0.17

95
35

16.5
15.8

32.
35.

33.
30.

13.0
12.6

116
C

79

15

uncleaned; c = cleaned

* uc

32

TABLE III (Continued)

a
O 8
L 7
up nu
5mm
V22
5.3
F88

33

CS_
.4
.9

 

 

40.5
40.8

15.3
15 8

76
87

05
32

11¢

93

17

29.
31. 0.67

40.7
41.4

16.4
16.5

93A

17

0.36

49.2
52.2

33.7
30.4

64
11

116

98

18

0.09

38.2
38.0

103

19

1.31

108

20

112

21

119

22

126

23

129 uc

24

134

25

36.7
34.9

UC

134A

25

139

26

145

27

153

29

158

30

163

31

 

 

 

33

TABLE III (Concluded)

 

L0 3

MS F

C

0.23

21.
22.

20.9 37.9
21.0 36.4

14.8
14.5

167

32

UC

167A

32

16.0
13.5

57
43

171 uc

33

175

35

116

175A

35

179 uc

36

none

1.82

47.4
70.5

182

37

5.09

19.
24.

185

38

1.94

189

39

1.58

31

37.
30.

25.7
33.2

192

40

1.19

Average

 

.mcucwoau >n

nmvommwm mm moaasmm Hmwhoume fimwumam Hono>mm mo accupoanm been mo comusnwnpmwn swam a“ mocmno .o shaman

Qz<m mzmm >mm> Qz<m wzmm Qz<w ZSHme

on NM mm ha OH mm mm mm ha odibnm mm mm bu On

3 Al

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92% $58 9.3 358 has cofimMmm

mm mm mm ha 0“ on mm mm bu On macaw

 

.ioa

 

 

2100
wow
Too
+aoa
1T2-
.Iua
95:33 now: D
05:33 enomom I oo

 

.OOA

setdues trio; go sneezed

35

The effect on particle size showed, in general, decreases in the
totals of very coarse and coarse sand, a relatively unchanged total in
the medium sand and increased totals in the fine and very fine sand.

The high cleaning loss in some of the finer textured samples was
attributed to inadequacy of the original dispersion as well as to chang-
es in individual particle sizes.

The overall cleaning loss was not considered to be significant in

the X-ray diffraction studies, as a composite sand fraction was used.

Distribution of Density Fractions

In an attempt to get a partial characterization of the specific
gravity distribution of the sand fractions, duplicate samples from
sites 10, 17, 25 and 32 were studied. The percentage distribution of
their density fractions is shown in Table IV and illustrated in Figure
7. A portion of these fractions was analyzed by X-ray diffraction in a
powder camera. In most cases, there was insufficient sample to employ
the Geiger counter X-ray goniometer. The summation of the analyses
is shown in Table V.

All four samples, irrespective of size fraction, showed greatest
incidence in the density group 56 2.6052.80. This was as suspected
since this group includes the most common density value for quartz,
which makes up the greatest part of many sand fractions.

The trend of occurrence for the three density groups 56 over 2.80,
2.50-2.60, and less than 2.50 was to show a decrease from the amount in
very coarse sand through coarse sand and reaching a low in mediun sand

and gradually increasing again through fine sand and very fine sand.

TABLE IV

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DENSITY FRACTIONS OF SANDS FROM
THE GLACIAL MATERIAL SAMPLES AT FOUR SITES.

 

DENSITIES (gEsch)

 

 

SITE SAMPLE Over 2.80 to 2.60 to 2.50 to Less
_§0. N0. 2.906 2.906 2.80 2.60 2.50
Very coarse sand
10 53 4.11 2.91 86.62 0.64 5.72
10 534 4.71 76.41 9.91 8.97
17 93 4.41 76.85 4.41 14.33
17 934 4.85 66.08 13.66 15.42
25 134 2.97 72.19 4.67 20.17
25 134A None 66.62 24.20 9.19
32 167 11.87 47.80 26.56 13.77
32 167A 10.43 60.45 13.90 15.22
Coarse sand
10 53 0.53 0.23 94.77 3.76 0.69
10 534 3.53 90.33 4.71 1.44
17 93 3.73 86.56 7.34 2.37
17 934 6.53 80.67 10.62 2.18
25 134 0.46 92.95 6.15 0.43
25 134A 0.59 94.49 4.74 0.17
32 167 4.51 81.16 12.17 2.16
32 167A 4.53 80.56 11.32 3.60
Medium sand
10 53 0.29 0.14 96.20 3.00 0.29
10 534 1.39 92.54 5.88 0.18
17 93 1.74 89.66 8.25 0.35
17 934 1.96 90.83 6.91 0.29
25 134 0.47 92.40 7.05 0.08
25 134A 0.56 92.30 6.82 0.32
32 167 2.11 89.40 8.23 0.26
32 167A 1.71 89.08 8.96 0.24

TABLE IV (Concluded)

 

.1 DENSITIES (gaschL

 

 

SITE SAMPLE Over 2.80 to 2.60 to 2.50 to Less
"0. NO. 2.9% 20906 2.80 2060 2050
Fine sand
10 53 1.65 0.21 83.84 14.28 0.68
10 53A 2.23 87.54 9.95 0.28
17 93 2.49 84.71 12.45 0.34
17 93A 2.70 82.74 14.20 0.37
25 134 1.73 80.52 17.52 0.22
25 134A 1.94 85.98 11.93 0.15
32 167 2.91 85.31 11.60 0.18
32 167A 2.53 85.67 11.71 0.09
Very fine sand
10 53 12.23 7.80 50.71 24.82 4.43
10 53A 8.16 75.96 14.92 0.96
17 93 4.60 70.84 21.72 2.84
17 93A 5.37 70.17 22.96 1.50
25 134 14.14 63.55 21.59 0.72
25 134A 13.99 72.68 13.22 0.11
32 167 3.07 77.91 17.83 1.18
32 167A 3.87 68.57 25.87 1.70
Total sands 2.60 to 2.80
subdivided into:

' 2.60 to 2.695 to
2.695 2.80
10 53A 99.27 0.73
17 93 98.51 1.49
25 134 99.85 0.15
32 167 98.80 1.20

38

 

.mouflm usow we moaasmm fimwnmbma Homemam one scum mpcmm mo mcofivomnm >uwmcep mo couasnwnumwo .b enamwm
.mCvamcMaumpov mammam **
.mm spam I Q "on mum» 1 0 .ha spam 1 m ”ea mean 1 < .meHaEam ovmoflaasu mo emone>< a

  

 

 

 

 

 

  

Gnu

   

 

108m 63. 08m 828 5:2 .828 m2: 98> .828 m2:
om.m 88m 08m 08m 84. 08m 08m 84 8.... om.m
ob noo.m ow oo.m >HHmzmo snag a om.m u oo.m no>o shHmzmo 44.3 a on.m 6 oo.m noso
o o 0 on < o
G Mw< n_o
0 ON .d
4 s 8....
I 3 I
m a a
CA w. cu m... 3m.
4.. 6.. m.
as c.
m 06 m com
0 w 1
a 0 0
a om om om
a OOH OO~ OO~
.828 233m: .828 $58 828 .858 98>
08m oo..m om.m 8:4. 02m 08m 8.2.. om.m 08m 08m 8.... om.m
a... . . a $3sz $6 . o . c ”5823 33 6 08a 3 oo. .85
o o
< < o m a U
um
on .68 on M on u.
I M N
3
O 8 O
7 u m. m.
ow ... on ow
O O O
r: 1. .4.
S S
06 m 86 m com.
.0 «w r.
I
O O O
om om om
OO~ 00H

 

 

OOH

39

TABLE V

MINERALS IDENTIFIED IN SAND FRACTIONS OF
DIFFERENT DENSITIES BY X-RAY DIFFRACTION

SIIE N0, §AMPL§ fig, MINERAL§ IDENIIFIED

Specific Gravity less than 2.50. All sand sizes.

10 53 Quartz*
17 93 Quartz, weak feldspar (orthoclase?)
25 134 Quartz, weak feldspar (albite?)
32 167 Quartz

Specific Gravity 2.50—2.60. Fine sand.
10 53 Quartz, orthoclase
10 53A Quartz, orthoclase
17 93 Quartz, K—feldspar (orthoclase-microcline)
17 93A Quartz, K-feldspar (orthoclase-microcline)
25 134 Quartz, K-feldspar (orthoclase-microcline)
25 134A Quartz, K-feldspar (microcline-anorthoclase)
32 167 Quartz, K-feldspar (microcline-anorthoclase) .
32 167A Quartz, K-feldspar (microclins-anorthoclase)

Specific Gravity 2.60-2.695. All sand sizes.

10 53A Quartz

17 93 Quartz, Na-plagioclase

25 134 Quartz

32 167 Quartz, undefined feldspar

Specific Gravity 2.695-2.80. All sand sizes.

10 53A Quartz, Ca-plagioclase (anorthite)
17 93 Quartz, Ca-plagioclase (bytownite)
25 134 Quartz, Ca-plagiocalse (anorthite)
32 167 Quartz, Ca-plagioclase (anorthite-bytownite)

Specific Gravity over 2.80. All sand sizes. -

25 134 Iron oxide hydrate - F9203.nH20
32 167 , Pyrite - Fe52

.g.

* varieties of quartz exist for all density groups up to 2.80._

40

The fraction 56 2.60b2.80 showed an Opposite trend and generally in-
creased in amount from the very coarse sand through coarse sand, reach-
ed a high in medium sand, and gradually decreased again through fine and
very fine sand.

Since the density range $6 2.60b2.80 could theoretically contain
so many minerals, including quartz, it was thought to be of interest to
subdivide this group at approximately 36 2.70. The results of this
separation are shown at the end of Table IV and also in Figure 7. The
2.60~2.695 density fraction contained 98.51% or more, of the total sam-
ple in all cases. This division should segregate most of the quartz
into the lower density group (Table VI), and this was confirmed by X-
ray analyses, which showed intense quartz lines in all pictures with
weak indications of Na—plagioclases from site 17 and an undefined feld-
spar from site 32. The heavier group showed weak evidence of quartz
and also Ca-plagioclases in all samples. These mineral findings, shown
in Table V, were corroborated by patterns recorded by the Geiger coun-
ter goniometer from,the X-ray diffraction of the total sand samples.

The incidence of density groups 86 over 2.80, 2.5052.60 and less
than 2.50 from high to low to high with decrease in particle size seems
to indicate that size reduction seems to ”jump“ several grades rather
than follow a simple equidimensional division in previous cycles of
weathering. This could be envisaged as a spelling action rather than
equidimensional splitting or solution. Coupled with this, there was
the question of preferential weathering which tends to weather out some
minerals faster than others and leave the more resistant varieties. In

this case, in the smaller size ranges one would expect to find an ac—

41

cumulation of the more resistant minerals or weathering products as well
as smaller amounts of those less resistant. This hypothesis seems most
probable. The highly resistant mineral quartz was identified with pow-
der camera technique in all density groups except 86 over 2.80. The
feldspars more resistant to weathering, K and Na varieties, were more
abundant than the less resistant Ca feldspars in the finer and lighter
fractions. In the group with 36 over 2.80 iron bearing minerals, pyrite
and iron oxide hydrate, predominated. These minerals also have a high
relative hardness (39) and a strong resistance to weathering.

The shift in incidence of the density group 36 2.60-2.80 from low
to high to low with decrease in particle size is the converse of the'
other density groups studied. This group was found to be predominately
quartz which has a high hardness (27) and a strong resistance to wea-
thering. This seems to indicate that the variation of this group was
probably more a function of relative change in the incidence of the

.other density groups than in being a completely independent variable.

Qualitative Mineralogical Analyses

Powder camera: Total sand samples from each site were ground to
pass a 300 mesh sieve and irradiated using a powder camera technique.
In addition, a series of reference minerals were ground and irradiated
in the same manner to determine their major characteristic diffraction
angles (2 0). These latter characteristic diffraction angles are shown
in Table VI. The patterns produced by the unknown sand samples were
checked against those of the reference minerals. The results of these

comparisons are shown in Table VII.

42

TABLE VI

MAJOR CHARACTERISTIC DIFFRACTION ANGLES (2 0*) OF
REFERENCE MINERALS AS DETERMINED WITH A POWDER CAMERA

 

 

 

2 e in SPECIFIC GRAVITY
DEGREES MINERAL CHEMICAL_§QMEQ§11JQN __h_figm§[cc)**
33.77 Quartz Si02 2.66

37.45 Calcite CaC03 2.715

Feldspars (all below)

K-feldspars
35.00 Orthoclase KAlSi308 2.56
34.95 Microcline KalSi308 2.56
35.37 Anorthoclase (Na,K)A181308 2.58

Plagioclases (Albite-anorthite series)

Na-plagioclases

35.70 Albite NaA181308 2.605
35-67 Oligoclase n NaA181308 /'m CaA128i208 2.64
35.62 Andesine ' ' 2.678

Ca-plagioclases

35.60 Laboradorite n NaA181308 /’m CaAl2Si208 2.70
35.50 Bytownite - ~ 2.73
35.37 Anorthite CaAl2Si208 2.765

* One degree 2 0 corresponds to l millimeter of circumference on
film surface in the powder camera used. Camera radius 114.59 mm
and circumference 360 mm.

** Average values from Larsen and Barman (27)-

TABLE VII

QUALITATIVE MINERALOGICAL ANALYSES
AS DETERMINED WITH POWDER CAMERA

 

SITE

SAMPLE_

l

10

10

ll

l2

l3

l4

4

IO

17

23

29

34

38

42

47

53

53A

59

63

67

72

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt
sand
silt
sand

silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

sand
silt

 

ION U RTZ

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes

PLAGIOCLASES

Labradorite

Labradorite (7)
Labradorite (7)

Bytownite
Bytownite-
anorthite

Bytownite-
labradorite
Anorthite

Labradorite
Labradorite-
bytownite

Labradorite
Bytownite

Bytownite
Bytownite

Andesine
Anorthite

Labradorite
Labradorite

Anorthite

Albite

0 ER FELDSPXES'

Orthoclase

Microcline

Orthoclase

Undefined*

Anorthoclase
Anorthoclase

Undefined

44

TABLE VII (Continued)

 

SIIE SAMPLE FRACTION QUARTZ PLAGIOCLASES OTHER FELDSPARS

r"

 

 

 

15 79 sand yes Undefined
silt yes Bytownite
16 86 sand yes Labradorite-
bytownite
silt yes Anorthite
17 93 sand yes Bytownite
silt yes Bytownite
17 93A sand yes Bytownite
silt yes Undefined
18 98 sand yes
silt yes Anorthite
19 103 sand yes Anorthite
silt yes Bytownite
20 108 sand yes
silt yes Andesine
21 112 sand yes
silt yes Bytownite-
labradorite
22 119 sand yes
silt yes Bytownite
23 126 sand yes Bytownite
silt yes Undefined
24 129 sand yes
silt yes Anorthite
25 134 sand yes
silt yes Bytownite
25 134A sand yes
silt yes Undefined
26 139 sand yes
silt yes Albite
27 145 sand yes
silt yes Undefined

TABLE VII (Concluded)

45

 

 

 

 

 

51 E 8 LE FRACTION QUARTZ PLAGIOCLASES OTHER FELDSPARS
28 148 sand yes Labradorite-
bytownite
silt yes Undefined
29 153 sand yes
silt yes Labradorite
30 158 sand yes Oligoclase
silt yes Oligoclase
31 163 sand yes Oligoclase
silt yes Undefined
32 167 sand yes Bytownite
silt yes Anorthite
32 167A sand yes Anorthite
silt yes Bytownite
33 171 sand yes Anorthite (7)
silt yes Anorthite
35 175 ' sand yes Bytownite
silt yes Anorthite (7)
35 175A sand yes Undefined
silt yes Bytownite
36 179 sand yes Undefined
silt yes Undefined
37 182 sand yes Undefined
silt yes Undefined
38 185 sand yes
silt yes Labradorite-
bytownite
39 189 sand yes
silt yes Undefined
40 192 sand yes
silt yes Anorthite (7)
* Undefined = analysis shows some member of the group is present, but

with insufficient evidence to be specific as to species.

Quartz was found to be a constitutent of all the composite sam-
ples studied. This was not unusual since quartz makes Up the bulk of
many sand fractions. Other soil and geologic investigators have report-
ed the presence of quartz in all comprehensive mineralogical analyses of
various soils and rocks of Michigan ( 5, 9, 10, l2, 14, 17, 23, 29, 32,
34, 42, 44).

Generally one other mineral-or group was identified in each sample.
These findings were corroborated in every case, except one, by the pat-
terns as recorded by the Geiger-counter goniometer. The exception was
in the case of albite (Na-plagioclase) being identified by film techni-
que in the sand from site 14, while the Geiger-counter goniometer trac-
ing showed Ca-plagioclase. It was noted, however, that often the area
on the film representing the diffraction angles of the major intensity
lines for the feldspars was a diffused band instead of a distinct line.
This band usually showed a zone of intensification. As the plagioclases
are an isomorphous series, this would indicate the presence of more than
one species of the group, but wdth one species being in greater amount.
This coupled with possible errors of sampling could account for the dif-

ference in interpretation between the two methods of identification.

Precision of Analyses Using Geiger—Counter Goniometer
This investigation was not designed along statistical lines, but
five samples were chosen as "checks“. Duplicates of these were carried
through all procedures involved. To estimate the accuracy of the min-
eralogical analyses by X-ray diffraction, the means for the duplicate
samples were determined for the major mineral groups present. The re-

sults of these analyses are shown in Table VIII, and Figure 8.

47

TABLE VIII

ESTIMATE OF PRECISION OF MINERALOGICAL ANALYSIS BY X-RAY
DIFFRACTION AS PERCENTAGES OF THE SAMPLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5115 §AMEL§ QUABI; K-EELQSEAESE PLAGIOCLASES
Sand Samples
10 53 79.2 8.5 12.2
53A 73.1 11.1 a 15.7
76.5 t 3.05 9.8 r 1.3 13.95 1 1.75
17 93 69.6 14.4 16.0
93A 74.2 10.7 16.1
71.9 r 2.3 12.55 t 1.85 16.05 s 0.05
25 134 82.8 17.2 0.0
134A 84.2 13.2 2.6
83.5 t 0.7 15.2 I 2.0 1.3 i 1.3
32 167 81.2 8.5 10.3
167A 72.5 16.3 11.2
76.85 t 4.3 12.4 I 3.9 10.75 1 0.45
35 175 74.8 11.6 13.5
175A 72.1 11.7 16.
73.45 i 1.35 11.65 3 0.05 14.85 t 1.35

All 3
2

0 ( 100%) determinations on sand samples fell within:4.30 of mean.
4 ( 80%) determinations on sand samples fell within: 2.0 of mean.
8 (26.7%) determinations on sand samples fell within! 0.7 of mean.
4 (13.3%) determinations on sand samples fell within10.05 of mean.

TABLE VIII (Concluded)

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W Hm
Silt Samples
10 53 69.5 9.8
53A 67.4 12.1
68.45 I 1.05 10.95 i 1.15
17 93 80.1 9.9
93A 77.9 13.7
79 t 1.1 11.8 :t 1.9
25 134 68.2 10.9
134A 65.9 15.5
67.05 t 1.15 13.2 t=2.3
32 167 78.8 9.4
167A 80.1 29.7
79.45 I 0.65 9.55 3 0.15
35 175 69.3 7.7
175A 78.4 9.9
73.85 3 4.55 8.8 r 1.1

All 30 ( 100%) determinations on
26 (86.6%) determinations on
10 (33.3%) determinations on
4 (13.3%) determinations on

All 60 ( 100%) determinations of
3 5.56 of mean.

46 (76.7%) determinations of
3 2.00 of mean.

18 ( 30%) determinations of
3 0.80 of mean.

8 (13.3%) determinations of

1 0.15 of mean.

silt
silt
silt
silt
sand
sand

sand

sand

 

 

 

was.
20.6

20.4

20.5 1 0.1
10.0

8.4

9.2 i 0.8
20.8

18.5

19.65- 1.15
11.8

10.3
11.05'10.75
23.0
11.7

17.35 £5.65

samples fell within: 5.65 of mean.
samples fell withintl.9 of mean.
samples fell within10.8 of mean.
samples fell withint0.15 of mean.
and silt studies fell within
and silt studies fell within
and silt studies fell within

and silt studies fell within

100

80

Percent of Determinations

N
O

0‘
C
j

.8

 

0 A11 Samples
0 Sand Samples
A Silt Samples

 

é;
FIE—

 

 

 

80

60

Percent of Determinations

20

10

  

K-Feldspars
P.05 I 2.8%

P.80 "- 2.1%
P.66 I 1.75%

% Deviation from mean

 

 

100

 

800

0‘
C)

.3

Percent of Determinations

k)
C)
3

 

Quartz

p.05 I 4e3%
P.80 = 2.2%
P.66 = 1.9%

% Deviation from mean

2 3 4 5

a l ‘

49

 

“8'5

80"

O‘
C)

Percent of Determinations

k)
C)

j
I

 

p...
(3

.n
C)
3

Plagioclases

13.05 = 30%
P.80 - 1.5%
P.66 = 1.15%

% Deviation from mean

Edgar. 8. Deviation of X-ray diffraction samPles from th‘ ""n'

 

 

   

 

 

50

Plagioclases in silt samples showed the greatest individual varia-

tion (5.65%) from the mean. The greatest variation of plagioclases in
sand samples was 1.75%. Potash feldspars greatest variations were 3.9%
from the mean sand samples and 2.3% in silt. The greatest variation of
quartz was 4.55% in silt and 4.30% in sands. These values would be con-
siderably higher, particularly for feldspars, if they were computed as

percentages of the means of the minerals present. It was interesting to

note that 80% of the quartz determinations were within t 3.05% of the

mean, K-feldspars show 80% within 1 2.0% of the mean, and Plagioclases

show 80% within t 1.35% of the mean.
Other wokers have reported (6, 25, 26) Geiger counter spectrome-
ters, under suitable conditions, to be accurate to about.t 5% of the

quantity of the mineral present. It was of interest to note that

Pollack, et al., (38) in their work using the same equipment used in
this study, found variations Up to i‘4.1% even when 48 intensity ratios

were measured. Phillippe et al., (37) reported results from silt

studies that were reproducible as shown by standard deviations of

2.91%, 1.20% and 0.80% respectively for quartz, microcline (K-feldspar)

and albite (Na-plagioclase). Klug, et al., (25) reported that with

coarser material (7~5u) there was a decrease in observed intensity that
was probably due at least partially to the effect of extinction in the

larger crystallites. They also reported superior reproducibility using

counting technique instead of the recorder in studies with pure quartz
and concluded that for precise quantitative analysis the counting tech-

nique was needed.
The variations in reproducibility of diffraction intensity measure-

51

ments may arise from several sources. The technique of subsampling the
bulk samples probably contributed errors, even though a sample splitter
was used. Two other possible sources of error were the incomplete mix-
ing of the silts and ground sands and the variability in the ”loading"
of the slip chuck sample holders. Variations in intensity of X-rays
were another source of error involved.

In view of the variations in the intensity of the characteristic
diffractions of the individual feldspars in each grOUp identified, it
was clear that the reproducibility of the measurements on a particular
sample was better than the precision of the assumed mean intensity for

each feldspar group, Table IX.

I!

3.47
*3.45
3.38
3.37

*3.35

*3.295
*3.25
*3.20

3.18
3.165
3.16

*3.13
*3.05

3.04
3.01

2.94

52

TABLE IX

INTENSITIES AND d VALUES FOR CHARACTERISTIC DIFFRACTIONS
OF REFERENCE MINERALS
MINERALS OF WHICH THE DIFFRACTION IS CHARACTERISTIC AND THE

H51 5 OF EIR DIFFRACTION PEAK IN MIL I ER .
Albite (9.6), Andesine (5.3)

Albite (9.3), Andesine (6.9), Labradorite (5.6)

 

Mic line 3.7 16.3 - v 3 15.0, Bytownite (4.6)
Anorthoclase (7.1) - if there is also doublet on 3.20 X
Orthoclase (14.8), Microcline (17.3), Albite (9.6)

Calcite (6.25) - absent in samples after acid treatment.

uartz (223.25), Anorthite (8.2), Bytownite (8.2), Labradorite
8.7), Oligoclase (10.4), Andesine (10.7) Anorthoclase (10.2).

Or hocl e 16.9 Microcline 22.7 av. K-feld ar = 19.8

Orthoclase 88.8 Microcline 63.7 av. K-feld ar = 76.2

 
  

  

No doublet - Albite
av a- la ioclase= 184. 5 Orthoclase (27. ), Microcline 26
av. K- -fe1dsoar - 26. 75**.

Doublet - Labradorite 72*** , Bytownitei72), Anorthite (67-2).
Anorthoclase (78. 5)

Bytownite or Oligoclase (from standard reference tables)

 

 

Anorthite (9.2)
Anorthite (6.1)

Calcite (128) - absent in samples after acid treatment.
Andesine (12.8)
Microcline (9.5), Orthoclase (8.7), Bytownite (6.2)

 

* Key identification lines. The average intensity figures were used

when a group is represented.
** The intensity of this diffraction of the K-feldspars was substract~

ed

from the total intensity when they were identified by their

3. 25 line.
“The labradorite value was used for the calculation of Ca—plagio—

clases.

53

Quantitative Mineralogical Analyses
Tracings produced by a recording Geiger—counter X-ray spectrometer,

as in Figures 3 and 4, were used to estimate the quantitative mineralo-

gical composition of each sample. The d values for peaks recognized in

reference minerals were tabulated (Table IX) and used to identify the

peaks in the unknown samples. A summation of these mineralogical esti-

mations is shown in Table X.

-The sum of the initial estimations of the mineralogical components
generally did not equal 100%. The initial estimations of minerals in
the samples of ground sand exceeded 100% in all cases except one. The
exception was sample 182, a clay, from site 37. The estimate of the
minerals in silt samples was less than 100% in all cases except three.

These exceptions were samples 72, 175 and 189 from sites 14, 35 and 39

respectively. Sample 72, a sand, gave an uncorrected value of 113.73%.

Samples 175 and 189, clays, gave uncorrected values of 101.45% and
119-49% respectively.

The estimation of greater than 100% minerals in the ground sand
samples can partially be explained by the grinding of the samples. In
grinding, some of the sands were reduced below silt size and thus their

relative intensities were not truly preportional to the amount of min-

eral present (25). Pollack, et a1. (38) have pointed out that the

minerals of the same chemical composition (5102) having the same dif-
fraction angle (20) often exhibit variations in diffraction intensities.
Another factor that possibly caused the estimation to exceed 100% was
the possibility of the presence of minerals in the group with greater

diffraction intensities than the value used for estimation. For exam-

54

ple, if albite were the Na—plagioclase present to the exclusion of oli-
goclase and andesine, then the average value of 184.5 mm for the group
(Table IX) would incorrectly indicate more mineral being present, be-
cause the value for pure albite is 271.5 mm. A similar possibility ex-
isted in each of the groups of minerals considered.

The possibility of reinforcement of intensity peaks cannot be com-
pletely eliminated, even though the known reinforcements were taken into
account in the calculations. These factors, singly or in combination,
could explain the discrepancy of over 100% mineral in some samples.

The determination of less than 100% minerals in the silt samples
was as expected. If all minerals in the mixture were known and each
gave diffraction intensities preportional to their total amounts, then
the identification should be 100%. Carl (6) reported in his findings
that with a high percentage of quartz, his analyses were accurate with-
in i 10% of the amount of quartz present, and to within at 1% when a
low percentage of quartz was present. However, same intensity peaks
may be overlooked or masked by background, or missed by operator error.

The occurrence of mineral species with diffraction intensities
less than the average for the grOUp would also tend to reduce the ac-
curacy of percentage estimation as for example,andesine (120.5 mm) be—
ing the principal species in a Na-plagioclase grOUp. The possibility
also exists that some mineral grains will have weathered surfaces that
mask their true X-ray diffraction characteristics so that they are pos-
sibly unidentified or incorrectly appraised. Thus with action of any
or all of these factors, a percentage less than 100 would normally be

expected. However, why the factors should be combined to give more

55

than 100% in most sand fractions and less than 100% in the silt frac-
tions was not apparent.

To better visualize the relationship between the ground sand and
silt samples, the results of each were adjusted to 100%. These adjust-
ed values are shown in Table X with the clay minerals in the same sam-
ples as reported by Stolzy (43),

With the adjustment of the sand and silt fractions to a basis of
100% identification, there was a tendency for the mineralogy of the two
to approach the same quantitative composition. The trend was approxi-
mate, and by no means absolute. The quantity of quartz in each fraction
approached 75% with the K-feldspars accounting for about 12% and the
plagioclases about 12%. The average values for minerals in both sand
and silt fractions are shown at the end of Table X. The extremes of
quartz were a high of 90.6%.in the sand fraction from site 18 and a low
of 50.3%Iin the silt fraction from site 14. K~fe1dspars varied from a
high of 34.9% in the sand fraction from site 37 to a low'of 6.0% in the
sand fraction from site 18. Plagioclases showed a high of 30.5% in the
sand from site 7 to a low of 0.2% in the sand fraction from site 26. It
should be noted however, that the identification of a portion of the
curve from the sand fraction from site 26 was uncertain. The peak in
question was either anorthite (plagioclase) or anorthoclase (K-feldspar)
both 91’ which exhibit a peak with a doublet and d value of 3.20 R. A
secondary peak with a d value of 3.45 2 would confirm anorthoclase, but
this could not be clearly established as it was felt that the percent
of mineral present was probably so small that the peak, even if present,

could not be distinguished from the background.

TABLE X
QUANTITATIVE MINERALOGICAL ANALYSES AS DETERMINED WITH
GEIGER COUNTER GONIMOMETER

 

 

CLAY FRACTION**

ADJUSTED TO lOQi
QUARTZ K~FELD- PLAGIO— MONT—

ILLITE

KAOL-

 

UNCORRECTED PERCENTAGE*

SITE SAMPLE FRACTION QUARTZ K-FELD— PLAGIO—

 

 

(\I N (X) 0 \0 CO (\I (X) (D
a-4 H .4
\J
(U
i—
H O O O O O O O O O
a In H m In in 0| .0 In ('0
2'
O
Q: In in ID in ID
2 \I
*
m 5.
Lu FF \0 man 00‘ IDF LO 0‘ 0’)?
(I) e e e e e e e I e e e e e e e I e e e
(DN (‘00 OH HO? fit!) F? F V6) 00
U (V (\I -—ir-i HH r-O H He—Q an
E!) HM FO‘ (13x0 000 (1) V0 NF H VF
0: I e e a e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e
<2 ON N00 00‘ Q'IDF O‘H (DO 100‘ N 00
9r.) a-iu-c e-a H Fir-4H H H (VI-O
(\IN V0 (‘00:) Fm“) 00) NO‘ (06) OO VO‘
I O C O O O O O O Q C U 0 C O I O I 0
—1K) a)~4 o~a> V<n<n «)0\ V v V'oa —cv (3(V
COO (OF \OF FFF FF (DCD IDF 0F F
“70‘ go V0 0‘ (VG) HID moo éc‘ V0
(I) 0 e on a e on e es at so so as
j 00 VF NO <t ('0 (BF Ch" 00 mm (OF
L) u-eu—i p-c (Va-e H VH H‘H
U) N0 VO‘ mF IDIDID «)0 NO‘ Hm VP! coo
m D U I O O O C I O C l C I O O O O O 0
< 010‘ IOF Nd) IDID (V0 00‘ 00‘ no: 010
fl. v-I H H Hdr-i HP! N mo-i n4
0) m V F F Q n 0‘ NO GOV
. I O O O O O 0 C I O O . O D O O I
FQ Hm (”r-l (Di-4H V0 go HO H's? HO
0‘ 20 FF OFF “(1) F0 03F m0
R
O
1394 ‘Oe-F 15¢) ‘04) 'O-P 'O-P '0-64 ‘OH '54-,
CH cp-c CH CH CH CH Co—t cue cm
“W! Nee-4 (OOH NH M"! NM NM NM (BM
00) in”) «on one) can IDO‘) I010 WU) on
V O F ('7 0‘ V (X) (\1 {x
H (\l n (‘0 V V
"‘ N 0) V in O F (I) (h

 

 

10

30

55.4

sand
silt

53

10

56

57

TABLE X (Continued)

 
 
 
 

 

m on OH
0 OH

O o”

N 0a

m 00 n

c on

mm on m
NH on n

0 CV n.V
OH on

m HZH .ZOmOE
mHHqAH :40<x JHZOE
*1..on 83¢ >30

n.0H N.- m.m>
s**¢.m 0.0 0.00
v.m h.mH o.>>
A.0H b.0H N.Vh
0.0H 0.0 H.0m
0.0” v.v~ 0.00
«.5 b.0H O.Nm
Hehm 0.~H Hear
N.hu H.NH b.0h
N.HH o.m m.ow
v.mN m.~N m.on
N.h o.h m.vm
n.mm N.m m.mo
h.o m.o o.vm
m.m H.0H o.~m
o.m~ o.mH «.mh
H.m~ N.m~ h.Mb
v.m o.o o.mm

   

mum 0 cm a
nOHO<Am -qumix th<30
KOCH OH DMHmDfiQ<

12 Te ~23 use
seem.m 0.0 mo” name
H4. 9: mac :3
o.h~ b.NH m.mm new»
0.0“ w.o 0.0» page
H.mm m.o~ 0.00 been
m.o 0.0" «.05 uAfim
«.mm H.0H ¢.oo new»
«.QH 0.0” w.wn “Mam
m.vH m.o~ o.ao~ vane
v.mm N.vw N.hn «flaw
m.m v.0 b.mo~ ucam
d.nH n.n w.ov paum
o.¢ m.w~ n.mH~ been
n.m h.o m.>> uHfim
H.0H m.>~ o.om beam
v.0” n.0H v.mm «Ham
o.o~ n.HH mo been
b.0H o.o H.nm vfiua
o.Hm m.n~ OOH ucem

mm

(no

mo

oh

Nb

be

on

(mm

ma
ha
hfi
0H
0“
en
MM

NH

OH

 

  

mm 40

10H0<gm qummux th<DO ZOHHU<mm mqu<m whnm

 

*m0<H2mo m omhommmoozz

 

58

TABLE X (Continued)

***m v H.mH 0.Nm eatm.m 5.0 m.~0 no asset
m.oH m.w« 0.55 H.m 5.o m.~0 page
seem.o H.o~ 5.0m *asm.o m.w~ 000 he steak

0 ON v.0 H.0H n.0m 0.0 new” OOA flame and 0N
m.mH n.0H 0.00 m.¢~ v.NH 0.N0 «Haw

oem N.mH N.vm m.m 0.5a mod 0:00 <va 0N
m.om 0.0“ «.m0 0.0g «.0 m.~n uHHm

n.5H w.mm «.mw 0.00H pcmm wmfi 0N
o.NH 0.5 H.0w v.HH H.0 0.05 «Hum

ma 00 n 5.5 0.0 v.mm 5.0 H.0H m.vo new» oma vm
0.0 m.5 m.mm m.o ¢.5 v.55 pawn

0 0m 0.0a m.o~ H.m5 o.vH v.NH o.vo beau 0NH mm
0.0H ****0.0 H.H5 m.n~****5.5 5.50 vflam

0 09 0 o.v **#*D.NH 5.Nm 0.0 *sssv.nH «.moH new» oHH Nu
0.0a v.vw 0.00 0.5a H.Hm v.0v uuum
eeev.m H.5 n.ow eeeo.v m.m m.vo~ no skeet

m.m 5.0 o.vm m.o~ m.m m.vo~ teem mad an
*eeo.v 0.0” N.nm ek*m.m 0.0H o.Hm pawn

ON 00 n ***V.V 0.0 0.00 ***0.v o.o~ 0.00 beam 00H 0N
5.0m 5.m 0.05 m.vH «.0 0.00 «Ham

m.v H.5 ~.mm 0.0 0.0 ooH been moH 0H

 

wHHzH
mHHAAH xqo<¥ I520: IOHO<AQ IQAmmlx N5m<DO

 

 

*iZOHHU<mm ><AU wdofi OH QMHmDhQ<

 

59

TABLE X (Continued)

 

a.~H e.e e.ms s.os ~.e m.~h so «use
eats.» o.u~ o.ow else.m m.n~ n.>o seats

e oe m.o~ >.~H ~.up e.Hw m.na o.so sea» <nsa on
o.mm 5.5 m.oo «.mm m.> m.op edge

e oe n.mH e.- m.e> ~.es e.m~ om ea.» or“ an
~.o~ m.e~ H as 0.0 ~.m~ >.ee «use
eeie.m h.vH m.Hm seem.n u.o~ 00 so eases

«H on n.v m.m o.eH >.n> 5.0 «.0H oo ease and mm
m.o~ >.e H.om «.0 s.m «.mn ease

e“ o» n w.H~ m.e~ n.m> n.n~ n.m~ ooH seen <>efl mm
m.HH e.e m.m5 0.0 n.h ~.me as“.

ea 0s m m.os n.m m.~m v.e~ o.«H was we.» has an
o.eH m.- m.ss m.m~ e.e “.mn ease

e oe n u. sees.HH m.>~ 0.0» eeie.ua o.mH m.H> see» me” an
e.o~ H.e 0.0m “.0 o.w as base

m on eitm.n “.5” p.55 seem.n «.5H n.m> scam mnH om
e.mfi o.a~ n.m> H.HH o.o~ 0.00 pfiae

e om ”.5 ~.mH m.om o.m “.0” m.~oH we.» no" om
m.» o.o «.mm ~.s New n.os vase

v.0“ n.m fi.Hm m.ud e.o~ e.eo sees me“ mm
m.a~ s.n~ n.me o.n~ n.- e.~n base

0 o” n “v m.m m.a v.mm e.e o.o n.moH scam nv~ am

 

 

mm .
mHHAAH Iqo<x 15202 IOHD<AQ noqmmux thvjo IOHD<1E qumml v. th<30 ZOHHU<~E manim mHHw
*0.on «Em :30 Room 05 5.53.2? EmD<H2uommm fiHUmmmOnZD

60

TABLE x (Concluded)

.3533 nova-Scam «o 033 no 3:33-3:30 v:- e: 52.52. .3339: cauueuamficevn sees...

32630 3325 on: >3 33030355:

[|

6336535 sees
6036009318 3230 33303335: see
3:333»; u...-
onv 530$ 50 35.3330 en 33:23.- 5-8 we
633-55030 3339.6 00 03:26 use-sun?" :3; e

uméa

 

 

 

o>.e~ ae.- «v.05 55.00 o0.e0 «000

0.0 05.00 0~.0 00.00 on.a~ 00.55 «m.a~ om.e~ me.eo 0a.. moemm><
0.00 v.00 0.55 0.0 o.o~ «.00 a0".

00 ow 0 v. eeeo.e 0.00 5.00 sees.e 0.00 no 0:00 was ac
0.00 0.0a 0.«0 0.00 «.0u m.v~ 000.

00 on 0 0.5 0.00 p.00 0.00 a.v~ 0.000 00.. 000 on
0.00 0.0 m.vp «.00 0.0 0.05 0000

0 on eeee.m , 0.00 0.00 eeem.m «.50 0.00 0:.» 000 00
0.0a «.00 e.u0 v.00 o.- 0.0e 000.

m 5.a~ o.e0 v.u0 5.0 5.00 0.0« sees am” pm
0.00 0.«0 e.os 0.00 0.00 «.00 0000
eeeo.e 0.0m 0.00 eeeo.0 m.em 0.05 sees:

a 00 0.00 0.00 «.00 «.00 m.em 0.0» 0:.» as“ 00

z zom u m ”wuudquu::wmemm
mangau uao<x -Hzos -oHo<qe .oqmm-x th<ao .oHo<ae .oqmm-x Npm<=o zo-o<mm mgea<m menu
0 m o tacos auumuuwmwmqui nummHmummwmnmemnmummmm

 

 

61

To gain an overall representation of the mineralogy of the parent
rock from each site, the mineral values from each size fraction were
weighted against the percentages of the sand, silt and clay as deter-
mined by mechanical analyses. The mineralogical compositions of the
sand and silt fractions were adjusted to 100% only where the original
estimates exceeded that amount. These results are tabulated in Table
XI. To graphically portray the composite mineralogy, the values for
several minerals were plotted for the different site numbers in the or-
der of their increasing quartz contents. This was in approximately the
I order of the decreasing numbers of particles per gram of sample, as
shown in Figure 9.

It should be noted again that the mineralogical determinations in
the sand fractions generally totaled more than 100%, so their values
were adjusted back to 100%. The clay size fraction as identified by
Stolzy (43) gave less than 100% identification. Stolzy did not scan the
range which covered the major diffraction peaks of quartz, feldspars and
plagioclases. It seems possible that some of the unidentified clay size
samples might be due to the presence of those minerals. Stolzy made
special note that in some of the fine textured soils such as the Pick-
ford, site 36, and the Ontonagon, site 37, the diffraction characteris-
tics for the clay minerals were very low, but a further investigation of
the types of minerals present was not made.

Stolzy (43) considered some of the samples to be amorphous to X-

rays. Later work5 by Mortland of flichigan State University has shown

 

sTFersonal communications from Drs. A. E. Erickson and M. M. Mortland,
Soil Science Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan

 

62

these samples not to be amorphous. They have large surface areas and
require special techniques to elucidate their mineralogical compositions.
Erickson and Mortland considered that the 7.1 R spacing called kaolinite
by Stolzy may also include second order diffraction of chlorite or ver-
miculite basal spacings. vermiculite has been positively identified by
Mortland in the Fox and warsaw'soils and WUrman6 found chlorite in
some other Michigan soils. They also consider that some of the long
spacings called montmorillonite by Stolzy may include vermiculite or
chlorite.

The quartz content appears to be inversely related to the number
of particles per gramtof sample. The feldspars also show a general de-
crease in amount as the number of particles increases.

The percentage of identified clay minerals, particularly kaolinite,
increased until the quartz content of the sample was about 40% and then
decreased as the quartz content increased in the samples, and particle

size increased.
There was a very general correlation of particles per gram of sam—

ple and the mode of deposition of the sample. Generally, the sites with
the most particles per gram of sample occur in conjunction with some
ancient glacial lake feature. The sites with fewest particles per

gram of sample generally occur in the outwash areas and in the glacial
interlobate areas. These generalizations are in themselves only an ex~

pression of the end results of glacial activity in sorting and deposi-

tion of materials.

Graduate student in Soil Science Department, MichiganfState University,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Iv

63

TABLE XI

SUMMARY OF MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION OF GLACIAL MATERIAL SAMPLES

ARRANGED ACCORDING TO INCREASING PERCENTAGE OF QUARTZ*

 

 

0.00 m5.e 00.05
e.em 50.0 00.05
0.00 5.8
no.8 «a... 0565
5.50 00.0 50.05
00.00 e~.m 05.00
00.00 e~.m 05.00
00.00 at. 00.05
v.05 00.0 00.05
0.00 e0.e 05.05
0.00 e0.e 05.05
0.00 as: 05.00
00.ee eH.~ 00.00
0.00 00.0 we.0e
0.00 5.0 5.00
0.00 5.0 5.00
Aeceev 05.0
0.05 50.0 00.50
>400 5000 A0<50H0

zH QmHmHHZmQHZD

.HzmQH

mqmz<w mo Hmmommm

N.N
vm.m

00.0

50.0

H0.m
H0.N

00.m

.zosz

N0.N
0.0
0.0N

05.m~
0.5a

05.00
05.00

05.0N
5.00

~.0N
H.0m

0.0m

NH.NH

mm.w
05.0
N0.N

av.“

00.0

mN.0~
00.0
00.0
0N.m
00.v

00.0
00.0

0~.0
00.0a

05.0
av.v

m<AUOH
IHZOS MHHAAH IAO<¥ c0<da|<z IO<401<U

05.0
00.0
00.0
um.0
00.5

vHev
00.¢

0v.v
05.0

50.0
~0.0

00.0
Aw.v
50.N

0v.m
00.0

v0.0

0

50.00
V.v0
00.00
0.00
00.?0

0.00
05.vm

0v.vm
mv.vm

Nv.vn
mo.vm

00.00
«0.0w
50.0N

00.0~
av.0H

00.N~

<00
#0
«v

00H

Hattie
<05H

05H
mm

hotset
H5H

00H
00”
00a

noeese
05a

N0”

0?

an

0m

00

mm
00
mm

on

0m

5m

 

IQAMhIx th<00 mqml<m mHHm

64

TABLE XI (Continued)

 

 

00.0 05.0 ”0.00 00.0
0~.0 05.0 H~.00 00.0
00.0 0H.o 0.50 00.0 00.0
0.0 0V.H 00.00 00.0
0.0 00.~ 05.00 0.0 0.V
00.0 50.H 00.00 00.0
05.0 uV.V H0.00 0V.0 00.~
0.0 00.0 00.00 0.0
0.H 0V.0 00.00 05.0 0.0
0.~ 00.0 VH.00 05.0 0.0
00.0 V5.0 VV.00 00.0 00.0
0.0a 00.0 00.00 00.0
0.0a V0.0 00.00 00.0
0.00 0~.0 00.00 00.~
00.0 00.0 0.00 0~.~ 0.0
00.0 00.0 00.H0 0H.~ 0.0
Hfiww HAHW 4050H 20
20 QmHmHHZmQHz: .HZmQH

 

mqm£<m mo HZmUmmm

00.0
00.H
0.0
0V.0
0.00
00.0
0.V
00.”
00.00
00.00
05.0H
05.”
50.V
00.0

0.HH
0.~H

00.0

0H.”

H

05.00
0.VH

00.00

00.0

50.00
05.00
50.0H
00.0
00.0
00.5
0H.~H
00.0
00.0a

00.0
00.0

00

00.0
5V.oa
00.00
00.0
00.5
05.0
00.0
05.0
H0.5
50.00
00.0
00.0
0.0a
00.0~

0.-
0.-

0~.V5
00.00

V0.00

0.00
0.50
V.50
V.00
H0.00
0.V0
00.00
0.00
00.00
0.00
5.00

5.00
5.00

<00
00
00a
000
5V
00
50
50a
<50~
00a
00
000
00

actttt
00

0H
00
00
00

00

00
00
V0
0H
00

5a

I020: MHHAAH IAO<¥ 10<Aml<z ID<AQI<0 qummlx th<30 mqml<m wHHw

 

65

TABLE x1 (Concluded)

.mmcHomau umvm50wcom we wanna co wmaaoodmmaanmo new wz cwozoon o>amauoucu couumommuucoum ****
.vovuoumu mm: «Hoe oaanz .cofiumufimavcouu mac“ mo maman on uopmnnum «mananw ufiam tit

ommaoonvuoc< tt

.vmuuoumu mm: wuos anon: .couumofimwuconw mood mo wfiman on kuasnva nmaaamm acmn

cu“: .Amvv mwm>amcm Hmuficmcowe c“ >a~o can .uawm .ucmw we acmuuon ow mafiuuouum vovno«ol t

 

 

 

 

m4a2<m mo HZmummm

 

¢>.o h~.o oo.oo mm.o mH.o ad.” ow.m v~.o o.n mn.wm mo w“
m.o mm.o wo.wo n>.« no.> “.5m mod 0”
we.“ aw.” ov.>o «H.o ¢.o mm.o mm.o 0.0m uo¢***
we.” mo.H ov.>o u~.o v.0 oh.o mm.o v.0m on” on
oo.H ¢m.o oo.mo HH.o -.o Hm.o no.m >.m m.nm ovd pa
o.o mm.” om.>o vm.m n~.o ed.» ¢m.mm “omit:
9.0 an.” om.po om.m pp.o cm.mm «Ha an
0.0 «~.o mv.oo oo.u m~.mA «n.9m <«mH on
0.0 *** mo.oo mo.o me.o mm.» vo.p od.mm m» «a
n.o n~.o nm.oo no.~ no.>~ “H.~m «ma mm
v.0 mn.o «0.00 oo.o «.0 o.o v5.0 oo.o mm.am no ad
v.H w~.o «e.mo no.0 o~.o mm.m wa.o em.o mp.om o” a
on.” Ho.o vH.mo oa.o ov.o a.” 0.0” mv.m >~.op v H
mm.“ mo.o ov.po «.0 am.o 0.” H.m n~.o mm.»p on a”
vo.m HH.o no.0o m.o om.o v.~ no.v .*F.HH on.hs odfi .«u
o.” Hm.o mo.m¢ m.o mv.o o.m hn.o~ no.» no.np oh 0H
><qo Hqu 4<HQH .zqmq: mHHzH 00H 09 m
2H amHmHHZmaHz: .Hzmofi -Hzo: mhnqu -Ao<x

IU<AAI<2 |0<4ml<0 qummlx th<30 mmqu<m whmw

 

 

atdmes u; 1211618“! an
.-nlosgl 9195 $0 igeoaad

  

O (0
a

[s

#L l

66

 

 

l

'+*-Percent of acid insoluble ma-

A
VV

1

,__..._,

umber of particles per

gram of sample

terial in sample

\

1W

l

f“ /_\

  
  

Plagioclases

Unidentif ed silt

Unidentified clay

K-feldspars

Kaolinite

~oza ‘aztttr
situatttxouzuon

Aquexo 8t
xoniefines. 6T
9199fl193< 9E
euoteouew‘ LE
Aquexst Iz
V981 PXSBXIEN+ QZ
BIUIIOA‘ vt
761 BXSQXIEX« 98
uetxzag 91
Aquem] 3
uatxxeat I
EIUIIOA1 II
uatxxaa‘ a;
oozemetex‘ 91
99 oozemetex‘ 01
V89 OOZVWEI¢X4 OI
'mOIOO. ZI
BIBPSIIIH‘ CZ
xaaouoge OZ
zera; 6
uoisxooza. g
aIQPSIUH- 8
L91 IOIPMPI°3« ZS
VL9I 1913MPI°34 Z8
udtansq re
JaAOUOQ. 91
I3103« 63
86 IWEIW- LI
IWPIN- 17
V86 IWIN- LI
SWIS‘ 9
aIIIA1K0H- a
HIIXIGS‘ or
arrrnzxou. re
VQLI aaueddeu. g;

QLI eauedden. 98
aaueddeN‘ L

eaueddeut gg
PIOJXOId- 68
IJIXIGS- 88
fiuxprned. 05
° 910;)[OId . 98'
~-Beuoiuol L8

 

 

9 8'

'I

0' o'
N --o
('UOIIIta)

 

O

s ;o alas rad
”Iflutd ;0 ram

1”sure 9. Hineralogical composition of glacial material samples arranged according to
increasing percentage of quartz, and compared to number of particles per
gram of sample and percent of acid insoluble material in the sample.

904

o' J 3
«5

F \O

r

93

<5
<0

 

c; d? .

N A

Site

Ivtxbzvn III-urn atqntosur PIOV ;o quaozad

67

RELATIONSHIP OF MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION OF GLACIAI. MATERIALS
TO THE MORPHOLOGY AND GENESIS OF SOME MICHIGAN SOILS
Morphological Relationships

A review'of Tables IIA and 118 and Figure 9 will show that numer—
ous soil series were represented by only one site while others were
represented by two or three sites. There were similarities in the min-
eralogy of samples of glacial materials from different sites of the
same soil series (although care was taken to distribute the samples over
the area of occurrence of each series in the state) and in the samples
from series of the same teposequence. This was illustrated by the
Niami, Conover, Brookston catena where the glacial materials beneath
all members were strikingly similar. The differences in the mineralo-
gical composition of the glacial material beneath these series differed
little more than dUplicate determinations on the same sites (e.g. 10,
17, 25, 32 and 35).

The Guelph soil, site 24, showed a close relationship to the Miami
catena. Guelph soils are Podzols, while the Miami soils are Gray-Brown
Podzolic, but they both were develOped from loam glacial drift. Guelpi
soils were formerly classified as Miami and only in recent years were
the two separated on the basis of definite observable profile character-
istics associated wdth climatic differences. The Guelph soils were de-
velOped in glacial till of Mankato age and Hiami soils in older materi-
als.

The sand textured glacial materials under the Granby, Saugatuck,

Kalkaska and Berrien soils also showed a close mineralogical similarity.

68

The first three are members of a teposequence in the Podzol region of
Michigan. The Berrien is a Gray-Brown Podzolic soil in southern Michi-
gan.

The clay to silty clays under the Nappanee, Hoytville, Pickford
(site 39) and Selkirk were also closely related mineralogically with
about 35% quartz, 25% clay minerals, 5% plagioclases and 3% K-feldspars.
These finer materials also contained 17 to 30% mineral material that
was unidentified. The Nappanee and Hoytville soils were members of a
teposequence in southern Michigan while the Selkirk and Pickford (site
39) soils were their respective counterparts in the Podzol region of
the northern Lower Peninsula. In contrast, the parent rock of the
Paulding, Pickford (site 36) and Ontonagon soils were finer textured
and contain even larger amounts (45 to 73%) of unidentified minerals.
As presently defined, the Pickford series in northern Michigan covers
a textural range comparable to the Hoytville and Paulding soils in sou—
thern Michigan combined.

The samples underlying the Kalamazoo, sites 10 and 15, and Volinia
soils, sites ll and 14, have almost identical mineralogical composition.
The values were so nearly equal that they could be considered to vary
only in experimental error. These two series were separated in classi-
fication into Gray-Brown Podzolic and Brunizem great soil groups on the
basis of profile characteristics of the solum associated with their de~
velopment under timber and prairie vegetations, respectively. It was
interesting to note that these soils were fro: stratified parent rocks.
It should be noted that the Brunizem soils, sites 11 and 14, showed the

greatest clay contents in the surface horizons. This could be attribu-

69

ted to the action of the grass vegetation and its associated organic
matter in decreasing eluviation of clay. All other soils in this study
were developed under forest vegetation. The only other case of greater
clay content in the surface than in the subsoil was shown in the Humic
Gleys, sites 5 and 8, and this can be explained by their normally de-
pressed (concave or nearly so) physiographic position with the possibi-
lity of overwash accumulations that cannot be readily detected by field
observation or more probably, greater clay formation in place under
these wet conditions.

In addition to the above mentioned soils, the similarity of the
glacial materials to the parent rock of several other profiles was
questionable. These included sites 3, 4, 9, 13, and 40 which showed
evidence of stratification. On site 12 the C horizon sample was not
available and on sites 27 and 28 volume weight data were unavailable.
These soils were not considered further in the morphological studies.

On the other sites studied, the underlying glacial materials were
believed sufficiently similar to the materials from which the overlying
soil profile developed that they were considered to be the parent rock
(50) of those soils. The following discussion of the soil morphology
and genesis is based Upon this conclusion.

In general, these studies indicate that field identification of
soil series based on soil morphology, seems to have segregated materials
of similar mineralogical composition. However, standards of allowable
variation and mineralogic composition within a series will probably be

needed as advances in technology reduce the magnitude of the unidenti-

fied portion of samples.

I:

70

Mick (34) provided one of the few sources of definite comparisons
of mineralogical findings. In his work in Sanilac County, he reported
51.5% quartz, 9.3% plagioclases and 9.7% orthoclase in the very fine
sand from the C horizon of a Conover soil (now probably classified as
London). Table X shows 71.1% quartz, 17.1% plagioclases and 11.9% K-
feldspars in the sand fraction, and 76.2% quartz, 6.8% plagioclases and
10.0% K-feldspars in the silt fraction of a Conover soil, site 16, in
Eaton County. The C horizon from Mick's Nappanee soil (now probably
classified as Capac) showed 50.3% quartz, 11.8% plagioclases and 6.7%
orthoclase in the very fine sand fraction; however, a Nappanee soil,
site 35, from Macomb County showed 74.8% quartz, 13.5% plagioclases and
11.6% K-feldspars in the sand fraction and 70.3% quartz, 23.3% plagio-
clases and 7.8% K-feldspars in the silt fraction. The C horizon of
Mick's Brookston (now probably classified as Parkhill) showed 51.2%
quartz, 5.9%iplagioclases and 6.5% orthoclase in the very fine sand
fraction and a Brookston soil from Ingham County, site 5, showed 75.6%
quartz, 14.6% plagioclases and 9.8% K-feldspars in the sand fraction
and 70.0% quartz, 7.8% plagioclases and 10.0% K-feldspars in the silt
fraction. It should be noted however, that Mick's analyses were based
on a petrographic particle counting procedure. Larger preportions of
the samples were identified in the present studies using X-ray diffrac-
tion procedures.

Cann and Whiteside (5) in their study of a Mariette soil from
Sanilac County that was formed from materials similar in texture to
that of the Guelph soils, reported 60.9% quartz, 7.2% plagioclases and

6-Q% orthoclase in the very fine sand fraction. The Guelph soil, site

71

TABLE XII

COMPARISONS OF MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITIONS OF COARSE FRACTIONS OF
SOME COMPARABLE SOILS BY DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS*

 

 

 

MINERAL§ VERX FINE §AND AEEBAGE SAND AND SILT

Conover (Mick)** Conover aile
Quartz 73.0 76.5
Plagioclase 13.2 12.2
Orthoclase 13.8 11.3

Nappanee (Mick) N nee ile
Quartz 73.0 72.1
Plagioclase 17.2 18.3
Orthoclase 9.8 9.6

Brook ton ick Brookston (Bailey)
Quartz 80.6 77.7
Plagioclase 9.2 11.7
Orthoclase 10.2 10.6

'M rlette C nn Guel ile
Quartz 82.1 81.8
Plagioclase . 9.7 7.9
Orthoclase 8.1 10.3

 

* Recalculated, assuming that the sum of quartz and feldspar reported
equals 100%.

** Conover, Nappanee and Brooksten soils as studied by Mick would now
probably be classified as London, Capac and Parkhill respectively.

72

24, used in this study was from the same county and showed 83.4% quartz,
7.7% plagioclases and 8.9% K-feldspars in the sand fraction and 70.5%
quartz, 11.4% plagioclases and 6.1% K-feldspars in the silt fraction.
When the above reported mineralogical analyses were recalculated
to a 100% basis, there was much closer agreement between the results
reported by different investigators on similar soil materials, Table XII.
It is evident that additional work needs to be done in standardization
of techniques and procedures before reliable cross-referencing of re-
sults can be easily accomplished. Perhaps this recalculation of quartz
and feldspar percentages, assuming their sum to be 100%, offers a stan-
dardization convention of merit. A similar procedure has been suggest-

ed by Johns, et a1. (22) for the clay minerals.

Soil Formation and Genesis

To gain an insight into the changes that have taken place in the
various profiles during their formation, a comparison was made of the
solum to an equal mass of acid, insoluble, inorganic, underlying glacial
material. These calculations were illustrated for site 2 in the Appen-
dix. This comparison assumes no change in total inorganic, acid, in-
soluble mass of the solum during soil formation. Actually, Marshall
and Hasaman (31) and Cann and lhiteside (5) have shown, there were only
small changes in acid insoluble inorganic materials during soil forma-
tion in Pleistocene deposits of humid temperate areas. However, the
volmes of the materials changed considerably during soil formation,
particularly in the upper horizons.

The results of these calculations, organic matter contents and so-

73

lution losses were tabulated in Table XIII. As previously indicated,
the similarity of the glacial materials to the parent rock of sites 3,
4, 5, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28 and 40 were questioned for
various reasons. The remaining twenty—five sites were considered fur-
ther. Figure 10 shows that seventeen of the profiles increased in vol-
ume and eight decreased in volume during the processes of profile de-
vel opment .

The changes in the sand, silt and clay contents were also studied,
assuming there had been no changes in the total mass of the acid, in-
soluble mineral fractions. These results were illustrated in Figures
ll, 12 and 13. The sand fractions in the solum showed increases in
fourteen profiles, while eleven profiles showed sand losses when com-
pared to the sand in the parent rock. Generally the solum gained slight-
ly in sand, Figure 11, where the sand in the parent rock was less than
50%, and lost sand when the original content was greater than 50%. The
silts in the solum increased in eighteen profiles, decreased in six
and remained unchanged in one, Figure 12. The silt losses in all cases,
except one, were where silt in the parent rock exceeded 21%. Clays in
the solum showed gains in eleven profiles and losses in fourteen, Fig-
ure 13. Most gains occurred where the parent rock clay content was less
than 20% and most losses occurred where clay content of the parent rock
was more than 20%. Thus it appears that there were losses from the
sole of the sand, silt or clay, when the parent rocks had over 5&%
sand, 37% silt or 10% clay. Gains of these constitutents were general-
ly noted in the solum when the parent rocks contained less than these

percentages.

74

TABLE XIII

SUMMATION OF CONSTITUENTS IN SOLA AND PARENT ROCKS 0F SITES STUDIED

 

mwum
I a
We...
mm
runm.u
mFN
POI
Y
M
C
%
T.
I.
I
cu
%
m
A
cu
%
ms
ES
um...)
mam.
wml
ET
N
0
I
m
m
P.
.:
T
I
.5

 

 

73
31

73.7 87.
62.4 94.

Solum
89

1

99
21

101.7
91.9

Solum

2

67
51.

71.2
56.4

Solum

6

Solum

7

19.2 3.3
17.6

30.9
28.9

50.0
53.5

Solum

16

1.7

30.6 22.2
30.2 20.2

47.2
49.6

Solum

17

Solum

18

06
31

2.4

48
20

4.5
0.8

98.
98.

81.
66.

Solum

19

76
47

17.9 2.9
20.0

31.4
33.6

7.4.

5

53.4
50.2

Solum

2O

12
1.0

Solum

21

8.1
11

68.
64.

Solum

22

35.6
37.0

Solum

24

86
20

71.0
65.0

Solum

25

92
12

Solum

26

75

TABLE XIII (Concluded)

 

 

EQUIVALENT PERCENT SOLUTION
SITE FRACTION THICKNESS xiSANO % SILT % CLAY OF 0.M. LOSS, %
(cm) IN 6p (am)

29 Solum 76.3 62.3 21.6 16.2 2.1 1.4

c 86.1 58.0 21.6 20.4 18.9
30 Solum 60.8 4.1 28.8 67.0 5.0 4.8

64 5506 303 2501 7105 2e3
31 Solum 73.8 22.8 34.0 43.3 4.8 4.7

c 76.4 21.6 33.9 44.5 13.5
32 Solum 78.8 50.8 31.7 17.5 2.4 3.5

c 78.4 58.0 27.6 14.4 10.5
33 Solum 56.0 16.2 42.6 41.2 4.8 4.7

Q 5007 8.2 41.6 50.2 703
35 Solum 91.6 20.0 31.6 48.4 3.8 4.5

C1 77.3 1909 2802 5109 209
36 Solum 58.5 8.4 39.7 51.9 10.4 8.6

c 53.4 2.5 22.8 74.6 4.2
37 Solum 55.9 2.8 30.4 66.8 4.0 4.7

0 (Site 36)* 55.1 2.5 22.8 74.6 4.2
38 Solum 40.8 12.1 46.0 42.0 3.1 4.9

09 48.6 7.9 31.4. 60.7 27.5
39 Solum 38.2 24.9 28.7 46.4 5.0 7.2

839 37.7 19.9 28.3 51.8 4.0

 

There C horizon was unavailable at Specific site, the values for a C
horizon from a nearby similar site were used.

Thickness of Solum (cm)

 

140.
Ft

120.

E

80.

6O

 

 

 

 

4o
35 I v t '
35 40 (R1 80 100 120 140

F19Ure 10.

 

Equivalent Thickness of Parent Rock (cm)

Thickness of Solum 3; equivalent
‘thickness of parent rock. (Losses are represented

by points below the 45° line (solid) and gains by
points above the line.)

76

 

100

 

% Sand in Solum

 

 

 

 

20 40 60 so 100

% Sand in Parent Rock

Figure 11. Percentages of sand in the sole, relative to parent
rocks. (Losses are represented by points below the

45° line (solid) and gains by points above that
line.)

 

77

% Silt in Solum

 

 

 

100

80.

60. /

4°. . . °

20. ’////’ e

0 r , r .
20 40 60 80 100
% Silt in Parent Rock
Figure 12. Percentages of silt in the sole relative to parent
rocks. (Losses are represented by points below

the 45° line (solid) and gains by points above that
line.)

 

78

 

 

 

 

 

100
80 g
60 .
5 .
H
O e
U) e
54 4O ‘ . . e e
>.
.2
L)
R
20 4 . '
o I 1 T I
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Clay in Parent Rock
Figure 13. Percentages of clay in the sole relative to

parent rocks. (Losses are represented by points
below the 45° line (solid) and gains by points
above that line.)

79

80

To show the relationships of solum changes to parent rocks by
Great Soil Groups their changes in sand, silt and clay were plotted on
four separate graphs. Figure 14 shows that the texture changes in the
solum had been relatively slight in the Podzols and Ground water Pod—
zols. In the well and moderately well drained Gray-Brown Podzolic and
Gray Wooded profiles, Figure 15, there were no marked changes in the
sand, silt or clay contents of the solum as compared to the parent
rock. In the hmperfectly drained Gray-Brown Podzolics and one imper—
fectly drained Gray-Wooded, Figure 16, there had been a decrease in
clay content of the sola formed from the finer materials. The Humic
Gleys on finer materials (in northern Michigan) seem to have decreased
in clay content while those from coarse materials (in southern Michi-
gan) showed slight increases in clay compared to their parent rocks,
Figure 17. This seemed to indicate that the finer materials in the

more moist sites showed decreases in clay contents particularly in the

cooler portions of Michigan where clay formation was probably less

rapid.

SoileDoveIOpment

To further illustrate the profile changes, the clay contents of
the surface horizon and a representative subsoil horizon (from data
sheets in Appendix) were plotted against the clay contents of the par-
ent rocks. These data were shown by the Great Soil Groups. The Pod?
zols in Figure 18, showed almost equal gains in surface and subsoil
clay where the parent rock contained less than 5% clay. lhere the par-
ent rocks contained more than 20% clay, the surface and subsoil showed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100
80,.
60..
S
'8
U)
.5
R 40 q
9 Sand
6 Silt
. Clay -—-—— --
at Ground Hater Podzol
2O . xx Imperfectly Drained
o —t 1 T r
0 2O 40 60 80 100
% in Parent Rock
Figure 14. Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sols relative

to parent rocks of Podzols and Ground water Podzols.
(Losses are represented by points below the 45° line
(solid) and gains by points above that line.)

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100
80.
60.
5
H
O
U)
C
oe-Q 40 .,
as C! Sand
6 Silt
’ Clay -——_ .—
‘ Gray Wooded
20.
0 r F I T
0 20 40 60 80 100
% in Parent Rock
Figure 15. Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sale relative

to parent rocks of well and moderately well drained
Gray—Brown Podzolics and one Gray Wooded soil.
(Losses are represented by points below the 45° line
(solid) and gains by points above that line.)

82

’l-

.uI-I——__

% in Solum

 

 

 

 

 

100
80 ‘
6O .
a O a /
a" /
40 u / .ar
/'
0 Sand
4 / ' 4 Silt
- Clay ——_. __
20 . a " Gray flooded
o/ '
o‘
0 .
26 4o 60 80 100
% in Parent Rock
Figure 16. Percentages of sand, silt and clay in solo relative
to parent rocks of imperfectly drained Gray-Brown
Podzolics and one imperfectly drained Gray Wooded
soil. (Losses are represented by points below the
45° line (solid) and gains by points above that
line.)
fig“

83

% in Solun

 

100
80..
60.,
401 TAN
Sand
1’ a Silt
e Clay P-—
” Northern Michigan
20 .

 

 

 

 

Figure 17.

 

26 45 66 80 100

% in Parent Rock

Percentages of sand, silt and clay in sale relative
to parent rocks of Humic Gley soils. (Losses are
represented by points below the 45° line (solid) and
gains by points above that line.)

84

.% Clay in Surface and Subsoil

22

85

 

20.

15.I

H
O
1

U"
l

 

  
  

/ a#

a Surface -—--- -—
e Subsoil
x Ground water Podzol
1t Imperfectly drained

 

 

 

Figure 18.

 

5 10 15 2b 22

% Clay in Parent Rock

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons rela-
tive to parent rocks of well and imperfectly drained Pod-
zols and a Ground later Podzol soil. (Losses are repre-
sented by points below the 45° line (solid) and gains by
points above that line.)

loss of clay with the surface loss being much more pronounced. The
well and moderately well drained Gray-Brown Podzolic profiles, Figure
19, showed clay losses from most surfaces and less losses or some gains
in the subsoil. The imperfectly drained Gray-Brown Podzolic and one
imperfectly drained Gray Wooded profile, Figure 20, showed consistent
losses in clay from the surface horizon, gains in the subsoil clay on
materials containing less than 50% clay and losses in the subsoil clay
on finer materials. Greatest losses from both surface and subsoil were
from the Gray Wooded profile on fine textured materials. The Humic
Gleys on coarse materials (in southern Michigan), Figure 21, showed
relatively more clay gains in the surface than in the subsoil. In nor-
thern Michigan, both surface and subsoils generally showed losses on
the parent rock containing more than 30% clay, but losses were greatest
in surface horizons.

Generally there was a greater amount of clay in subsoils than in
surface soils, except in the Humic Gley soils from coarse textured ma-
terials.‘ 0n coarse textured materials, both horizons showed small in-
creases of clay over that in the parent rock. 0n finer textured parent
rocks, surface soils generally contained less clay than the original
materials. The subsoils of the Gray-Brown Podzolic soils showed increa-
ses in clay over that in the parent rocks, except on those containing
more than 45% clay. The surfaces and subsoils of the Humic Gley soils
from northern Michigan decreased in clay content but the subsoils de-
creased less than the surface soils. Above 45% clay in the parent rock
there was a loss of clay in surface and subsoil compared to the parent

rocks in nearly all cases, however, the subsoil clay still exceeded the

87

 

25.

204

15..

% Clay in Surface and Subsoil

 

 

a Surface

 

 

 

Figure 19.

 

/ e Subsoil __
/ 9 Surface and Subsoil
15 15 20 25

% Clay in Parent Rock

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons rela-
tive to parent rocks of well and moderately well drained
Gray—Brown Podzolic soils. (Losses are represented by
points below the 45° line (solid) and gains by points
above that line.)

% Clay in Surface and Subsoil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

80-

60.

404

20 . /

O
a Surface
e Subsoil
3 Gray WOOdEd
o I I I
'0 20 4o 60 80 100

Figure 20.

% Clay in Parent Rock

Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons
relative to parent rocks of imperfectly drained
Gray-Brown Podzolics and one imperfectly drained
Gray lboded soil. (Losses are represented by points
below the 45° line (solid) and gains by points above
that line.)

, 88

 

 

 

 

 

100
,g 80. //////’
.4
O
O
.n
53
x’
E w /
. 60- ° /
° t/’
.2 / ,
a « /
c /
”" /
r 40 ‘ a"
8 / /
kg 0”] / ON
4"”
2O 4 / a Surface "" "" ""
, ’ . Subsoil ____..
/ a Surface and Subsoil
u Northern Michigan
0
0
fl) 4b 6b 8'0 1
X Clay in Parent Rock
Figure 21. Percentages of clay in surface and subsoil horizons

relative to parent rocks of Huaic Gley soi’ls. (L0,...
es are represented by points below the 45 line
(solid) and gains by points above that line.)

89

90

.surface clay content. Thus it appears that texture of the parent rocks

had a strong influence on profile differentiation.

Soil Fertility

Table XIV shows the pounds of available potash per acre in the
complete solum and a representative subsoil horizon of the several soils
studied. The table also shows the percent of K-feldspars and illite in
the parent rocks of these profiles, as well as the percent clay of the
parent rock and the percent of clay that was unidentified. A study of
these data revealed no specific correlation between the available potash
and the minerals of the parent rock. There was a tendency for the per-
cent of K-feldspars to increase as the available K in the solum in-
creased. This relationship was not evident in the subsoil horizons.
The smaller amounts of available K in the solum were frequently associ—
ated with high percentage of unidentified clay in the parent rock. This
relationship was only approximate as numerous individual exceptions were
readily apparent. Other factors could offset a relationship of avail-
able K contents and the K bearing minerals of the parent rock. The
past fertilization and cropping history would possibly cause unknown
variations in available K in the solum. The basic assumptions in de-
termining “available K“ and the determination and designation of miner-
als by X-ray diffraction analyses could be sources of error if they

were incorrectly selected.

TABLE XIV

SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE POTASH IN SOLA AND REPRESENTATIVE SUBSOIL
HORIZONS OF THE SOILS STUDIED

91

 

 

SITE SOLUM SUBSOIL K-FELDSPARS ILLITE TSTAL UNIDENTIFIED
W 26 J; M 32121;.
1 367 126 8.5 0.46 3.8 1.2
2 288 37 9.8 0.08 1.6 1.4
6 732 150 6.0 2.72 34.0 24.4
7 468 192 5.8 0.95 4.7 20.4
16 401 84 9.2 0.35 17.6 15.5
17 559 87 9.4 1.22 20.2 16.9
18 450 116 5.9 0.18 2.3 0.7
19 722 156 7.1 0.8 0.8
20 452 138 7.7 4.0 20.0 3.0
21 214 90 6.8 0.7 0.9
22 490 87 11.7 0.36 6.0 2.9
23 492 87 8.3 0.99 12.4 8.9
24 190 82 6.0 3.83 21.2 3.8
25 768 256 15.1 0.5 0.5
26 416 132 9.9 0.12 2.0 1.4
' 29 533 240 10.3 1.22 20.4 15.1
30 584 232 2.6 1.43 71.5 55.6
31 602 84 7.1 1.78 44.5 22.7
32 792 264 9.4 2.3 14.4 1.3
33 478 126 6.6 6.02 50.2 16.6
35 426 200 4.7 3.11 51.9 28.0

92

TABLE XIV (Concluded)

 

AV I E AS PERCENT OF SAMPLE
SITE SOLUM SUBSOIL K—FELDSPARS ILLITE TOTAL UNIDENTIFIED

 

 

(mumps PER ACRE) s 76 $1! 0141
36 246 1380129) 3.4 1.49 74.6 65.6
37 45 64 3.4 1.49 74.6 65.6
38 384 240 4.2 3.64 60.7 45.0

39 184 84 8.1 5.18 51.8 18.3

93

SUMMARY

This investigation was undertaken to determine the mineralogical
compositions of the glacial materials from beneath several Michigan
soils and their relationships to the prOperties and classification of
those soils. The study included mineral identification in the sand and
silt fractions of glacial materials from thirty-nine sites in Michigan
representing 23 soil series. These data supplemented by the clay min-
eral data obtained by Stolzy (43) on the same materials were used to ar-
rive at a composite mineralogical composition for the glacial material
at each site.

The mineral identifications in this study were by x-ray diffraction
using powder camera and recording Geiger-counter goniometer techniques.
The sand fractions were composited and a representative portion ground
to pass a 300 mesh sieve before analysis. Silt fractions were analyzed
without further size reduction. Petrographic inspection and heavy min-
eral analyses were used only as supplemental aids in identification.

All samples were cleaned by Matelski's detergent and builders pro—
cedure (33) before X-ray or petrographic study. Cleaning of samples
caused significant weight loss in some sand size separates, but.the
overall loss was not considered to be significant in X-ray diffraction
studies of a composite sand sample. The effect of cleaning on silt
samples was not evaluated.

Specific gravity separations were made on several sand samples.
Density group 36 2.60b2.80 was most abundant in all cases. It general-

ly increased in relative amount from very coarse sand through coarse

94

sand to a high point in medium sand and then gradually decreased
through fine sand to very fine sand. The other density groups, 86 less
than 2.50, 2.50-2.60, and over 2.80 showed a reverse trend and decreased
from very coarse sand through coarse sand to a low point in medium sand
and then gradually increased again through fine sand to very fine sand.

Qualitative mineralogical analyses were made on the density frac-
tions using X-ray diffraction with both a powder camera and a recording
Geiger-counter goniometer. The findings with powder camera were confirm-
ed by the Geiger-counter goniometer tracings in all cases except one. The
reverse was not so often true. The diffraction lines on the film were
commonly too indistinct to be identified. Prolonged irradiation only
tended to darken the film background without intensifying the diffrac—
tion lines.

An estimate of the precision of mineralogical analyses by x-ray
diffraction was made using several duplicate samples. All determina-
tions fell withinyfi 5.65% of the means for the samples. Eighty-six
percent fell within f 1.9% of the mean and 33.3% fell within f 0.8% of
the mean. Other investigators have reported similar deviations when
limited replications were used (6, 25, 26).

Quantitative mineralogical analyses of the glacial material sam~
ples were made using a recording Geiger-counter goniometer technique.
The total components observed in the ground sand fractions was over
100% in all samples except one. Analyses of silt samples gave less than
100% identified in all cases except three. values of sand and silt
analyses were adjusted to 100% when in excess of that amount and were

then weighted according to the percent of sand, silt, and clay as shown

95

by mechanical analyses to give the total mineralogical composition of
the samples. The clay mineral data were provided by Stolzy (43).

The mineralogical composition of parent rock from a soil series and
members of the same toposequence were usually similar - even though the
samples were selected to represent the area of occurrence of each series
in Michigan. This was well illustrated in the Miami catena where three
members of the catena - Miami, Conover, and Brookston - were studied.
Field identification procedures appear to be reliable in identifying
soil series and members of a tOposequence.

The quartz contents of the parent rocks appeared to be inversely
related to the calculated number of particles per gram of sample. The
feldspars showed a general decrease in amount as the number of particles
per gram increased, Figure 9.

Much of the clay fraction and some of the silt fraction were not
identified mineralogically by the methods used. The percentage of i-
dentified clay minerals, particularly kaolinite, increased until the
quartz content reaches about 40% and then decreased as the quartz con-
tent increased, and particle size increased.

To gain an insight into the changes that had taken place in the
various profiles during their formation, a comparison was made between
the thickness of the solum and that of an equal mass of acid, insoluble,
inorganic, underlying glacial material. The changes in the sand, silt
and clay contents were also studied, assuming there had been no changes
in the total mass of the acid, insoluble mineral fraction.

It was found that there were losses from the sola of sand, silt or

Clay, when the parent rocks had over 53% sand, 37% silt or 10% clay.

96

Gains of these constituents were generally noted in the solum when the
parent rocks contained less than these percentages.

Generally there was a greater amount of clay in the subsoils than in
the surface soils, except in the Humic Gley soils from coarse textured
materials. On coarse textured materials, both horizons showed small in-
creases of clay over that in the parent rock.

On finer textured parent rocks, surface soils generally contained less
clay than the original materials. The subsoils of the Gray-Brown Podzolic
soils showed increases in clay over that in the parent rocks, except on
those containing more than 45% clay. The subsoils of the Humic Gley soils,
particularly those from northern Michigan, decreaSed in clay content but
the subsoils decreased less than the surface soils.

On the finest materials, above 45% clay in the parent rock, there was
a loss of clay in surface and subsoil compared to the parent rocks in near-
ly all cases, however, the subsoil clay still exceeded the surface clay
content. Thus it appeared that texture of the parent rocks had a strong
influence on profile differentiation.

There was a tendency for percent of K-feldspars to increase as the
available K in the solum increased. Frequently, low available K in the
solum was associated with a high percentage of unidentified clay.

Comparison of results with geologic investigations suggested the
possibility of correlation of bedrock exposures in upper Michigan to the
parent rocks of some sites. Additional studies are needed to specifically
confirm this.

Comparison of the mineralogical compositions found in this study

with the results reported by other soil investigators on similar soils in

97

Michigan showed poor correlation. Standardization and improvements of

methods or techniques are needed before reliable cross-referencing can

be easily accomplished. Recalculation of quartz and feldspar percent-

ages, assuming their total to be 100% as currently common in clay miner-
al studies (22) may be useful standardization with non-clay fractions.
On the basis of this investigation and the results of others, it

was concluded that a recording Geiger-counter goniometer X-ray diffrac-

tion technique was rapid and useful in mineralogical analyses. careful

standardization of equipment, techniques and interpretations is neces-

sary.

98

BIBLOIGRAPHY

(1) American Society for Testing Materials. X-ray Diffraction Data
Cards. A Joint Project of the ASTM, the Amer. Cryst. Assoc.,
and the British Inst. of Physics. Philadelphia: 1950.

(2) American Society for Testing Materials. Cumulative Alphabetical
and Grouped Numerical Index of X-ray Diffraction Data. Special
Technical Publication No. 48-D. Philadelphia: 1953.

(3) Allen, B. L., and E. P. Whiteside. The Characteristics of Some
Soils on Tills of Cary and Mankato Age in Michigan. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 18: 203-206, 1954.

(4) Bunn, C. W. Chemical Crystallography. Oxford University Press,
London, 1952.

(5) Cann, D. B., and E. P. whiteside. A Study of the Genesis of a
Podzol -- Gray-Brown Podzolic Intergrade Soil Profile in Mich-
igan. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 19: 497-501, 1955.

(6) Carl, H. F. ‘Quantitative Mineral Analysis Ruth a Recording x-ray
Diffraction Spectrometer. Amer. Mineralogist 32: 508-517, 1947.

(7) Clark, G. L., R. E. Grim, and W. F. Bradley. Notes on the Identi-
fication of Minerals in Clays by X-ray Diffraction. Zeit, f.
Kristallogr. A., 96: 322-324, 1937.

(8) . Applied X-rays. 3rd. Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, 1940.

(9)El-Khalidi, HatemvHussein. A Field and Petrographic Study of the
Sandstones and Conglomerates of the Porcupine Mountains, On-
tonagon County, Michigan. unpublished M. S. Thesis. Michigan
State university, 1950, 110 numb. leaves.

(10) Engel, Theodore, Jr. The Stratigraphy and Petrography of the
.Holyoke Meta-sediments of the Dead River Basin, Marquette
County, Michigan. unpublished M. S. Thesis. Michigan State
University, 1954, 72 numb. leaves.

(11) Fricke, 8., O. Lohrmann, W. Schroeder, G. Neitbrecht, and R.
Seamet. capillaries of Acetylcellulose for the Debye-Scherrer
(X-ray Powder Diffraction) Method. 2. Elektrochem., 47: 374-
379. 1941 (Chem. Abst., 35. 7826. 1941)

(12) Gardner, D. R., and E. P. Whiteside. Zonal Soils in the Transi-
tion Region.Between the Podzol and Gray-Brown Podzolic Regions
in.Micbigan. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 16: 137-141, 1952.

 

 

99

(13) Gregory, W. M. Geologic Report on Arenac County. Geological
Survey of Michigan. 1911.

(14) Hagni, Richard D. Petrology and Origin of the Kitchi Conglomerate,
Marquette County, Michigan. Unpublished M. S. Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1954, 45 numb. leaves.

(15) Hanawalt, J. D., H. w. Rinn, and L. K. Frevel. Chemical Analysis
by X-ray Diffraction. Ind. Eng. Chem., Anal. Ed. 10: 457-512,
1938.

(16) Happer, T. H. Combustion Train for Determination of Total Carbon
in Soils. Ind. and Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 5: 142-143, 1933.

(17) Hornstein, Owen Merle. A Field and Petrographic Study of Some
Extrusive and Sedimentary Rocks Along the Carp and Little Carp
Rivers in Ontonagon and Gogebic Counties, Michigan. Unpublish-
ed M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, 1950, 35 numb.
leaves.

(18) Jeffries, C. D. The Mineralogical Composition of the Very Fine
Sands of Some Pennsylvania Soils. Soil Sci. 43: 357-366, 1937.

( 19) . The Use of X-ray Spectrometer in the Determination
of Essential Minerals in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 12:
135-140, 1947.

(20) and M. L. Jackson. Mineralogical Analysis of Soils.

(211 , , J. A. Bonnet and F. Abruna. The Constituent Minerals
of Some Soils of Puerto Rico. Jour. Agr. Univ. of Puerto Rico.
37 No. 2: 114-139, 1953.

(22) Johns, u. D., R. a. Grim and w. 1:. Bradley. Quantitative Estima-
tions of Clay Minerals by Diffraction Methods. Jour. of Sedi-
mentary Petrology 24: 242-251, 1954.

(23) Johnsgard, G. A. A Pedologic Study of a Ground Water Podzol and
Some Associated Soils. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Michigan State
University, 1938.

(24) Judd, Deane B. and Kenneth 1.. Kelly. Method of Designations
Colors. Jour. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards 23: 355-385, 1939.

\
(25) King, M. P., L. Alexander and E. Kan-er. Quantitative Ahalyses ‘
with an X-ray Spectrometer. Anal. Chem. 20: 607-6@, 1948. ~4-
(26) ._ . Quantitative Analysis of Powder Mixturesi'With the‘
Geiger-counter Spectrometer. Anal. Chem. 25: 704-7Q§, 1953.‘
L.- N-..

‘- \

S

\—

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

100

Larsen, Esper S. and Harry Berman. The MicroscOpic Determina-
tion of Nonopaque Minerals. U. S. Dept. Interior, Geological
Survey, washington, Bul. 848, 2nd Ed., 1934.

Leverett, Frank. Surface Geology and Agricultural Conditions of
the Southern Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Geol. and Bio.
Survey, Pub. 9, Geological Series 7, 1911.

McCool, M. M., J. O. veatch and C. H. Spurway. Soil Profile
Studies in Michigan. Soil Sci. 16: 95-106, 1923.

Marshall, C. E. A Petrographic Method for the Study of Soil For-
mation Processes. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 5: 1oo-103, 1940.

and J. F. Haseman. The Quantitative Evaluation of Soil
Formation and Deve10pment by Heavy Mineral Studies: A Grundy
Silt Loam Profile. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 7: 448-453, 1942.

 

Matelski, Roy Peter. Heavy Mineral Investigations of Some Pod-
zol Soil Profiles in Michigan. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Michigan State University, 1947, 68 numb. leaves.

. Removal of Coatings from Soil Particles for Petro-
graphic Analyses. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17: 103-106,
1953.

 

Mick, Allan H. The Pedology of Several Profiles Developed from
the Calcareous Drift of Eastern Michigan. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Tech. Bul. 212, 1949.

Mueller, James 1. Analytical Aspects of X-ray Diffraction. The
Trend in En. 6: 5-9, 1954.

Parrish, W., and B. W. Irwin. Data for X-ray Analysis Volume 1
Charts for Solution of Bragg's Education (d versus 0 and 2 0).
Phillips Technical Library, Mount Vernon, N. Y., 1953.

Phillippe, M. M. and J. L. White. Quantitative Estimation of
Minerals in the Fine Sand and Silt Fractions of Soils Wflth
Geiger-counter X-ray Spectrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
15: 138-145, 1950.

Pollack, S. 8., E. P. Whiteside and D. E. Van Farowe. X-ray Dif-
fraction of Common Silica Minerals and Possible Applications
to Studies of Soil Genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 18:
268‘272 , 1 954a

Short, M. N. MicroscOpic Determination of the Ore Minerals. U.
S. Dept. Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, Bull. 914,
2nd Ed., 1940. '

(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)

(46)

(47)
(48)

(49)

(50)

101

Slovik, Norman. A Chemical and Mineralogical Study of the Col-
lington and Sassafras Soils in Relation to Pedogenesis. Un-
published PhD Thesis. Rutgers University, 1952.

Spurway, C. H. and K. Lawton. Soil Testing - A Practical System
of Soil Fertility Diagnosis. Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Tech. Bull. 132 (4th revision), 1949.

Stearns, Margaret D. The Petrology of the Marshall Formation of
Michigan. Jour. Sed. Pad. 3: 99—112, 1933.

Stolzy, Lewis H. The Effect of Mechanical Composition and Clay
Mineral Types on the Moisture PrOperties of Soils. Unpublish—
ed PhD Thesis, Michigan State University, 1954, 135 numb.
leaves.

Tara, Muriel Elizabeth. The Geology and Petrography of Little
Presque Isle, Marquette County, Michigan. Unpublished M. S.
Thesis. Michigan State University, 1950, 31 numb. leaves.

Uhland, R. E. and A. M. O'Neal. Soil Permeability Determinations
for Use in Soil and Water Conservation. Mimeograph Material
USDA - SCS - TP 101: 1-36, 1951.

Van der Marel, H. W. Identification of Minerals in Soil Clay by
X-ray Diffraction Patterns. Soil Sci. 70: 109-136, 1950.

Vollbrecht, Howard Albert. A Correlation Study of Infiltration,
Permeability and Pore Size Distribution. Unpublished M. S.
Thesis, Michigan State University, 1954, 82 numb. leaves.

Whiteside, Eugene Perry. A Mineralogical and Chemical Investiga-
tion of Some Clay Fractions of Putnam Silt Loam. Unphblished
PhD Thesis. Univ. of Missouri, 1944, 103 numb. leaves.

. Preliminary x-ray Studies of Loess Deposits in 111-
inois. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 12: 415-419, 1948.

 

. Some Relationships Between the Classification of
Rocks by Geologists and the Classification of Soils by Soil
Scientists, Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17: 138-142, 1953.

 

102

APPENDIX

103

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS* 0F WEIGHTS 0F CONSTITUENTS IN HORIZONS AND SOLUM
OF A PROFILE AS SHOWN IN TABLE XIII.

SOIL PROFILE: Grandy loamy sand, Site 2

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MEAN VOLUME NT. 01: SOIL FRACTION

SAMPLE HORIZON THICKNESS WEIGHT Icm2 01: SAND SILT cw ,
NO. (cm) gmslcma COLUMN RESIQUE ggs 935 gas

6 4,, 22.9 1.1 25.2 0.915 19.4 1.91 1.15

7 Ag 25.4 1.5 38.1 0.975 32.4 2.90 1.85

8 829 20.4 1.6 32.7 0.99 31.1 0.49 0.74

9 B39 33.0 1.6 52.7 0.992 50.4 0.84 1.00
30111111 101.7 1 .7 133.3 6.14 4.74

(Total = 144.18)

or 92.5% 4.25% 3.19% 1
Underlying glacial material on equal 1

mass (insol. organic free) basis.

96.3% 1.2% 1.6%

 

* values in column 5 were obtained by multiplying values of column 4
times values of column 3.

Values in column 6 represent the fraction of inorganic and acid insol-
uble residues in the sample.

values in 7, 8 and 9 were obtained from mechanical analyses of the C
or 89 by multiplying percentages (from mechanical analyses) times
values in column 5 times values in column 6 for the solum. The sums

of the fractions in the solumn was then converted to percentages of
the total. ‘

Example: Value in column 9, for clay of Ap horizon in a column of
soil 1 cm2.
% clay (from mechanical analyses) = 5.0%
weight of soil = 25.2 (column 5)

Fraction of residue 8 100 - solution 10;; (due to 5292 EBd flg1)
100

or .. 199_:_§..2 = 0.915
100

So: Weight of clay - 25.2 x 5,9 x 0.915 - 1.15
100

values of equal mass basis were obtained by dividing total weights of
sand, silt and clay in solum (columns 7, 8 and 9) by the "fraction
of residue“ and “volume weight” for the C1 horizon.

Example: %£%g%§.. 147, %€% - 91.9 cm mean thickness of C1 horizon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .n .__...,_.__.-,.__=———-_‘- __,-.~—.—-

has:

s
u

v..-

'0-

—. f”

(l'

L:-

BASKSEMJA ON BERRIEN LOAMY SAND

104

SITEINMEER 1

 

SOIL PROF ILE: Berrien loamy sand

DEPTH
fKRIZDN INCHES

Ap 0-10

31 . 10-21

82 21-29

39 29-42

D 4255

Ebrizon

Depth (inches)
Semis No.

5'04 (%)

Silt (%)

01W (%)(2p
Total Carbon (%)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre“
Lbs. K per acre“

‘

DESCRIPTION

Brownish gray* (lOYR 3/1, moist); loamy sand; weak
coarse granular structure; friable when moist;

slightly hard when dry; pH 5.2.

Strong yellowish brown (9TB 5/6, moist); sand; moderate
coarse granular structure; friable to loose when moist:

pH 5.2.

Moderate yellowish brown or strong yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/5, moist); mottled with strong yellowish
brown (7.51m 5/5-5/6, moist): sand: weak coarse
angular blocky structure: slightly compact: slightly
hard men dry; pH 5.2.

Moderate yellowish brown or strong yellowish brown

( 101m 5/3-5/6, moist); mottled with strong brown to
moderate yellowish brown (7.5YR 4/5-10YR 4/3, moist);
sand: very weak coarse angular blocky structure: mod-
erately compact: slightly hard when dry; pH 5.3.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist): mottled
with light grayish yellowish brown to moderate brown
(lOYR 6/2-7.5YR 4/4, moist): stratified sandy loam,
loamy sand and clay loam; compact; slightly hard when

d"‘ pH 50 1 0
0-10 10-21 21-29 29-42 42-55

1 2 3 4 5
84.4 87.5 89.4 94.9 68.9
10.8 7.7 5.9 2.4 13.4
4.5 4.8 4.7 3.8 17.7
2.8 0.4
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
41 10 9 5 4
120 97 150 126 184

* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
3* Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

 

 

 

 

I.

105

 

 

 

BASIC DATA ON GRANBY LOAMY SAND SITE NUMBER 2
SOIL PROFILE: Granby loamy sand
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
AP 0-9 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (10YR 2/O.75, moist): '
loamy fine sand; weak coarse granular structure: )
friable when moist; pH 5.7.
A9 9-19 Brownish gray and dark grayish yellowish brown (lOYR )
3/1-4/1 and 2/1, moist): loamy fine sand; weak blocky \
structure; compact, moderately hard when dry: pH 6.1. ‘1
‘1
329 19-27 Light olive brom (2.5Y 5/2, moist): fine sand; single
grain structure; but with thin wavy slightly darker
and more coherent layers: firm to slightly coherent
"he“ m15t‘ pH 6e3e
B39 27-40 Light olive brown (2.5V 6/2, moist): fine sand: single
grain structure; slightly coherent when moist: pH 6.3.
C:1 40-55+ Light olive brown and moderate yellowish brown to
strong yellowish brown (2.5: 5/2 and 101m 3/4-5/8,
moist): (in roughly horizontal streaks and along
vertical cracks): sand; single grain structure:
slightly coherent when moist; pH 6.7.
“011200 AP Ag 329 B39 C1
Depth (inches) 0.9 9-19 19-27 27-40 40-55+
Sample No. 6 7 8 9 10
Sand (%) 84.0 87.2 96.2 96.5 96.3
$11: (96) 8.3 7.8 1.5 1.6 1.2
Total Carbon (%) 4.2 0.8
Vol. It. (gas/cc) 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
Lbs. P per acre“ 23 43 55 7O 45
Lbs. K per acre” 32 80 36 40 82

k

* Calors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
1* Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

_.o

.1.
ml:

. .
PK”

 

 

 

 

BASIC DATA ON HILLSDALE SANDN LOAM

106

SITE NUMBER 3

 

‘__

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
A, 0-9
A2 9-13
32 13-33
01 33-40
C2 40-50+

Horizon

D‘Pth (inches)
SWIG "00

Sand 1%)

Silt %)

Clay (%) 42111
Total Carbon (%)
Val. It. (gas/cc)
LbSo P per acre“
Lbs. K per acre**
pH

Hillsdale sandy loam

DESCRIPTION

Grayish yellowish brown* (10YR 4/2, moist); sandy
loam; moderate to weak granular at surface to indi-
stinct coarse granular to blocky in lower portion;
slightly firm to friable when moist; pH 6.7.

Grayish yellowish brown to moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sandy loam: indistinct structure;

slightly firm to friable when moist; pH 6.6.

Light brown and moderate yellowish brown (7.5YR
5/4 and 10YR 5/4-4/3, moist): sandy loam: also
contains a layer of darker color and finer texture;
moderate coarse blocky structure; friable to firm

when moist; pH 5.3-6.0.

Moderate yellowish brown and grayish yellowish
brown (lOYR 4/3 and 5/3, moist); banded sandy loam;
weak blocky structure; friable when moist: pH 5.8.

Grayish yellow (2.5V 7/3-7/4, moist); loamy fine
sand; structureless; friable to loose when moist;

pH 7.9 to calcareous.

Ap A2 821 822 83
0-7 8-13 13-20 20-26 26-32
11 12 13 14 15
61.5 51.8 52.2 54.2 54.1
32.0 42.3 29.6 30.7 35.6
6.5 5.9 18.1 15.1 10.3
1.1 0.3
1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3
8.5 27 10 35 125
82 80 72 80 56
6.7 6.6 6.0 5.3 5.6

107

SITE NUMBER 3 (CONCLUDED)

Horizon C1 C2
Depth (inches) 34-38 38*
Sample No. 16 17
Sand (%) 63.9 28.9
Silt (%) 28.9 64.8
Clay (%) < 2).! 7.2 6.3
Total Carbon (%)

v61. wt. (gins/cc) 1.4 1.3
Lbs. P per acre" 105 3
Lbs. K per acre!m 87 48
pH 5.8 7.9

_

h

* Galore designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
1" Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON MIAMI SANDY LOAM

108

SITE NUMBER 4

 

 

§QIL PROFILE:

Miami sandy loam

 

DEPTH
"03120" INCHES DESCRIPTION
Ap 0-6 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (1081 3/2, moist);
sandy loam; pH 6.6
A2 7-11 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sandy
loam; pH 6.1.
B1 l2-l6 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sandy
Clay 103m; pH 5e60
B21 16-21 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sandy
clay loam; pH 5.8.
322 23-28 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sandy
loam; pH 6.2.
C 40-45 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(101m 5/3, moist); 16»; pH 7.5.
Horizon ‘9 A2 81 B21 322 C
Depth (inches) 0-6 7-11 12-16 16-21 23-28 3:45
Sample No. 18 19 20 21 22 7
“"6 (%) 59.5 57.5 52.5 53.9 54.5 39.:
Silt (%) 31.2 30.4 27.0 25.8 25.8 3.0
Clay (%)“.u 9.3 12.1 20.5 20.3 19.7 2 .
Total carbon (%) 0.6 0-4
V°1- It. (glue/cc) 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 9115-6 18%).?
Lbs. P PCT acreil 7 4.5 4 23 84 84
Lbs. K per acreit *9 72 72 80 104 g_
* 0616:: designated by method of Judd and any (24) on ”um“ mp1”

** Determined by method of Spurway

and Lawton

(41).

109

BASIC DATA ON BROOKSTON LOAM SITE NUMBER 5

 

-_¥__

SOIL PROFILE: Brookston loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
351 13-17
BGQ 18-23
363 27 -32
C 42.46
D 47-53
Horizon

DOPth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (%)

s11; (%)

c1" (%)4211
Total Carbon (%)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per scre**

*

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist);
loam; weak medium granular structure; friable when
moist; pH 6.8.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/1, moist); sandy
loam; weak medium blocky structure; firm when moist;
pH 7.2.

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 4/3, moist); sandy
loam; weak medium blocky structure, firm when moist;

pH 703e

Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sandy loam; weak coarse blocky
structure; friable when moist; pH 7.4.

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8, moist); sandy
loam; friable when moist; pH 7.9.

Light grayish yellowish brown or light yellowish
brown (lOYR 6/3, moist); sandy loam; pH 8.2.

Ap 3‘51 BC52 393 C31 ‘ C2

0-10 13-17 18-23 27-32 42-46 47-53
24 25 26 27 28 29
56.6 75.9 68.7 55.6 55.1 54.4
31.2 13.9 18.6 29.0 34.6 36.0

13.2 10.2 12.7 15.4 10.3 9.6
2.0 0.4
1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0
31 39 66 234 8 7;
212 120 104 156 84

 

* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
'*'Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

- a;

110

 

 

 

BASIC DATA w SIMS LOAM SITE NUMBER 6
$011. PROFILE! Sims loam
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
Ap 0-7 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist);
loam; pH 6.1.
319 7-22 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR‘4/2, moist); clay loam;
pH 6.8.
329 22-25 Light grayish yellowish brown or light yellowish brown
(lOYR 6/3, moist); clay 16am; pH 7.4.
339 26-29 Light grayish yellowish brown or light yellowish brown
(1018 6/3, moist); clay 16am; pH 7.4.
C 37-40 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(101m 5/3, moist); clay loam; pH 7.4.
Horizon AP 819 829 339 C
Depth (inches) 0.7 7.22 22-25 26-29 3:40
Sanple No. 30 31 32 33 34 5
Send (%) 42.0 39.0 39.2 35.8 31.5
Silt (%) 32.2 31.9 30.1 31.4 .

Clay (96) 4 2 /u

Total Carbon

Vol. It. (gms/cc)
”.0 P pot acre“
Lbs. K per acre**

_____

* Colors designated by method of

25.8 29.1 30.7 32.8 34.0

5.4 l .3
1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6
54 66 108 120 156
276 138 150 168 144

~ _._-

Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Dfltermined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

....... :

a a
. .—
a)

 

 

 

) I'lllli Ii)

 

 

111

BASIC DATA ON NAPPANEE LOAM SITE NUMBER 7

SOIL PROFILE; Nappanee loam

DEPTH
HORIZCN INCHES

DESCRIPTION

AP 0-5 Grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/2, moist); loam;
crumb structure; friable when moist; pH 6.3.
319 6-13 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); clay loam;
blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 6.4.
329 13-20 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); clay; blocky structure; firm when
moist; pH 7.3.
C 20-41 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); clay; angular blocky structure;
very firm when moist; pH 7.8.
D 41+ Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 6/3, moist); clay; angular blocky structure;
firm when moist; pH 8.0.
Horizon AP 819 829 C D
Depth (inches) 0.5 6-13 13-20 20-41 41+
Sample No. 35 36 37 38 39
Send 0‘) 30.7 23.7 13.8 14.7 17.2
Silt (%) 45.5 36.4 38.8 37.9 37.7
Clay (7042;) 23.8 39.9 47.4 47.4 45.2
Total Carbon (%) 2.3 0.6 6 1 7
v61. wt. (ems/cc) 1.1 1.5 1.5 g 2-
Lbs. P per acre** 9 3 174 7 80
Lbs. K per acre** 156 120 192 8 2..

 

 

* Colors designated by method of Judd

and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

PI

LR!-

 

 

112

BASIC DATA ON HOYTVILLE CLAY SITE NUMBER 8

h

SOIL PROFILE: Hoytville clay
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
AP 0-7 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (IOYR 3/2, moist); clay;
granular structure; firm when moist; pH 5.9.
613 7-12 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 4/2, moist); clay;
blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 6.2.
623 12-43 Grayish yellowish brown (1061 4/2, moist); silty clay-
clay; blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 6.8.
Horizon Ap 513 628
Depth (inches) 0-7 7-12 1243
Sample No. 40 41 42
Sand (%) 13.2 18.7 16.0
Silt (%) 36.6 39.3 40.0
Clay (%) 4 2N 50.2 42.0 4400
Total Carbon (%) 4.7 1.7
V010 "to (gas/CC) Oe9 lea 1e4
Lbs. P per acre** 2 62 90
168 224

Lbs. K per acre" 264

A.“

 

* Colors designated by m
** Determined by method 0

ethod of Judd and'Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
f Spurway and Lawton (41).

113

BASIC DATA ON BOYER SANDY LOAM SITE NUMBER 9

SOIL PROFILE: Boyer sandy loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-8
31 8-14
32 14-20
83 2037
C1 37+

Horizon

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 3/2, moist); sandy
loam; granular structure; very friable when moist;

pH 5.10

Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist); sandy loam; granu-
lar structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.3.

Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist); sandy loam; granu- '
lar structure; friable when moist; pH 5.2. 3;;

Moderate brown (SYR 4/4, moist); sandy loam; granular
structure; friable when moist; pH 5.7.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); sand;
single grain structure; nonsticky when wet, loose
when moist and loose when dry; pH 7.8.

Ap 31 32 B3 C1

Depth (inches) 0-8 8-14 14-20 20-37 37+
Sample No. 43 44 45 ' 46 47
Sand (95) 73.5 68.0 77.5 81.2 90.4
Silt (5‘) 19.6 18.6 8.0 6.8 6.3
91!? (%)42» 6.9 13.4 14.5 12.0 3.3
Total Carbon (%) 0.8 0.3

V010 “to (gTDB/CC) 1.6 106 1.6 105

Lbs. P per acre**‘ 15 8 14 16 . 10
Lbse K per acre**' 150 132 I32 120 80

 

* Colors designated by method of Judd an

d Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of spurway and Lawton (41)-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iii)!!! 1'

 

 

BASIC DATA ON KALAMAZOO SANDY LOAM

‘

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-8
BI 8-12
32 12-21
B3 21-34
C1 34-41
C2 41+
Horizon

Depth (inches)
sample "Os

Sand (96)

Silt (%)

Clay (%) < 2 )1

59:31 Carbon (%)
° ° It. (gms cc)
Lbs. P per ac{e**
Lbs. K per acre**

114

SITE NUMBER 10

Kalamazoo sandy loam

DESCRIPTION

Grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/2, moist); sandy
loam; granular structure; very friable when moist;

pH 6.30

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sandy
loam; granular structure; very friable when moist;

pH 5.5.

Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist); sandy clay loam;
angular blocky structure; friable when moist; pH 4.8.

Light brown (7.5YR 5/4, moist); sand; granular struc-
ture; very friable when moist; pH 5.1.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sand;
single grain structure; nonsticky when wet, loose

when moist and loose when dry; pH 5.3.

Moderate yellowish brown (1013 4/4, moist); sand;
single grain structure; nonsticky when wet, loose
when moist and loose when dry; pH 6.5.

A19 B1 B2 B3 c1 C2
0-8 8-12 12-21 21-34 34.41 41+
48 49 50 51 52 53
54.0 46.1 67.8 91.4 96.6 90.8
38.1 36.4 10.5 2.7 1.6 3.9
7.9 17.5 21.7 5.9 1.8 5.3
0.85 0.3
1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5
7 5.5 6 12 7 23
112 440 138 104 , ' 90 192.

___—-

 

* Colors designated by method of

Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway and.Lawton (41).

31

his
qr

alv
use

PW

AU

1")! I.)

BASIC DATA ON VOLINIA SILT LOAM

._-__

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES

Volinia silt loam

DESCRIPTION

115

SITE NUMBER 11

AP 0'8 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist); silt
loam; crumb structure; friable when moist; pH 5.4.
31 8-15 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); loam;
crumb structure; friable when moist; pH 6.0.
B2 15-30 Dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4, moist); sandy loam;
crumb structure; firm when moist; pH 5.1.
B3 33-38 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); sand; weak
crumb structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.2.
C1 38-44 Dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/3, moist); sand; single
grain structure; nonsticky when wet, loose when moist
and loose when dry; pH 5.4.
C2 44* Dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sand; single
grain structure; nonsticky when wet, loose when moist
and loose when dry; pH 7.4.
Horizon AP 31 32 33 C1 02
Depth (inches) 0-8 8-15 15-30 33-38 38-44 44+
SGMple Mo. 54 55 56 57 58 5g 6
Silt ()6) 56.4 39.2 23.8 4.7 1.2 4-0
Clay (704211 20.7 26.8 11.1 4.2 1. .
Total Carbon (%) 2.6 0.4
'01. no (”S/CC) 1e2 104 le6 lab 1 40
Lbs. P per acre** 16 40 4.5 10.5 $0 87
Lbs. K per acre** 184 280 168 163

 

. * 0616:. designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on c

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41)-

rushed samples.

116

BASIC DATA ON COLOMA LOAMY SAND SITE NUMBER 12

 

_-

SOIL PROFILE: Coloma loamy sand

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
AP 0-10 Grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/2, moist); loamy sand;
weak granular to weak crumb structure; very friable
when moist; pH 6.2.
‘2 10-36 Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5.4, moist); sand;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.4.
31 36-48 Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist); sand; weak granular
to weak crumb structure; very friable when moist;
pH 5.3.
33 48+ Nbderate brown (7.5YR 5/4-4/1, moist); sand; weak
granular to weak crumb structure; very friable when
moist; pH 5.3.
Horizon AP A2 81 Bi?)
Depth (inches) 0-10 10-36 36-48 48+
Sample No. 60 61 62 63
5'06 (%) 86.3 90.5 94.1 90.0
Silt (%) 9.3 6.5 1.3 4-2
Clay (9042;: 4.4 3.0 4.6 5.8
Total Carbon (76) 0.4 0.1 5
VOL Ht. (ms/cs) 1.5 1.5 1.5 :-
Lbs. P per acre** 23 6.5 4
90 108 144

Lbs. K per acre** 156

__

 

* Galore designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
**'Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA (N BERRIEN SANDY LOAM

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HOR IZON INCHES
Ap 0-8
Al 8-11
A2 11-17
C1 17-89

Horizon

D‘Ptb (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Cl'Y (%) 4 2 )4
Total Carbon

Vbl. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre“-

117

SITE NUMBER 13

AA A‘A A

Berrien sandy loam

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 3/2, moist); sandy
loam; crumb to granular structure; very friable when
moist; pH 5.8.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sandy
loam; crumb to granular structure; very friable when

moist; pH 5.8.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); loamy
sand; crumb structure; very friable when moist; pH

5.8.

Strong yellowish brown (lOYR 5/8, moist); sand;
single grain structure; nonsticky when wet; loose
when moist and loose to soft when dry; pH 6.0.

Ap A1 A2 01
0-8 8-11 11-17 17-89
64 65 . 66 67
73.6 77.1 81.8 96.4
18.3 16.3 13.7 1-8'
8.1 6.6 4.5 1.8

1.3 0.9

1.4 1.5 1-6
32 2e5

212 144 120

A.—

 

”'Colors designated by method of JUdd and Kelly'(24) on CYUDDPd 33mP19"
**’Determinad by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

118

SITE NUMBER 14

‘._

BASIC DATA 011 17011111). LOAM

——

.._-_

SOIL PROFILE: Volinia loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
A1 O-ll Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist);
loam; granular structure; friable when moist; pH
5.8.
B21 ll-2l Dark grayish yellowish brown (IOYR 3/2, moist); loam;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 4.9.
B22 21-28 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 4/2, moist); sandy
loam; blocky structure; friable when moist and hard
when dry; pH 4.8.
C1 28-41 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); sand;
single grain structure; loose when moist and loose
when dry; pH 5.00
D 41-85 Nbderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4, moist); sand;
single grain structure; loose when moist and loose
when dry; pH 5.3.
Ebrizon A1 321 822 Cl D
D-pth (inches) 0-11 11-21 21-28 28-41 41-85
Sample No. 68 69 70 71
Sand (in 39.2 30.7 75.0 93.5 97.5
Silt (%) 43.1 43.6; 10.5 2.5 1.1
Clay (%)42» 17.7 25.7 14.5 4.0 1.4
Total Carbm (%) 1.8 0.8
'61. It. (gag/cc) 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 (est.)
Lbs. P per acre** 4.5 4.5 7 13 15
Lbs. K per acre** 104 150 126 112 132

 

* Colors designated by
** Determined by method

method of Jodd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
of Spurway and

Lawton (41)-

119

 

 

BASIC

DATA ON KALAMAZOO LOAM SITE NUMBER 15

50 L PROFI : Kalamazoo loam

DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

Ap 0-11 Moderate yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/3, moist); loam;
granular to crumb structure; very friable when
“1019:; p“ 5046

*2 11-14 Moderate yellowish brown (1078 5/4, moist); loam;
granular to crumb structure; very friable when
moist; pH 5.0.

B1 14-17 Moderate yellowish brown (1078 4/4, moist); loam;
blocky structure; friable when moist; pH 5.1. ‘

82 17-24 Moderate yellowish brown (107R 4/4, moist); clay
loam; blocky structure; very friable when moist;
pH 4.7.

B31 24'28 Moderate yellowishbrown (lOYR 4/3, moist); loamy
sand; blocky structure; very friable when moist;
pH 5000

B32 28-36 Moderate yellowish brawn (1078 4/4, moist); loamy
sand; blocky structure; very friable when moist;
pH 5.0a

Cl 36'46 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sand;
blocky structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.4.

G2 I ‘6-54 Moderate yellowish brown (1073 4/3, moist); sand;
blocky structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.3.

D 54+ Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown

(lOYR 5/3, moist); sand; blocky structure; very
friable when moist; pH 5.8.

3m: NUMBER 15 (conciuded)

120

 

Horizon Ap A2 B1 82 . 831

Depth (inches) 0-11 11-14 14-17 17-24 24-28

Sample No. 73 74 75 76 77

Sand (%) 48.0 40.8 45.9 41.4 83.9

Silt (%) 42.8 44.3 32.4 28.6 4.6

Clay (%)221. 9.2 14.8 21.7 30.0 11.5

Total Carbon (%) 0.8 0.3

Vol. wt. (gins/cc) 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7

Lbs. P per acre** 4 8 l2 9 16

Lbs. K per acre“ 132 172 200 139 126

Horizon B32 C1 02 D

Depth (inches) 28-36 36-46 46-54 54+

Sample No. 78 79 80 81

Sand (95) 87.8 92.2 92.2 97-7

Silt (%) 2.8 1.3 1.8 0.7

Clay (%) < 2);; 9.4 6.0 6.0 1.6

Total Carbon (96)

Vol. Ht. (gms/cc)

Lbs. P per acre“t 18 l2 l6 14

Lbs. K per acre“ .168 209 97 64

* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) 0“ “WP“! samples.
thod of Spurny and Lawton (41)-

“ Determined by me

BASIC DATA ON CONOVER LOAM

—————

§OIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-7
A2 7-11
Big 11'19
329 19-28
C 31+
Horizon
Depth (inches)
SInple No.
Sand (%)
Silt (%)

CRY (%) 4 2 )1

Total Carbon (%)
Vbl.‘lt. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**'
Lbs. K per acre**

121

SITE NUMBER 16

Conover loam

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (107R 3/2, moist); loam;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 7.1.

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4, moist); sandy loam;
blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 7.0.

Moderate yellowish brown (1078 5/4, moist); sandy loam;
blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 6.9.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); clay loam;
blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 6.8.

Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brovm
(1078 5/3, moist); sandy 16am; blocky structure; very

firm when moist; pH 7.8.

Ap A2 B19 B29 C
0-7 7-11 11-19 19-28 31+
82 83 84 85 86
44.8 54.8 57.6 43.4 53.5
40.7 35.4 24.6 28.2 28.9
14.5 9.8 17.8 28.4 17.6

1.9 0.3

1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.9
35 6 3 43 2
104 116 97 84 24

.._

 

* Colors designated by meth

ad of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41)-

BASIC DATA ON MIAMI LOAM

122

SITE NUMBER 17

 

 

SOIL PROFILE: Miami loam
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

AP 0-8 Moderate yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/4, moist); loam;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 6.3.

A2 3'12 Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4, moist); loam;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.7.

A3 12-16 Moderate yellowish brown (107R 5/4, moist); loam;
granular structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.5. .

321 16-24 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); loam;
block structure; very firm when moist; pH 5.1.

322 24-32 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/1, moist); sandy
clay loam; blocky structure; very firm when moist;
pH 5.5.

B3 32-43 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); sandy
clay loam; blocky structure; very firm when moist;
pH 6e1e

C 43+ Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(107R 5/3, moist); loam; granular structure; friable
when moist; pH 7.8.

Horizon Ap A2 A3 321 822 33
Depth (inches) 0-8 8-12 12-16 16-24 24-32 3:43
58mo1e No. 87 88 89 90 91 9 7
Sand (%) 48.9 47.6 50.7 45.6 47.6 45.
Silt (76) 38.9 38.7 31.6 28.5 25.8 27.3
Clay (7‘) 4 2 p 12.2 13.7 17.7 26.0 26.6 .
Total Carbon (%) 1.3 0.3 6 1 6
vale "to (WC/CC) lab 106 la? 10 2' 55
“‘0 P per 36’9“ 5.5 2 2 87 87
Lbs. K per acre** 84 84 120 97

dd and Kelly (24) on crushed “"01”-

*'Colors designated by method of Ju
** Determined by method of Spurway a

nd Lawton (41)-

43+
93
49.6
30.2
20.2

1.9
4.5

BASIC DATA ON GRANBY LOAMY SAND

.v——
k

SOIL PROFILE: Granby loamy sand

DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-8
A25 8—14
683 14-18
GB 21 -25
CC 25+
Horizon
Depth (inches)
“”1. No.

Sand (95)

Silt (96)

613“! (%) 42;:

Total Carbon (%)
V01. 'te (WC/CC)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**'

I23

SITE NUMBER 18

_4__

.—

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish

sand; granular to sing

when moist; pH 4.8.

brown* (lOYR 2/1, moist); loamy
1e grain structure; very friable

Dark grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 3/2, moist); sand;
anular to single grain structure; very friable when

moist; pH 5.3.

Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 4/2, moist); 58nd;
granular to single grain structure; very friable when

mi’t; pH 5e5e

Grayish yellowish brown (107R 4/2, moist); sand; granu-
lar to single grain structure; very friable when moist;

pH 504a

Grayish yellowish brown (107R 4/2, moist); sand; granu-
lar to single grain structure; very friable when moist;

pH 5e6a

0-8 8-14 14-18 21-25 25+
94 95 96 97 96
87.4 89.6 94.5 92.8 96.6
9.1 7.8 3.9 3.8 1.1
3.5 2.6 1.6 3.4 2.3
4.2 0.5
1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7
13 3O 16 24
132 112 90 116 116

__‘

 

* Colors designated by

method of Jedd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

'”' Determined by method ef Spurway and Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON SAUGATUCK SAND

SOIL PROFILE:
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
Ap 0-15
82,, 12-18
33p 18-23
34 p 23‘”
C 29+
Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

9147 (76) 42
Total Carbon 8;)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

F0

124

SITE NUMBER 19

Saugatuck sand

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (107R 2/2, moist); sand;
granular to single grain structure; very friable to
10088 When maist; pH 4e80

Moderate brown (57R 3/4, moist); sand; blocky struc-
ture; very firm when moist (ortstein); pH 4.7.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); sand; weak
blocky to single grain structure; very friable when

NOESt; pH 5.20

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 4/3, moist); sand; weak
blocky to single grain structure; friable when moist;

pH 5.4.

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4, moist); sand; weak
blocky to single grain structure; friable when moist;

pH 5e5e

Ap B2ir 33? 348 C
0-15 12-18 18-23 23-29 29*
99 100 101 102 103
90.7 91.7 96.7 98.3 98.4
6.8 5.0 1.6 0.4 0.8
2.5 3.3 1.7 1.3 0.8
1.4 3.0
1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6
12 47 23 13 10
56 272 156 138 104

#4

 

“'Golors designated by method of
** Determined by method of Spurway

Judd and Kelly
and Lawton

(24) on crushed samples.
(41).

BASIC DATA ow CONOVER SANDY LOAM

Conover sandy loam

DESCRIPTION

125

SITE NUMBER 20

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (107R 3/2, moist); sandy
loam; granular to crumb structure; very friable when

m15t; pH 6.80

Moderate yellowish brown (1078 4/4, moist); sandy loam;
granular to crumb structure; very friable when moist;

pH 6.9e

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4, moist); loam; granu-
lar structure; very friable when moist; pH 7.3.

Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); loam; blocky to granular structure;

firm when moist; pH 7.5.

Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/3, moist); loam; blocky structure; firm when

moist; pH 7.5.

5011 PROFILE:
DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES
4p 0-8
A29 8'13
319 13-16
B2g 16-21
C 21+

Horizon

Depth (inches)

Sample No.

Sand (96)

Silt (2;

Clay (% 42111
Total Carbon ()6)
V01. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

A9 A29 B19 829 c
0-8 8—13 13-16 16-21 21+
104 105 106 107 108
52.2 60.7 46.7 41.9 46.4
32.4 27.4 32.6 33.4 33.6
15.4 11.9 20.7 24.7 20.0
1.7 0.3
1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7
6 10 10.5 90 42
90 116 108 138 184

;_._‘_

 

*‘ Colors designated by method of

** Determined by method ef Spurwa

Judd and Kelly(
y and Lawton (41).

24) on crushed samples.

BASIC DATA ON GRANBY LOAMY SAND

§OIL PROFILE: Granby loamy sand

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES

A1 0-7
A29 7-13
Cg 13-21
C 23-29
D 29-37

Horizon

D'Pth (inches)

Sample No.

59nd (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%) <2»

Total Carbon (%)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K.per acre**

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/1, moist);
loamy sand; granular to single grai
friable to loose when moist; pH 5.6.

120

SITE NUMBER 21

__‘_

A.—

n structure; very

Grayish yellowish brown to moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sand; granular to single grain
structure; very friable to loose when moist; pH 6.0.

Moderate yellowish brown (1078 5/4, moi
weak blocky to weak massive structure;

m15t; pH 6e50

st); sand;
friable when

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sand;

single grain structure; loose when mo

when dry; pH 6.7.

Moderate yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4,
single grain structure; loose when mois

when dry; pH 6.6.

A1 429 39 C
047 7-13 13-21 23-29
109 110 111 112
%01 9503 I6 9802
10.0 3.7 5.4 0.9
3.9 1.0 2.0 0.9
1.8 0.1
1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7
5 2.5 5 11
84 40 90 132

D

29-37
113
98.6
0.7
0.7

1.7
19
132

ist and loose

moist); sand;
t and loose

‘ag

 

 

* Calors designate
**'Datermined by me

d by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on
thod of Spurway and

Lawton (41).

crushed samples.

127

 

 

BASIC DATA ON BERRIEN SAND SITE NUMBER 22

SOIL PROFILE: Berrien sand ICC
DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

Ap 0-7 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (IOYR 3/2, moist);

Ap

BI

82

7-13

13-20

20-27

36-47

47-50

sand; granular to single grain structure; very
friable to loose when moist; pH 6.2.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sand;
weak blocky to single grain structure; friable when

moist; pH 6.3.

Light yellowish brown or dark orange yellow (lOYR
6/6, moist); sand; weak blocky to single grain struc-
ture; very friable when moist; pH 6.4.

Strong yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6, moist); sand; weak
blocky to single grain structure; very friable when

moist; pH 6.0.

Light yellowish brown or dark orange yellow (lOYR
6/6, moist); sand; weak blocky to single grain struc-

ture; very friable when moist; pH 6.1.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sand;
weak blocky to single grain structure; very friable

When mOISt; pH 6020

Light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4, moist); sandy clay
loam; structureless; very friable when moist; pH

6.2.

Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (96)

Silt (%)

Clay (7042»
Total Carbon

Vol. Ht. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**‘

Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (75)

Silt (56)

Clay (76) 4 2 )8
Total Carbon

Vol. It. (gins/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**‘
Lbs. K per acre**'

* Colors designated by method 0
** Determined by method of Spurway a

SITE NUMBER 22 (Concluded)

“p

0-7
114
88.2
17.6
4.2
0.9
1.5
12
97

C

36-47
119
93.4
0.6
6.0

1.7
13
116

42

47-50

120
55.9
22.6
21.5

1.7
20
104

31
13-20

B2

B39

27-36
118

97.5

0.5

2.0
1.7

126

f Judd and Kelly (24) on crush
nd Lawton (41).

128

‘_——

ed samples.

129

BASIC DATA ON HILLSDALE SANDY LOAM SITE NUMBER 23

 

A A A
‘- _‘ A
A A _ A“

§QLL_EBQ§LL§: Hillsdale sandy loam
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
Ap 0-8 Grayish yellowish brown* (10YR 4/2, moist); sandy
loam; crumb structure; very friable when moist;
pH 6.5.
A2 8-14 Moderate yellowish brown (107R 5/4, moist); sandy
loam; crumb structure; firm when moist; pH 6.7.
B21 14-21 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sandy Clay loam; crumb structure;
firm when moist; pH 6.3.
B22 21-33 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sandy
clay loam; blocky structure; very firm when moist;
pH 5.7.
B3 33-47 Strong yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6, moist); sandy
loam; blocky structure; firm when moist; pH . .
C 47+ Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sandy loam; blocky structure;
very friable when moist; pH .8.
Hbrizon AP A2 821 322 B3 C
”9991 (inches) 08 8-14 14-21 21-33 33-47 47+
Sample No. 121 122 123 124 125 126
Sand (%) 64.5 55.9 53.0 52.2 60.1 62.9
Silt (96) 27.1 28.7 23.6 25.9 23.3 24.7
Clay (%) 42);: 8.3 15.4 23.4 21.9 16.6 12-4
Total Carbon (%) 1.0 0.2
761. wt. (gas/cc) 1.5 1.8 _ 1.8 1.7 1-6 1-6
Lbs. K per acre** 87 108 116 87 84 64

 

* Colors designated by method

of Jodd and Ke

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

_—.—

11y (24) on crushed seaples.

hlfl'f"

. \
.A‘UQU

.35— l

as.

BASIC DATA ON GUELPH LOAM

‘2.—
-

SOIL PROFILE: Guelph loam

130

SITE NUMBER 24

DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

Ap 0-7 Grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/2, moist); loam;
crumb structure; very friable when moist; pH 6.3.

B2 7-14 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 3/3, moist); loam; blocky structure; friable
when moist; pH 7.3.

C 14+ Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); loam;
blocky structure, firm when moist; pH 7.8.

Horizon AP 82 C

Depth (inches) 0-7 7-14 14+

Sample No. 127 123 129

Sand (%) 44.5 48.6 44.9

Silt (%) 40.2 31.9 32.2

Clay (%)42p 15.3 19.5 21.2

Total Carbon (%) 1.8 0.5

vole "to (ng/CC) 105 107 107

Lbs. P per acre“ 13 48 3

Lbs. K per acre**’ 108 82 52

 

* Colors designated by method of Ju
** Determined by method of Spurway a

dd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

nd Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON KALKASKA SAND

SOIL PROFILE: Kalkaska sand

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
Ap 0-6 Grayish yellowish bro
weak granular structur
5080
B22? 6-10 Moderate yellowish
granular structure;
B31p lO-l6 Moderate yellowish brown
weak granular structure;
5.5.
B32F 16-28 Strong yellowish
grain structure;
pH 5e50
C 28+ Light yellowish b
grain structure
pH 5e4e .
Horizon AP 5221’ 3311:
Depth (inches) 0-6 6-10 10-16
Sample No. 130 131 132
Send (%) 91.1 89.4 90.9
Silt (75) 6.8‘ 7.5 6.8
Clay (7042» 2.1 3.1 2.3
Total Carbon (%) 0.7 0.9
vole "to (gn‘/CC) 1e5 105 1.5
Lb‘e p per Ccre“ 6.0 33.0 34.0
Lbs. K per acre** 116 256 224

DESCRIPTION

131

SITE NUMBER 25

wn* (1mm 4/2, moist); sand;
e; very friable when moist; pH

brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); sand;

brown (lOYR 6/6,

rown (lOYR 6/4,

B329

16-28
133
94.4
4.0
1.6

1.5

23.0 ‘

172

friable when moist; pH 5.6.
(lOYR 5/4, moist); sand;
very friable when moist; pH

moist); sand; single
loose when moist and loose when dry;

”015tI3 Sand; single
loose when moist and loose when dry;

C

28+

134
98.9
0.6
0.5

1.6
8.0
82

4

 

* Colors designated by method of

** Determined by method of Spurway

Judd and Kelly
and Lawton (41).

(24) on crushed samples.

BASIC DATA ON KALKASKA SAND

SITE NUMBER 26

_.__.

 

W Kalkaska sand
DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

Ap 0-8 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 3/2, moist); sand;
crumb structure; very friable when moist; pH 6.9.

321p 3-12 Moderate brom (7.5m 4/4, moist); sand; weak blocky
structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.9.

322p 12-16 Moderate brown (7.5m 4/4, moist); sand; weak blocky
structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.6.

33p 16-36 Strong yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6, moist); sand;
structureless, single grain; loose when moist and
loose when dry; pH 6.0.

C 36-46 Moderate yellowish brown (10% 5/4, moist); sand;
blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 5. .

D 46+ Light grayish yellowish brown or light yellowish
brown (10% 6/3, moist); sand; blocky structure;
very firm when moist; pH 5.9.

Horizon Ap 821p 322? B3P C D

Depth (inches) 0.8 8-12 12-16 16-36 3646

Sample No. 135 136 137 138 139

Sand (%) 90.5 88.8 92.1 97.4 93.3 98.8

Silt (76) 7.3 7.3 5.4 1.8 4.7 0-5

Clay (%)<2)u 2.2 3.9 2.5 0.8 2.0 0.7

Total Carbon (%) 0.7 0.6

V01. wt. (gins/cc) 1.6 1.5 1.5 .1.6 1.6

Lbs. P per acre“ 15 6.5 14 13 31

Lbs. K per acre“ 84 116 132 84 87

* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on 61113th samples-

“ Determined by method

of Spurway and

Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON MANCELONA SAND

A

 

SOIL PROFILE;
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
Ap 0-8
8219 8-13
3229 13-22
B2 17-26
C 20-30
Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Slnd (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%) <2»
Total Carbon (%)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

133

SITE NUMBER 27

Mancelona sand

DESCRIPTION

Brownish gray* (lOYR 3/1, moist); sand; weak granu-
lar structure; very friable when moist; pH 5.8.

Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist); sand; weak granu-
lar to single grain structure; very friable when

moist; pH 6.5.

Moderate brown (7.5YR 4/4, moiSt); sand; single grain
structure; loose when moist and loose when dry; pH

6.5.

Moderate yellowish
sand; crumb structure; ver

6.9.

Moderate yellowish brown (loYR
single grain structure; loose

When dry; pH 7e6e

brown (lOYR 4/3,
y friable

moist); sand-loamy

when moist; pH

5/4, moist); sand;
when moist and loose

Ap lep 3222 B2 C

0-8 8-13 13-22 17-26 20-30

141 142 143 144 145
89.9 90.7 9l.2 89.3 95.8
7.0 6.5 5.2 3.9 2.1
3.1 2.8 3.6 6.8 2.1
0.8 0.4
1.5 1.5

48 8 10 14 14

196 312 126 90 132

‘___—

 

* Colors designated by method of

** Determined by method o

f Spurway a

Judd and Kelly
nd Lawton (41).

(24) on crushed samples.

134

BASIC DATA ON COLDWATER SANDY CLAY LOAM SITE NUMBER 28

__—

__

SOIL PROFILE: Goldwater sandy clay loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
Ap 0-8 Sandy clay loam; granular structure; very friable
when moist; pH 6.0.
82 8-14 Sandy clay loam; granular to weak blocky structure;
very friable when moist; pH 5.3. .
3 14+ Sandy clay; blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 5.9.
Horizon Ap A2 B
Depth (inches) 0—8 8—14 14+
Sample No. 146 147 148
Sand (%)
Silt (%)

Clay (94) 42»

Total Carbon (%)

Vol. 'te (ms/CC)

Lbs. P per acre* 9 3
Lbs. K per acre* 245 97 87

* Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (24).

BASIC DATA ON CORAL

135

SANDY LOAM SITE NUMBER 29

 

 

 

SOIL PROFILE: Coral sandy loam
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
Ap 0-8 Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 3/2, moist);
sandy loam; structureless; very friable when moist;
pH 5.9.
A29 8-12 Grayish yellowish brown to moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3-5/4,_moist); sandy loam; structureless;
very friable when moist; pH 6.1.
819 12-19 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/3, moist); sandy loam; weak blocky t0 granu-
lar structure; firm when moist; pH 7.4.
829 19-30 Light yellowish brown (7.5YR 5/4, moist); sandy clay
loam; weak blocky to granular structure; friable when
moist; pH 6.5.
C 30+ Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); sandy
loam-sandy clay loam; weak blocky to granular struc-
ture; very friable when moist; pH 6.5.
Horizon Ap A29 819 329 C
Depth (inches) 0-8 8-12 12-19 19-30 30+
Stuple No. 149 150 151 152 153
59nd (%) 68.7 68.9 62.0 55.9 58.:
Silt (96) 23.1 22.9 22.8 19.3 21.4
Clay (%) 42» 8.2 8.2 15.2 24.8 20.
Total Carbon (%) 1.2 0.3 1 8
v°1e "to (”S/CC) 1.5 1.7 1.8 107 16'
Lbs. P per acre** 8.5 10 160 ‘ 33 32
Lbs. K per acre** 120 104 72 240 l
* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed sample!-

** Determined by method of Spurway and

Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON PAULDING CLAY

136

SITE NUMBER 30

 

 

W3 Paulding clay
DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
AP 0-6 Moderate olive brown*'(2.5Y 4/2, moist); clay; blocky
structure; firm to very firm when moist; pH 6.5.
G; 6'12 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); clay;
glocky structure; firm to very firm when moist; pH
.2.
52 12-18 Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); clay;
blocky structure; firm to very firm when moist; pH
6.1. .
G3 18-24 Light grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 6/2, moist); clay;
blocky structure; finm to very firm when moist; pH
6.1.
64 30-36 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); clay;
blocky to massive structure; firm to very firm when
MISt; pH 7e1e
Horizon Ap G]. 62 G3 G4
Depth (inches) 0-6 6-12 12—18 18-24 30-36
Sample No. 154 155 156 157 158
sand (%) 4.7 3.9 4.2 3.7 3‘3
Clay (%)42/11 61.2 69.1 66.5 69.5 71.5
TOtal car?" /(%) 2e9 1.3 1 4
Vol. It. gms cc) 1.2 1.4 .
Lbs. P per acre** 14 6 29 24 92
Lbs. K per acre** 56 60 212 256 232
"Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.
** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON HOYTVILLE CLAY LOAM

137

SITE NUMBER 31

 

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES

A]; 0-8

AG 8-12
B216 12'26

B226 21-24

Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand Ci)

Sllt (76) .
Clay (%) 42»
Total Carbon (%)
vol. It. (gms/Cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

* Colors designated by
** Determined by method

Dark grayish yellowis
clay loam—clay; granu
firm when moist; pH 6.1.

Grayish yellowi
blocky structure;

Hoytville clay loam

Moderate olive

structure; friable to

Light olive
structure;

Light olive br

structure; very

“p
0-8
159
26.8
33.2
40.0
2.8
1.3
110
168

AG

8-12
160
20

34.3.

45.7
1.1
1.5

150
176

method of JUdd
of Spurway and Lawton

DESCRIPTION

brown (2.5V 5/4,
friable to firm when mo

B218
12-26

and Kelly (24) on crushed

sh brown (lOYR 4/2,
friable to firm when moist;

B22G

21-24
162
19.6

35.6 4

44.8

80
132

).

C

26

163
21.6
33.9
44.5

.6

1
4
84

h brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist);
lar structure; friable to

moist); clay;
pH 6e4.

brown (2.5V 4/4, moist); clay; blocky
firm when moist; pH 6.9.

moist); clay; blocky
iSt; pH 7e1e

own (2.5V 5/4, moist); clay; blocky
firm to friable when moist; pH 6.9.

#_-

samples.

BASIC DATA ON COLDNATER SANDY LOAM

138

SITE NUMBER 32

 

 

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH

HORIZON INCHES

*p

0-8

8-14

A29

329 14-31

C 31+

Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (%)

Silt (9;)

0101! (95) < 2)“
Total Carbon (%)
Vol. It. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

Goldwater sandy loam

DESCRIPTION

(lOYR 3/2, moist);

Dark grayish yellowish brown*
very friable when

sandy loam; granular structure;
Mist; pH 6.20

Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 3/2, moist); loam;
blocky structure; friable when moist; pH 5.8.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 4/3, moist); loam;
blocky structure; friable when moist; pH 6.3.

(2.5Y' 5/4, moist); sandy loam;

Light olive brown
firm When 510181;; pH 7e9e

blocky structure;

,Ap A29 329 C
0-8 8-14 14-31 31+
164 165 166 167
56.7 43.0 51.1 58.0
31.4 39.0_ 29.6 27.6
11.9 18.0 19.3 14.4
1.4 0.5
1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8
14 10 13 72.5
256 272 168

__-‘

 

* Colors designated
** Determined by met

by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

had of Spurway and Lawton (41).

BASIC DATA ON NAPPANEE CLAY LOAM

139

SITE NUMBER 33

 

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
Ap 0-8
C1 12-22
‘2 22+

Horizon

Depth (inches)
Sample No.

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (76) (2).!
Total Carbon (%)
Vol. Ht. (gas/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

Nappanee clay loam

DESCRIPTION

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (10YR 3/2, moist); clay
loam; granular structure; firm when moist; pH 6.3.

Moderate yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4, moist); silty Clay;
blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 5.2.

Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); clay; blocky
structure; very firm when moist; pH 7.5.

Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); silty clay;
blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 7.9.

Ap 329 C1 02

'0-8 8-12 12-22 22+

168 169 170 171
20.8 13.7 1407 8.2
49.5 44.5 38.1 41.6
29.7 41.8 47.2 50.2

2.8 0.9

1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7

13 4 3.5 3

280 126 72 36

“A

 

1“ Colors designated by method of

Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

140

SITE NUMBER 35

’_._-

BASIC DATA ON NAPPANEE CLAY LOAM

—_'
;‘_—

SOIL PROFILE: Nappanee clay loam

 

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION

Ap 0-8 Grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 4/2, moist); clay loam;
granular to subangular blocky structure; firm when
moist; pH 5.2.

629 8-11 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 4/2, moist); clay;
blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 5.2.

39 11-36 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowish brown
to light yellowish brown or dark orange yellow (10YR
5/3-6/6, moist); clay; blocky structure; very firm
when moist; pH 5.0.

c; 36-39 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); clay;
blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 6.6.

Horizon AP A29 89 C;
Depth (inches) 0-8 8-11 11-36 36-39
Sample No. 172 173 174 175
Sand (%) 28.9 23.0 17.7 19.9
Silt (96) 36.2 34.6 29.2 28.2
Clay (%) 42 ,1 34.9 42.4 53.1 51.9
Total Carbon (%) 2.2 1.2
V010 “to (gig/CC) 103 1e5 105 ‘ 107
Lbs. P per acre** 10 7 19 39
Lbs. K per acre** 108 116 200 126
* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway a

nd Lawton

(41).

BASIC DATA ON PICKFORD SILTY CLAY LOAM

SOIL PROFILE: Pickford silty Clay loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-8
A29 8-13
329 13-23
C 23+
Horizon
Depth (inches)
Sample No.
Sand (96)
Silt (%)

Clay (%) (2 )u

Tetal Carbon (%)
Vol. wt. (ems/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

* Colors designated
** Determined by meth

DESCRIPTION

141

SITE NUMBER 36

.._‘

Dark grayish yellowish brown* (lOYR 2/2, moist);

silty clay loam; granular structure; firm when

moist; pH 5.6.

Light brown (7.5
structure; firm when moist;

YR 5/4, moist); silty Clay; blocky
pH 6.6.

Moderate brown (5YR 4/4, moist); clay; blocky struc-
ture firm when moist.

Moderate brown (SYR 4/3, moist) clay; blocky struc-
ture; firm when moist; pH 7.7

by method of JUdd and Kelly

A29

8-13
177
7.9
41.6
50.5
0.3
1.6
413
138

329
13-23
5.9
29.2
64.9

1.4

23"
179
2.5
22.8
74.6

1.4
4
64

A

(24) on crushed samples.
0d of Spurway and Lawton (41).

 

BASIC DATA ON ONTONAGON SILTY CLAY

SOIL PROFILE: Ontonagon silty clay

HORIZON INCHES

AP

B21

B22

Horizon

Depth (inches)

Sample No
Sand (%)
Silt (%)

Clay (%) (2 p

DEPTH

0-5

5-9

Total Carbon

Vol. Ht.

‘* Colors designated by
** Determined by method

(ens/CC)
Lbs. P per acres**
Lbs. K per acre**

14?

SITE NUMBER 37

DESCRIPTION

Moderate brown* (5YR 4/3, moist); silty Clay; blocky
structure; very firm when moist; pH 5.6.

Moderate brown (5YR 4/4, moist); clay; fine blocky
structure; very firm when moist; pH 7.5.

Moderate brown (5YR 4/4, moist); clay; blocky struc—
ture; firm when moist; pH 6.2.

AP

0-5
180
8.8
45.2
46.0
2.3
1.3
15
192

E21

5-9
181
1.7
27.4
70.9
0.9
1.4
287
116

method of Judd
of Spurway and Lawton (41).

B22
9-22
182
1.3
26.7
72.0

1.5
250
144

_-.-_

and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

BASIC DATA ON SELKIRK SILTY CLAY LOAM

#A

143

SITE NUMBER 38

SOIL PROFILE: Selkirk silty clay loam

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
AP 0-8
Cg 16+
Herizon
Depth (inches)
Sample No.
Sand (%)
Silt (76)

Clay ()6) 42/u

Total Carbon (%)
Vol. Wt. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

DESCRIPTION

Pale orange yellow*'(7.5YR 4/2, moist); silty clay
loam; granular to crumb structure; friable when

moist; pH 7.3.

Moderate brown (5YR 4/4, moist); Clay; blocky
structure; firm when moist; pH 6.6.

Light grayish brown to light grayish reddish brown
or light brown to light reddish brown (5118 5/3, moist);

clay; blocky structure; very firm when moist; pH 7.7.

0-8 8-16 16+
183 184 185
11.7 12.6 7.9
54.0 39.1 31.4
34.3 48.3 60.7
1.8 0.6
1.4 1.5 1.6
70 170 3.5
144 240 56

“

 

.—

——-——

* Colors designated by

method of Judd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton 41).

BASIC DATA ON PICKFORD CLAY

_—__-

SOIL PROFILE: Pickford clay

144

SITE NUMBER 39

pH 702e

sh brown
firm when

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES DESCRIPTION
AP 0-8 Dark gray* (5YR 3/1, moist); clay; granular to
weak blocky structure; very friable when moist;
pH 6e8e
819 8-11 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); Clay;
fine blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 7.0.
829 11-15 Grayish yellowish brown (lOYR 5/2, moist); clay;
fine blocky structure; firm when moist;
B39 15-36 Grayish yellowish brown or moderate yellowi
(10YR 5/3, moist); clay; blocky structure;
moist; pH 7.4.
“or 1 20“ AP B]. 9 B29 839
Depth (inches) 0-8 8-11 11-15 15-36
Sample No. 186 187 188 189
Sand (%) 28.7 19.6 21.9 19.9
Silt (%) 30.4 26.6 27.3 28.3
Clay (7042). 40.8 53.8 50.8 51.8
Total Carbon (76) 2.9 1.2
Vol. wt. (gms/cc) 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4
Lbs. P per acre** 95 145 185 215
Lbs. K per acre** 10 ' 9O 84 80

.‘n—

 

——-——

* Colors designated by method of Judd and Kelly (

** Determined by method of Spurway and Lawton (41).

24) on crushed samples.

BASIC DATA ON SELKIRK SANDY LOAM

“

SOIL PROFILE:

DEPTH
HORIZON INCHES
AP 0’9
Bg 9-12
C 12-13
Horizon
Depth (inches)
Sample No.
Sand (%)
Silt (%)

Clay (7‘) c 220

Total Carbon (X) .

V01. Ht. (gms/cc)
Lbs. P per acre**
Lbs. K per acre**

'—

** Determined by

Dark gra
loam; coarse gr
pH 7.4.

Light brown
structure;

A

Selkirk sandy loam

145

311‘s NUMBER 40

A__‘

w

DESCRIPTION

yish yellowish brown* (lOYR 3/2, moist); sandy

anular structure; friable when moist;

(lOYR 5/4, moist); clay; fine blocky
firm when moist; pH 7.3.

Light brown (lOYR 6/4, moist); clay; blocky structure;
firm When m015t; pH 7e90

Ap
0-9
190
52.5
27.6
19.9
1.3
1.6
65
126

Be

9-12
191
29.0
29.7
41.3
0.5
1.6
180
87

J

* Colors designated by method of Jodd and Kelly (24) on crushed samples.

method of Spurway

and Lawton (41).

pm; use om

«V‘s-i 3

Date Due

 

Nov 17

P

/6A7 c

Demco-293

 

 

"Illlflllflllliflflillllllf