 

 

 

w
m...

n. .5141 EU. :0... ilk (411.4 Q13... .5

Hi”:

3. .

”1.5.3:... .

3.2”}.

.

at 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. k 33.
5: .1! 4 a

11.}. L
mi" .

vie; .
‘5'}... L"

1??»

u ”.12....
3.2.
:4.

\. A. .

. 7
uni”... : .w ..
9;..upmuuhﬂny a.

“mg! 11.1 . s.
. 5.... :
ll} :1. 3.1-. I! n

19‘!

.1
11:1; ...:.

1.1.51... .\

.2 s.
i. 1 1.3:. :2. a5.
.21: Z;

,

‘5'.
in . .1... .37935...
.111 . A . a

1:93.19

.. ht:
41.9.1.4.
.1 li~vr.v7 “St bunt. ‘ 1%
3:7,; 1v: .0: N. , .522:
Sinks! 1313'».

1 Lanna. in.

, , 3....
95%

:33... 1.. 2.. .l...
1:1.L....er..xz..3..a 4.

Kiwi-.1... ..
. xwﬂrcn

3:1. 1v
1.... lo. {3‘14“
.1 7 . 1444...}: 1: 1.3.1».
aﬁuBayu... o. 1: z .
(.31! .12) . .

.. .. :3... 1mm
15"“..th
.0010! .14.!
u {S
1‘ a:

Visa: .1.

13: 4.11:!
v ... 3:19.11 1‘.)
.Pu.7.a.l.£
35:33:11 .
a1¢1oc¥~§xrz§
us! 1.... .35.}
>11}... :11}.
'5‘ It‘l}:

1 2):...vi1
.5) .151; a!

 

 

A“ Ora-:3 I

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ASSESSING LANDSCAPE DISTURBANCE AND
RECOVERY ACROSS A WWI BATTLEFIELD: VERDUN,
FRANCE

presented by

Joseph Pierre Hupy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Geography

 

 

 

WWﬂSM a

Major wessor’ 5 Signature
/ /— / ~ 0 5'

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

——-—.— -. —____.

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

r

.._.-.~:--o-

-.-.-.-.-a--o----u-a-u-u-o----

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd~p.1

 

ASSESSING IANDSCAPE DISTURBANCE AND RECOVERY ACROSS
A WWI BA'ITLEFIELD: VERDUN, FRANCE

By

Joseph Pierre Hupy

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Geography

2005

ABSTRACT

ASSESSING LANDSCAPE DISTURBANCE AND RECOVERY
ACROSS A WWI BATTLEFIELD: VERDUN, FRANCE

By

Joseph Pierre Hupy

Warfare and the physical environment have always shared a close
and interconnected relationship. While a large body of literature
examines the ability of the physical environment to inﬂuence battle
outcomes, a limited degree of research explores the inverse relationship,
that is, the various effects of warfare gpgg the environment. The
destruction associated with modern warfare is particularly catastrophic
due to the extent, magnitude, and duration of contemporary wars. These
large magnitude disturbances radically alter the shape of the landscape,
limiting the ability of the landscape to revert back to its original state. By
pursuing two research objectives, this dissertation research examines
landscape disturbance and recovery across the World War I battleﬁeld of
Verdun, France. The first research objective was to characterize the
varying magnitudes of disturbance. Five study sites were surveyed that
best reﬂected the varying degrees of disturbance, while maintaining
similar environmental characteristics, e.g., bedrock, soil type, and
topographic position. Disturbance magnitude was determined by
counting craters and measuring their dimensional attributes in two

quarter hectare plots at each of the ﬁve study sites. Additionally, a

was performed at each of the ﬁve study sites. The microtopographic
survey recorded changes in elevation to the nearest centimeter at 0.5
meter intervals along 50 meter transects. The second research
objective was to characterize, describe, and explain soil development
within the disturbances created by explosive munitions. This objective is
based primarily on parameters associated with soil development data.
Soil development is ascertained by examining the degree of leaching of
various cations from the soil proﬁle and the character/ amount of organic
matter that has accumulated to form the O and A horizons.

This study provides insight into the ability of a landscape to
recover following a catastrophic anthropogenic disturbance. Given the
controversy surrounding the environmental implications of modern
military operations around the world, via both training and actual
combat, it is important to examine the impact military disturbances exert
on the landscape. Additionally, humans are increasingly reshaping the
face of the earth through activities such as mining, logging, intensive
agriculture, and warfare. An understanding of landscape recovery
through the holistic approach of studying geomorphic, soil, and bio-
ecologic factors will help to better manage and restore severely disturbed
landscapes in the future. Such work serves to provide society with a
better understanding of how and to what degree landscapes recover,

following a catastrophic anthropogenic disturbance such as war.

To the animals, turd burglar and fur

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements are like making wedding plans - inevitably somebody gets
left out by accident (or intentionally), feelings are hurt, and somebody crawls into a
corner sucking their thumb. Needless to say, I hope to avoid this by listing as many
names I can without causing offense. To further cover my aft, I will try not to place too
much ranking on these acknowledgements. Of course the names I list ﬁrst will be the
ones that were most involved with the ranking scheme dropping off after the list becomes
a lugubrious list of names. I say all this because the only people who generally read these
types of works are those listed in the acknowledgements anyways. So here goes...

I would ﬁrst like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Randy Schaetzl, for it
was he who put up with me these past 4 1/2 years. This involved keeping me on steady
course; dealing with my research proposal, grant proposal, and research award proposals;
editing my dissertation drafts; accompanying me to France; not to mention dealing with
all the other headaches associated with having a PhD student. Right about now, I also
need to acknowledge my extremely amazing wife, (and fellow graduate student also
ﬁnishing up her work) Christina, for dealing with any frustrations I spewed concerning
my advisor (see above), stroking my ego, and being the best help ever in France. Back to
the committee. I want to thank all the other members of my research committee, Alan
Arbogast, Antoinette Winkler-Prins, and David Rothstein. They all provided valuable
assistance. I should mention that each committee member had their niche in regard to
advice and interest in this project. It was AWP’s Human-Environment that provided the
seed for this project. The paper I wrote in that class, which seems so long ago, turned into

the monstrosity that you the reader, are about to read. The inspiration Antoinette in that

 

class, Al’s interest in military history, and input from other committee members really
turned this into what it is. Alan even accompanied me to France — thank you.

Many others helped along the way as well, providing emotional, logistic,
monetary, and technical support. First, I will dispense with the monetary support thank-
you’s. The majority of this work was providing by a generous National Science
Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant. I was also helped along the way by the
Geography Department at Michigan State University with Graduate Ofﬁce Fellowship
Funds. I also want to thank Lawrence and Majorie Sommers for their research award and
Kenneth E. Corey for also providing me the ability to compete for research dollars. I
would also like to thank the Geomorphology Specialty Group for their ﬁnancial support
in the form of a competitive research award. Finally, I want to once again thank Randy
and my wife for helping me along the way with funds.

In regard to allowing me to afford any of this work, getting me permission, setting
me up with lodging, I really need to thank some people over on the other side of the
Atlantic. I want to extend special thanks to Christina Holstein for everything to do with
even getting this project off the ground in the form of translation, contacts, and overall
good advice. I would like to thank the Sellier Family for providing me a place to stay as
well as valuable contacts. I want to thank Pierre Longhard, chief of police in the area, for
setting me up with permission to do my work on the battleﬁeld. The French forestry
service also proved invaluable including Olivier Marcet, who provided me with lots of
background information concerning the soils, geology, vegetation, and other facts

concerning the physical geography of the study area. Basically, I’d like to thank all the

vi

French who I encountered during my research; they were all helpful beyond what words

can convey. I only wish that Americans would treat any visiting French the same.
Inevitably, I have forgotten to mention by name some great contributor. For this I

apologize and can only hOpe my oversight is pointed out so I can thank you in person. I

will end by thanking the fates for bringing me to this point in life.

vii

PREFACE

After walking upon a battleﬁeld day after day pocked with literally
millions of craters, I sometimes was jaded by the ultimate power that
created the destruction surrounding me. I forgot I was in a location that
epitomized what the technology of the industrial age was capable of
rendering to humans and the environment. Occasionally my objectivity
would dim when recording the presence of a piece of human remains, an
unexploded ordinance, or some other relict of war. At those moments, I
would once again realize that I was standing in a location that was
literally a meat grinder, an inferno, and hell on earth - all rolled into one.
Sometimes, at these moments, I would gaze at the trench remains dotted
with craters, at the bits of barbed wire, the occasional shell peeking out
from beneath the 88 year burial, the rare bone fragments, and realize
what it meant when the infantry slogging to the front muttered they were
entering ‘the furnace‘. How, I would wonder, did the people in this
situation even deal for a day crawling through muddy water ﬁlled craters
in a cacophony of artillery blasts. I suppose they did it for love of
country, believing they were making the sacriﬁce so their sons and
daughters wouldn’t have to experience what they did. Unfortunately,
those wishes did not come true and the world is currently experiencing

more armed conﬂicts than at any time in the 20th century.

viii

I state this not as an opposition to the military, military endeavors,
or to armed conﬂict. In fact, I am a staunch supporter of the military and
highly admirer those who give a substantial part of their lives so I can sit
in comfort and write this. I am a realist and realize that sometimes
armed conﬂict does ultimately stem from a terminal ending in political
and diplomatic circumstances. I have written this dissertation and
maintain an interest in military geography because I want to record what
happened and the magnitude of what occurred in the past.

The battle of Verdun is just one of many battles that points to me
what a ﬁne veneer covers our ‘civilized world'. War is considered a bad
word in our society, but we (and that does include me) are all fascinated
by it. We seem to live in a world now that pays lip service in homage to
those who fought while our nations youth make a mockery of those who
have died. Video games such as Black Hawk Down recreate the violent
deaths of US. soldiers whose loved ones must anguish over those
memories every time the game is seen at a local Wal Mart or Best Buy.
Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers may illustrate the
horrors of war, but it seems all too convenient that the scenes with the
most gore are played over and over again on DVD players in the comfort
of our living rooms because, in the words of some, “the sound effects are
cooL”

We are now involved with two separate conﬂicts in two separate

countries (Afghanistan and Iraq). In our bumper sticker society,

ix

supporting the war merely means placing a yellow ribbon, or even more
recent, a ribbon bespangled with red, white, and blue on the back of our
vehicles — sometimes even three or four ribbons will indicate highly
patriotic individuals. I can only hope that my research will place an
awakening in individuals that the effects of war are far reaching, beyond
what, 24 hour news, movies, and video games present.

To dedicate this dissertation to the men who fought or as a wish to
end armed conﬂict would be cheap at best. I only wish to remind people
that a study like this examines the battleﬁeld well after loved ones died
in agony within a lonely mud slicked crater on a far away battleﬁeld. I
encourage everyone to continue with research examining the effects of
war on humans and the environment so hopefully war can be

remembered exactly how it was and is, not as a video game or movie.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. xii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
Research Objectives ...................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 8
Environmental Inﬂuences on Battle .............................................. 8
Traditional Military Geography .................................................... 11
Warfare and its Effects on the Environment ................................ 13
Warfare in Antiquity, Up to and Through Pre-modern
Warfare ............................................................................. 14
Modern Warfare .......................................................................... 18
History of Munitions .......................................................... 19
Introduction of Smokeless Gunpowder and the Age of Modern
warfare ........................................................................................ 2 1
Landscape Resilience and Stability .............................................. 39
Theoretical Concepts Surrounding Human Impact on Soil
Formation Processes ................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 2
STUDY AREA ....................................................................................... 47
Historical Context ....................................................................... 47
Physical Setting .......................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3
METHODS ............................................................................................ 62
Objective #1: Assessing Landscape Disturbance .......................... 62
Survey of Changes in Microtopography Due to Cratering....69
Objective #2: Assessing Post-War Landscape Recovery ................ 72
Soil Development Theory ................................................... 75
Sampling Design ................................................................ 80
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 91
Objective One ............................................................................. 91
Disturbance Inﬂuences ...................................................... 9 l
Disturbance Characteristics of Study Sites ........................ 96
Etraye ...................................................................... 99
Red Zone North ...................................................... 104
Red Zone South ...................................................... 107
Hoseland ................................................................ 1 13

xi

Thiaumont Platform ............................................... 1 17

Summary: Objective One ................................................. 124

Objective 'l\vo ............................................................................ 125

Soil Proﬁle Descriptions ................................................... 126

Red Zone ................................................................ 127

Bois de Thill ........................................................... 133

Etraye .................................................................... 139

Summary: Pedon Descriptions ......................................... 142

Lab Analysis .................................................................... 143

Texture .................................................................. 143

pH .......................................................................... 146

Organic Carbon ...................................................... 149

Elemental Ratios ..................................................... 151

Soil Development Processes ....................................................... 155
Bombturbation as a Form of Pedoturbation ............................... 158
Divergence in Soilscape Evolution ............................................. 161

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 168
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 173
Appendix A ............................................................................... 174
Appendix B ............................................................................... 184
Appendix C ............................................................................... 188
Appendix D ............................................................................... 192
Appendix E ............................................................................... 195
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 199

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Typical soils found on the battleﬁeld of Verdun. France. Source:
United States Soil Conservation Service, 1975; Montagne,
2003 ............................................................................................ Page 61

Table 2: Categories of disturbance magnitude among the ﬁve study sites
at the Verdun battleﬁeld ............................................................... Page 64

Table 3: Typical pedon description of a Bruniﬁed Rendzina soil at the
Etraye site .................................................................................... Page 81

Table 4: Typical pedon description of a Calcareous Brown soil at the Red
Zone site ...................................................................................... Page 82

Table 5: Typical pedon description of a Psuedogley soil at the Bois de
Thill site ....................................................................................... Page 82

Table 6: Disturbance attributes based on data from Mr hectare
plots at ﬁve study sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld .......................... Page 97

Table 7: Crater disturbance dimensional (depth) data based on sample
data from ﬁve sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld ................................ Page 97

Table 8: Crater disturbance dimensional (area and volume) data based
on sample data from ﬁve sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld ............... Page 98

Table 9: Dimensions of, and soil type within, excavated craters on the
Verdun, France battleﬁeld .......................................................... Page 127

Table 10: Bioturbation styles, organismic examples, and effects on soil
properties (Modiﬁed from Johnson et al., 2005) .......................... Page 159

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES“

Figure 1. World War I aerial reconnaissance photo (1916) of the pock-
marked Verdun battleﬁeld. The Meuse River on the left side of the image
is approximately 25 m across. Source: Clermont-Ferrard, 1919 ..... Page 5

Figure 2. A typical example of the Verdun cratered landscape near
Fluery, France, in May, 2003 Source: Author's Collection ............... Page 5

Figure 3. A German 310 mm (IO-inch) howitzer at Verdun in June, 1916.
The Germans employed several hundred of these guns during the battle,
typically concentrating their ﬁre into very small sections of the front.
Source: German Bundesarchive ................................................... Page 25

Figure 4. Forest and soilscape destruction along Western Front during
WWI (1914-1918) Source: Clermont-Ferrard, 1919 ....................... Page 26

Figure 5. Cratered South Vietnam agricultural ﬁelds. The linear pattern
of the craters is due to the path of 8-52 bombers. Source: Westing,
1972 ............................................................................................ Page 31

Figure 6. A 500 lb. bomb crater (beneath yellow arrow) in Cat Tien
National Park, Vietnam. This area of southern Vietnam was heavily
bombed and sprayed with herbicide agents. Date of photo unknown.
Source: http:/ /www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/ ~sdwyer/ sites ....................... Page 32

Figure 7. Aerial view of land clearing operation by Rome ploughs in
southern Vietnam. Source: Westing, 1972 .................................... Page 33

Figure 8. Leveled forest at ground zero following Daisy Cutter bomb
explosion. Source: Public domain,
http: / /members.aol.com/samc 1 30 /bc 1 30.html ........................... Page 34

Figure 9. Aerial view illustrating effects of herbicide 'agent orange’ (upper
left portion) on Vietnamese forests. Note additional destruction due to
500 pound bombs. Source: Westing, 1976 .................................... Page 36

Figure 10. Smoke drifting to the southwestfrom the burning oil ﬁelds to
the north of Kuwait City in April, 1991. Source: Public domain,
http: / / science.ksc.nasa. gov/ mirrors / images / html / STSB? .htm. . . .Page 38

Figure 11. The political geography of modern Europe in relation to

Europe's Western Front in 1916. Source: ESRI data products,
2005 ............................................................................................ Page 49

xiv

Figure 12. Verdun and surrounding villages, circa 1916. The lines on the
map represent the movement of the front lines through the course of the
battle. The heaviest ﬁghting occurred in the center of the battleﬁeld near
the forts of Vaux, Douaumont, and Souville. Correspondingly, this is
where the heaviest landscape disturbance occurred. Source: Clermont-
Ferrard, 1919 ............................................................................... Page 52

Figure 13: Climograph for Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. The city is
located approximately 100 km to the north of Verdun. The line on the
chart is for temperature while the bars represent precipitation. Source:
http:www.worldclimate.com ......................................................... Page 54

Figure 14. Beech tree plantings on Verdun battleﬁeld in May, 2003. Note
conifers between beech rows in process of being removed. Source:
Author’s Collection, May 2003 ...................................................... Page 56

Figure 15. Austrian black pine planting near Colonel Driant memorial on
the Verdun battleﬁeld. Source: Author's Collection, May
2003 ............................................................................................ Page 56

Figure 16. Geologic map of Verdun battleﬁeld and vicinity. The yellow
tones represent various grades of limestone making up the cuesta
highlands while the blue and dark organge tones comprise the shales of
the Woevre valley to the east and northeast. Note the cuesta escarpment
along the eastern edge of the yellow highland area. Source: Carte
Geologique de la France, Metz and Verdun ( 1:80,000), 3“11
Edition ......................................................................................... Page 58

Figure 17. Physiography of the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. The
southeast/northwest trending ridges are cuestas, comprised of
erosionally resistant limestones of the Paris Basin. Source SRTM digital
Elevation data, world wide web ..................................................... Page59

Figure 18. Geologic cross-section of the Paris Basin. Note the steep
escarpments facing east - the direction of German advance. This
geomorphic character helped slow the German offensive and
subsequently contributed towards stalemate conditions along the
Western Front. Source: modiﬁed from Johnson, 1921 .................. Page 59

Figure 19. Typical soil catena on Jurassic limestone of northeastern
France. Modiﬁed from Duchaufour, 1982 ..................................... Page 61

Figure 20. Surface disturbance plots that were studied on Verdun,
France battleﬁeld ......................................................................... Page 66

XV

Figure 21. Local relief of surface disturbance study sites on Verdun
battleﬁeld. The outline of each relief map is shown in matching color and
order on the inset map ................................................................. Page 67

Figure 22. Survey of microtopography. Individual on left is holding a
leveling device while individual in the crater is holding a stadia rod in an
artillery crater. Measurements were taken every 0.5m along 50-meter
transect ......................................................................................... Page71

Figure 23. Distribution of soil development study sites across the study
area of Verdun, France ................................................................. Page 83

Figure 24. Backhoe excavating a trench across a typical crater on the
Verdun battleﬁeld of France. Line outlines proﬁle of the crater ..... Page 84

Figure 25. Typical artillery crater and location of sampled pedons. Each
pedon was sampled at depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm below soil
surface ......................................................................................... Page 85

Figure 26. Due north-facing, oblique view of Etraye study plots and
surrounding area. Vertical exaggeration is 3.0 and the area is 4X3
km .............................................................................................. Page 100

Figure 27. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,
Etraye study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to
differences in proportions of crater sizes .................................... Page 102

Figure 28. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Etraye study
site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in
proportions of crater sizes .......................................................... Page 102

Figure 29. Transect 1 from Etraye study plot 2, as an example of surface
microtopography at the Etraye study site. The transect shows three
craters at the following locations on the horizontal axis: 4-9 meters, 20-
25 meters, and 42-43 meters ..................................................... Page 103

Figure 30. Crater cluster within the Etraye study plots at the Verdun,
France battleﬁeld. Note the paucity of vegetation in crater bottoms.
Source, Author's collection, September 2004 .............................. Page 103

Figure 31. Due north oblique view of (from top of image down) Red Zone
North, Red Zone South, and Hoseland study plots, and surrounding
area. Vertical exaggeration is 3.0 and the area is 4X3 km ........... Page 105

xvi

Figure 32. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one, Red Zone
North study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to
differences in proportions of crater sizes ..................................... Page 106

Figure 33. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Red Zone
North study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to
differences in proportions of crater sizes ..................................... Page 107

Figure 34. Transect 2 from Red Zone North study plot2 as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Red Zone North study site.
The transect contains discemable craters at the following locations on
the horizontal axis: 6-12 meters, 21-25 meters, 27-31 meters, and 39-42
meters ........................................................................................ Page 107

Figure 35. Remains of a narrow gauge rail line in close proximity to Red
Zone South study plots on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September, 2004 .......................................... Page 109

Figure 36. Transect 2 from Red Zone South study plot two, as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Red Zone South study site.
The transect shows one discemable crater at the 13- 15 meter mark along
the horizontal axis. The drop off on the far right is the edge of a former
narrow gauge rail line ................................................................. Page 110

Figure 37. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one, Red Zone
South study site. The former narrow gauge rail line runs along the north
side of the plot ............................................................................ Page 110

Figure 38. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Red Zone
South study site. The former narrow gauge rail line runs along the north
side of the plot ............................................................................ Page 111

Figure 39. Possible human femur bone remains found on surface within
Red Zone South study plots on Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004 ........................................... Page 112

Figure 40. Author holding one of many unexploded munitions littering
surface at Red Zone South study plots on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld.
Source: Author’s collection, September 2004 .............................. Page 112

Figure 41. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one, Hoseland
study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative and do
not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The 50 meter
scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions of crater
sizes ........................................................................................... Page 116

xvii

Figure 42. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Hoseland
study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative and do
not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The 50 meter
scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions of crater
sizes ........................................................................................... Page 116

Figure 43. Stunted tree growth among water ﬁlled craters at the
Hoseland study plot on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source: Author’s
Collection, May 2003 .................................................................. Page 117

Figure 44. Transect 2 from Hoseland study plot one, as a typical example
of surface microtopography at the Hoseland study site. The transect
shows numerous indiscernible crater complexes along the horizontal
axis ............................................................................................ Page 117

Figure 45. Due north view of Thiaumont Platform study site (red dot).
Vertical exaggeration is 3X and the area is 6X4 km ..................... Page 119

Figure 46. Aerial image showing crater disturbances and trench works
on the Thiaumont platform in 1916. Source: Authors collection, taken
from Verdun memorial museum ................................................. Page 120

Figure 47. Cattails (Typha spp) growing in water—ﬁlled crater at the
Thiaumont Platform site on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004 ........................................... Page 120

Figure 48. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one, Thiaumont
Platform study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative
and do not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The
50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions
of crater sizes ............................................................................. Page 122

Figure 49. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Thiaumont
Platform study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative
and do not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The
50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions
of crater sizes ............................................................................. Page 123

Figure 50. Craters and hummocks dividing multiple crater complexes at
Thiaumont Platform study site on Verdun, France Battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004 .......................................... Page 123

Figure 51. Transect 2 from Thiaumont Platform study plot one as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Thiaumont Platform study
site. The transect shows numerous indiscernible crater complexes along
the horizontal axis ...................................................................... Page 124

xviii

Figure 52. Excavation of crater two at the Red Zone soil development
study site. The crater, as with other craters at the site, contains large
amounts of forest litter in the form of branches and leaves. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004 ........................................... Page 128

Figure 53. Proﬁle of excavated crater (crater one) at Red Zone soil
development study site. Note thick 0 and A horizon in the crater bottom.
Crater bottom is at top-center of the image where the orange measuring
tape is located. Source: Author's collection, September 2004 ...... Page 129

Figure 54. Soil in the bottom of crater one at Red Zone soil development
study site. Note that coarse fragment content increases with depth.
Source: Author’s collection, September 2004 .............................. Page 131

Figure 55. Weakly developed B horizon between 20 and 40 cm depth, in
the bottom of crater three, Red Zone study site. Area beneath the 60 cm
mark is in shadow. Source: Author’s collection, September
2004 .......................................................................................... Page 132

Figure 56. An A horizon overlying the redoxymorphic features in a Cg
horizon, on crater side within crater one at the Bois de Thill soil
development study site. Source: Author’s collection, September
2004 .......................................................................................... Page 136

Figure 57. Excavated trench in crater one at the Bois de Thill soil
development site, displaying a thick A horizon over a Cg horizon.
Boundary is situated at the 30 cm depth. Source: Author's collection,
September 2004 ......................................................................... Page 137

Figure 58. Undisturbed soil proﬁle at Crater three, Bois de Thill soil
development study site. The golf tee at the 20 cm depth indicates the
boundary between the A and B horizons while the golf tee at the 55 cm
mark indicates the boundary between the B and C horizons. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004 ........................................... Page 138

Figure 59. Trench ( solid line proﬁle) extending across crater one (edge
deﬁned by dotted line) at the Etraye soil development study site. Note the
thin nature of the soil and lack of a B horizon. Also note thickness of A
horizon within crater (left center of image) .................................. Page 141

Figure 60. An A horizon above C horizon material (below 25 cm) that,
before disturbance, was unweathered limestone bedrock, at crater two at
Etraye soil development study site. Note the smeared clay (right of tape)
indicating weathering of the former limestone bedrock to right of
tape ............................................................................................ Page 141

xix

Figure 61. Verdun soil development as shown by the clay contents at
sampled depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm ................................... Page 145

Figure 62. Verdun soil development as shown by pH levels at sampled
depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm ................................................. Page 148

Figure 63. Verdun soil development as shown by organic carbon contents
in soils at sample depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm ..................... Page 150

Figure 64. Verdun soil development as shown by the ratio
(Ti+Zr)/(Ca+Mg+K) at sample depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50
cm .............................................................................................. Page 152
Figure 65. Generalized diagram of divergence in soil developmental

pathways on the Verdun battleﬁeld surface prior to and following
disturbance by explosive munitions ............................................ Page 165

*Images in this dissertation are presented in color

XX

 

Introduction

In December of 2004, coastal areas in the eastern Indian Ocean
were devastated by a massive tsunami, which had been triggered by an
offshore earthquake. Entire cities were leveled, coastlines changed, and
coastal estuaries altered beneath tons of sediment. Whether it is a
tsunami, a volcanic eruption, ﬂood, or forest ﬁre, large natural
disturbances like these continually shape the physical environment.
Although natural disturbances are capable of rendering massive changes
upon the physical environment, humans often ignore one of the largest
contributing factors in landscape change due to disturbance - ourselves.

From its very beginnings, the discipline of Geography has placed a
great amount of emphasis upon the interactions humans share with
their physical environment (Golledge 2002; Livingston 1992; Marsh
1965[1864]; Sauer 1925). For the greater part of its past, the majority of
works stemming from the discipline of geography have been on the
strong inﬂuence that the surrounding physical environment places on
human activities and their cultural patterns. This form of research came
collectively to be known as environmental determinism and was pursued
in earnest until at least midway through the 20th century (Sauer 1956).
In the 1950’s, the geographer Carl Sauer (1956) introduced the concept
of cultural landscapes by listing the ways humans can inﬂuence their
physical environment. Sauer contended that, although humans are

indeed inﬂuenced by their surrounding environment, they also are

capable of rendering changes on that very environment through everyday
events, including catastrophic ones. Among human activities such as
logging, mining, and agriculture, Sauer also listed war as an agent of
change upon the physical environment. War acts as an agent of
landscape change by causing disturbances of differing magnitudes and
type. War is a unique form of landscape disturbance in that it is often
larger in magnitude and size than other forms of natural disturbance.
War is also unique as an anthropogenic (human) agent of change
because of its capability to render such widespread destruction over
large areas in such short periods of time (Westing 1980). Despite the
magnitude of landscape disturbance associated with modern warfare,
however, it continues to be overlooked as a significant form of
anthropogenic disturbance (Bazzaz 1983).

One subﬁeld of the ﬁeld of Geography, Military Geography, has a
history similar to the broader ﬁeld of Geography in that, until recently, it
has mainly focused on the effects of the physical environment upon the
outcome of battle and/ or military campaigns (O'Sullivan 1991; Peltier
and Pearcy 1966; Winters et al. 1998). Whereas it is important to
examine how the physical environment has inﬂuenced past military
operations, along with studying how to cope with the physical
environment in future military campaigns, it is also important to
examine the converse, i.e. how and where military operations have had

an effect upon the physical environment. An extended examination of this

relationship - between battle and the environment — has the potential to
expand the subﬁeld of military geography into new and exiting directions.
Besides expanding military geography beyond its traditional
format, studying the impact of military activities upon the physical
landscape is a topic that necessitates attention, given the current
circumstances surrounding the military and its increased interactions
with the general public. Environmental watchdog organizations such as
the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, as well as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), all expect the military to maintain a high level of
environmental stewardship in its operations, during both peace and war
(King 2001). Although military land holdings remain among the largest in
regard to public land holdings, the amount of training facilities available
to the military is a limited and ﬁnite resource. Increasing civilian
encroachment upon military training grounds, in addition to advances in
technology requiring an increasing amount of space, call for proper
environmental management of these facilities. In recent years, the
military has done an excellent job managing its current training facilities;
a number of studies have focused on the effects of military training
operations upon the landscape (Gatto, Halvorson, and McCool 2001;
Nichols and Bierman 2001; Prose and Metzger 1985; Albertson 2001).
However, these studies have focused mainly on the effects of heavy
vehicle trafﬁc upon soil surfaces and not upon the many other effects of

military actions, including those of explosive munitions on landscapes.

When searching for areas to study, there exists no shortage of
battleﬁelds associated with the many wars and conﬂicts of the 20th
century (King 2001). Many landscapes affected by war still show battle
scars. Although these areas may now be revegetated, the soils and
surfaces below may remain dramatically altered. For example, North
African deserts still exhibit craters and tank tracks from WWII (Westing
1980). In Vietnam, the ﬂight paths of 8-52 bombing runs can still be
seen in the form of rows of bomb craters - now used as rice paddies by
Vietnamse farmers (Westing and Pfeiffer 1972). Europe’s infamous
Western Front, which stretched from the English Channel to the Swiss
border, can still be reconstructed using the bits of barbed wire, artillery
craters, and trenches that sprawl throughout the forests (Webster 1994).
Several areas along the Western Front were much more disturbed during
WWI than others (Figure l); the Verdun area of France is one of these
areas (Horne 1993). It is pockmarked, even today, with millions of
craters (Figure 2). With this background in mind, I present the main
objectives of this PhD research project, centered on the WI battleﬁeld of

Verdun, France.

 

Figure 1. World War I aerial reconnaissance photo
(1916) of the pack-marked Verdun battleﬁeld. The
Meuse River on the left side of the image is
approximately 25 m across. Source: Clermont—
Ferrard, 1919

 

Figure 2. A typical example of the Verdun cratered
landscape near Fluery, France, in May, 2003 Source:
Author's Collection

Research Objectives

In this dissertation research I focus on the effects that warfare exerts
upon the physical environment. Although warfare impacts the
environment in many different ways, my focus will be on the effect of
explosive munitions on the soil landscape (soilscape), i.e. the landscape
surface and its meso/micro-topographic characteristics (Hole 1978). The
WWI battleﬁeld of Verdun, France was chosen for my research because it
retains millions of craters, making it an ideal setting within which to
perform this research. This research was performed by addressing two
primary research objectives (below).

The magnitude of disturbance, as exempliﬁed by the size and
density of craters, varies tremendously across the Verdun battleﬁeld. In
some areas of Verdun, craters are spaced tens of meters apart, while in
other areas craters are overlapping or separated only by hummocky
mounds of earthen material. Therefore, my first research objective is to
characterize and describe, quantitatively, the varying magnitudes of
disturbance across the battleﬁeld. In this ﬁrst objective, I also intend to
examine landscape disturbance, through a survey of artillery crater
impacts on the micro and meso topography. Gaining an understanding of
the effects of warfare on the landscape is an important focus of this
research. Equally important, however, are data that address the long-
terrn ramiﬁcations of warfare, or the ability of a particular landscape to

recover; this is addressed in my second research objective. My second

research objective sets out to characterize, describe, and explain soil
development in those areas (in particular, artillery craters) disturbed by
explosive munitions. This part of the research will address questions that
center on landscape change and soil developmental pathways and rates,
following these types of disturbances.

This PhD research is important because it (1) examines the ability
of a landscape to recover1 after exposure to a catastrophic anthropogenic
disturbance, and (2) permits the application (and comparison) of data on
landscape recovery using a unique application of soils data. To date, the
majority of research involving landscape recovery following disturbance
has relied upon vegetation data. In addition (3), only occasionally in soil
geomorphology is the beginning of soil development, i.e. time of
disturbance followed by stable conditions, known with this degree of
precision, providing a unique laboratory within which to study the above
phenomena. The information from this body of research promises to
advance current theories in soil development and introduce new
concepts in the ﬁeld of soil geomorphology. Finally, this work promises to
expand research in military geography beyond its traditional bounds of

“environmental inﬂuences on battle.”

 

‘ As the reader may have noted, the Verdun battleﬁeld has not truly ‘recovered’ in the factual sense of the
word. A true recovery would mean that the battleﬁeld has reverted back to the state it was in prior to
disturbance. When the word recovery is used in the context of this research, it is used as a measure of how
closely the changed landscape has moved toward reverting back to its original state.

Chapter 1

Literature Review

Research in military geography has traditionally focused on the outcomes
of battle due to environmental inﬂuences (Palka 2000). Surprisingly, very
little research has examined the opposite relationship - the effects of
battle on the environment. In this review, I will begin with a brief
overview of traditional military geography to illustrate the strong degree
of interaction war has with the physical environment. The next section
will focus on the effects of war on the environment, beginning with
ancient warfare and continuing through modern warfare of the 21st
century. I will also discuss research that has examined the effects of war
on the environment, and discuss what aspects of environmental
disturbance this research has failed to address. Chapter 1 concludes
with an overview of literature that has examined the issue of landscape
disturbance along the lines of the ability of a landscape to recover,

focusing on its resilience and stability.

Environmental Inﬂuences on Battle

Throughout history, warfare and the physical landscape have shared
a close and interconnected relationship (O'Sullivan and Miller 1983;
Winters et al.1998). The outcomes of many battles and campaigns has

been inﬂuenced, or even preempted, by the physical landscape, by either

favoring the winner or hindering the abilities of the loser. Numerous

books concerning the philosophy of warfare, such as Sun Tzu’s The Art
of War (2002) or Clauswitz’s On War (1968), attest to the importance of
the physical landscape in warfare. For example, in the American Civil
War, the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg was largely determined by
the ability of the Union army to take the high ground on seminary ridge
(Kiersch and Underwood 1998; Winters et al. 1998). Also, in this battle,
Confederate artillery forces took advantage of another component of the
physical environment — forest cover - by placing their artillery batteries
under the cover of forest surrounding the ﬁelds.

Forests and the surrounding landscape have been utilized for
centuries by armies to mask their movements and provide cover. Two
thousand years ago the Roman poet Cicero wrote, “Woods are an
ornament in peace and a fortiﬁcation in war.” Having played a role in
battle since ancient times, forested landscapes faced the hardships of
war right along with the troops maneuvering in their interior (Demorlaine
19 19). It is natural in times of battle for warriors to ﬁnd the best cover
possible and it is only natural for the enemy to attempt to ﬂush them
out. Even with all the technological improvements associated with
modern warfare, forests continue to be heavily relied on by armies,
especially in guerilla warfare. This ensures that forests and the physical
landscape will continue to suffer from the adverse effects of warfare.

Soils, another important component of the physical landscape,

support the agriculture needed to feed a nations’ armies and people.

Depending upon their landscape position and textural composition, they
can also affect tactical troop movements. For example, the soils of the
Western Front across France constantly were a factor that affected
defensive positions and offensive movements (Bailey 2004). In the
opening phase of the battle of Verdun, German troop movement was
impeded due to the heavy shelling that turned the clayey landscape into
a quagmire. The artillery bombardment was meant to soften the French
defense but did little to French defenses and only softened the soil
surface. Not only does this example illustrate how soils can affect the
outcome of military operations, it also shows the unintended
consequences of explosive munitions upon the physical environment.
Whereas factors such as terrain and soil often affect military
engagements at the tactical level of a given battle, they can also affect
armies at the strategic level of an entire military campaign (Winters et al.
1998)2. For example, the great German advance across Russia in WWII
was halted when Germany’s mighty tanks were bogged down by
waterlogged soils (Keegan 1993). Much like the heavy shelling on the
battleﬁelds of WWI impeding troop movements and destroying a once
stable soil surface, the movement of an entire German army across the
Russian countryside attests to the impact an army can render upon the
landscape. However, until recently, the eﬁ'ects of warfare have been

largely ignored by those involved with military geography.

 

2 In terms of geographic scale, strategic levels involve entire military campaigns of large expanses of
territory whereas tactical levels involve smaller land area, limited to the extent of the battleﬁeld.

10

Traditional Militm Geography

Since the middle of the 19th century, military geologists and
geographers have been employed to make intelligent and strategic use of
existing battleﬁeld terrain (Guth 1998). Even today, tactical and strategic
terrain analysis, fortiﬁcations and tunneling, resource acquisition,
defense installations, and ﬁeld construction and logistics are vital
components to the study of military geography (Kiersch and Underwood
1998). Military geologists and geographers provide detailed analyses that
contribute to making vital decisions on the battleﬁeld. In addition,
military geographers often provide historical analyses of the physical
environment and the inﬂuence it may have had on the outcomes of
military engagements. Geographers have also been employed by the
military to recognize spatial patterns in aerial reconnaissance data, such
as during the preparation for the Normandy invasion or by recognizing
nuclear missiles during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Livingston 1992). They
also prepare soldiers for war by teaching them to appreciate the
landscape and to read maps more effectively (Doyle and Bennett 2002).
Notable works concerning the subﬁeld of military geography have been
produced by O’Sullivan (1991; O'Sullivan and Miller 1983) and Peltier
and Pearcy (1966).

The concepts surrounding military geography also continue as a
strong component in the curriculum of military academies, teaching the

drawbacks and failures of previous campaigns to future military

11

ofﬁcers3. A well known example of military geographic research that
addresses the failures of a past military campaign was performed by
Doyle and Bennett (Doyle and Bennett 1999). The authors examined
environmental factors leading to the British failure at Gallipoli in WW1.
They determined that a major reason for the catastrophic failure of the
invasion centered on enemy forces controlling the high ground and
potable water supplies. Overlooked in this study were the effects of the
military operation upon the semi-arid environment, some of which can
still be seen today.

In their analyses, military geologists and geographers often overlook
what happens to the landscape after the battle. In this context, many
questions remain unanswered. What happens to the forests when enemy
forces bombard troops taking refuge in them? What happens to the
stability of a soil after an army of 1,000,000 has trodden over it? What
happens to the agricultural landscape after it has been bombed and
mined over the course of years of warfare? In the following section, I will
address these questions through a brief history that covers the effects of
war on the environment. I will also discuss the limited amount of
research that has brushed upon the impacts of war upon the
environment and the dearth of research concerning post-battle landscape

changes.

3 One of the ﬁrst two instructors employed by the USMA at West Point was, in a modern sense, a
geographer appointed to teach ﬁeld sketching.

12

Mare and its Effects on the Environment

Warfare is, by its very nature, an inherently destructive activity.
Not only are the weapons associated with warfare directly responsible for
environmental disturbance, but the activities associated with war can
severely tax the physical environment as well. Environmental
disturbance occurs when armies intentionally eliminate the cover or
resource base of an enemy, or more commonly, as an unintentional
consequence associated with the war effort. Based on these premises,
environmental disturbances associated with war can be placed into three
general categories:

(1) Environmental disturbance and destruction from weaponry.

(2) Direct consumption of resources such as timber, water, and food
to support armies.

(3) Indirect consumption of resources by military industrial
complexes that supply the war effort.

Throughout history the environment has suffered the
consequences, either intentionally or unintentionally, of military actions
(Westing 1990). The amount of destruction an army is capable of
rendering upon the enemy, as well as the environment, is somewhat
limited by the technology of weaponry available (Westing 1994). However,
environmental impacts associated with the weapons of war are not

limited to modern warfare, as the following sections will show.

13

Warfare in Antiquity, Up to and Though Pre-Modem Warfare

Fire and other incendiary devices were, arguably, the ﬁrst weapons
capable of rendering widespread environmental destruction (Lumsden
1975). Fire has long been employed by armies to drive out enemy forces
taking cover in forests, swamps, or other forms of natural cover (Westing
1980). Armies could take advantage of prevailing winds by setting ﬁre to
an area upwind from an enemy, thereby creating confusion and fear and
smoking them out of their place of refuge. One account from a Roman
general in the 13t century BC describes a massive forest ﬁre that burned
every bit of ground cover and scorched the soil down to the roots of the
trees (Westing 1990). This ﬁre was set by Barbarians in the forest
attempting to ﬂush the Romans out into the open. The Roman army also
employed widespread use of ﬁre in its campaigns within the forests of
what is now France and Germany. For the Romans, however, forest
destruction was a practice limited against the Barbaric tribes of Europe,
in that most uses of incendiary devices in antiquity were aimed at cities,
naval ﬂeets, and other fortiﬁed positions.

Ancient armies also practiced other forms of deliberate environmental
disturbance. The Roman army, known for their pragmatic combat
engineering skills, sometimes diverted the course of streams either to cut
an army off from its water supply or to redirect the stream through an
enemy encampment (Mayor 2003). In some cases, the Romans actually

dammed areas upstream from the enemy for a period of time, then

14

deliberately destroyed the dam to create a catastrophic ﬂood designed to
wipe out the camp of the opposing army4. Sometimes armies set out to
destroy the irrigation networks of enemy nations, thereby eliminating
their source of water. Such was the case when Ghangis Khan invaded
Mesopotamia and destroyed the irrigation networks of the Tigris River
(Mayor 2003). Disturbing the water supply of an enemy was, indeed, a
common tactic employed by all armies in the ancient world. Although
frowned upon in most cases, deliberate poisoning of water sources, such
as streams, springs and wells, was not unheard of among many ancient
armies.

Disturbance of crops and to the agricultural landscape was also
widely employed by armies in antiquity (Mayor 2003). Although not
strictly part of the natural environment, agriculture and crops serve as a
strong link between the human and physical landscape and continue to
be a target of deliberate destruction in military campaigns. Salting an
enemy’s ﬁelds was not uncommon. Perhaps the most well known
example of this practice was the salting of Carthaginian ﬁelds by the
Romans to prevent Carthage from ever becoming a military threat again
(Westing 1980).

Deliberate destruction of agriculture and other environmental
resources was practiced by the many colonial empires who were vying for

control of the fur trade in the New World. One of the better known ﬁrst

 

4 Destruction of dams was employed with great success in WWII and the Korean War. This practice was
also implemented in the Second Indochina war, but with limited success.

15

instances began during the American Revolutionary War when General
Washington ordered the ﬁelds of the Iroquois Indians, who were allied
with the British, razed so only bare earth was left exposed. This practice
worked so well that part of US. policy during the Indian Wars that
spanned the 1800’s was elimination of the Native American resources,
including destruction of winter sheltering grounds and elimination of
once vast herds of buffalo (Westing 1980).

One of the classic examples of material destruction during wartime
lies with General William Tecumseh Sherman and his march to the sea
in the latter part of the American Civil War (Gates 1965). This march was
hailed by northerners as a brilliant military tactic (for cutting oﬁ his
supply lines, thus ‘living off the land’) and scorned by the South as one of
the cruelest measures ever inﬂicted upon humankind. In this march,
Sherman cut off his supply lines and literally marched across the south
all the way to the sea. Troops were sent out to obtain food from the land
and destroy everything in their path leaving a massive swath of
destruction all the way to the sea.

While ancient and pre-modern armies were deliberately destroying the
resource base of opposing armies, they were also consuming resources
from those landscapes to support their own war efforts. Trees were cut to
supply materials for ships, bows, arrows, and spear shafts; iron and
other minerals were mined for weapons and armor; and land was cleared

to supply grain. In the age of exploration, the white pine forests along the

16

eastern seaboard of North America were heavily cut in order to supply
mast timbers for Her Majesty’s navy in Great Britain, while the oak
forests of the south were harvested to build the ships.

Before C-rations and preserved food were available, an army on the
march had to live off the land it was moving across. An army of several
thousand men on the march places severe burdens on the resource base
of any given area. That is to say, armies consume massive amounts of
food, and before automobiles the horses associated with an army on the
march needed pasture grass as well. Nomadic raiders such as Ghanghis
Khan and Attila the Hun often were forced to limit the size of their armies
based the amount of pasture to support their horses (O'Sullivan and
Miller 1983). Not only would consuming these resources ensure the
army’s ability to continue its military campaign, it would also deprive the
enemy of resources needed to ﬁght against the invader. If an army didn’t
consume the resource base of the area it occupied, then the existing
population would often do it for them, by destroying crops and resources
of an invading army, thereby depriving the army of its lifeblood through a
scorched earth policy. The Romans used this practice widely by burning
pasture and crops when the empire was faced with threat of invasion.
These practices were not limited to ancient armies and have continued

right on to present time; a classic example is Stalin’s scorched earth

l7

policy on the eastern front against the Germans in WWIIs. In this vein,
perhaps the only difference between ancient and modern warfare is that

the methods and techniques only get more sophisticated.

Modern Warfare

In today’s world, which is so inﬂuenced by modern media, it is easy to
imagine that warfare was always a highly destructive epic event capable
of widespread destruction. Images rendered by modern cinema that show
exploding cannon rounds in 19th century warfare dislodging fountains of
earth, and blasting soldiers and trees Skyward, inaccurately describe the
technological capabilities of warfare at the time. Prior to the 20th century
warfare, with some exceptions, was quite limited in its scope and
magnitude.

The industrial revolution and technological innovations of the 20th
century have changed the face of warfare. Every aspect of modern war is
of greater magnitude than that of warfare prior to the industrial age;
armies and battleﬁelds are larger, munitions are more powerful, and the
disturbances are more widespread. Besides continual advances in
explosive munitions technology, modern warfare contributes towards
environmental disturbance in many other forms, e. g., heavy vehicle

trafﬁc, chemical defoliants, and atmospheric and water pollution.

 

5 To deprive the German army of living off the Russian countryside, the Russian army
and population were ordered to burn their own villages and ﬁelds. Never before or since
in history has a country destroyed so much of its own land on an industrial scale,
merely to starve the enemy.

18

Because this dissertation focuses on the effects of explosive munitions
upon the landscape, the ensuing review primarily focuses on the history
of black powder and explosive munitions, although other forms of

environmental disturbance will be brieﬂy mentioned.

History of Munitions

Through the majority of its existence, gunpowder was little more than
a chemical propellant used to launch a solid object from the barrel of a
gun. From an environmental perspective, the introduction of black
powder (the name for the most primitive form of gunpowder) did little to
alter the destructive effects associated with military weaponry — that is,
until smokeless gunpowder was introduced in the late 19th century.
Although its origins are highly contested, it is generally accepted that
black powder was developed by the Chinese and ﬁrst used in ﬁrearms in
the early 1300’s6 (Partington 1960).

For a signiﬁcant part of its history in western armies, black powder
was mainly used to propel solid objects at high velocities from a barreled
device. Projectiles differed little from the solid stones thrown from
mechanical catapult devices that had been used previously (Hogg 1987).
The mass of the propelled object itself was used to inﬂict harm upon its

given target; its use as a ‘bomb’ or an explosive munition was fairly

 

6 The earliest written account of ﬁrearm use in Europe is in an Italian document from 1326, whereas the
oldest known Chinese ﬁrearm dates back to 1356. Until further evidence is uncovered, the origins of
ﬁrearms will remain controversial.

l9

limited. Explosive munitions were considered unreliable and dangerous
by individuals manning the artillery piece (Hogg 1985). Solid, round shot
was delivered from a smoothbore artillery device, employed along the
front lines and ﬁred at low trajectories so the round would take erratic
bounces into oncoming troops (Bailey 2004; Keegan 1976). Commonly,
round shot would be ﬁred until advancing troops were in close proximity;
cannons were then loaded with canister ﬁre, which is akin to a large
shotgun round. Environmental disturbances associated with solid shot
ammunition were limited to divots and burrows formed as the cannon
ﬁre hit or missed its mark.

Although these types of artillery devices continued to improve in
range and accuracy, it wasn’t until 1783 when Lt. Henry Schrapnel
invented the spherical bursting shell, ﬁlled with many smaller balls, that
exploding ammunition was used to any signiﬁcant degree7. The
Schrapnel round, as soon came to be known, however, also was
considered unreliable since the pre-cut fuse didn’t always burst in the
intended location (Hogg 1985).

As should now be obvious, the footprint of battle during the early use
of artillery left a relatively small mark upon the landscape. Artillery
technology right up to the American Civil War (1861-1865) relied upon

visual contact with the enemy (O'Sullivan and Miller 1983). The concept

 

7 Numbers tallied in 1854 indicate that over 70 percent of all artillery rounds ﬁred in typical battleﬁeld
engagements was solid shot projectiles. The remaining percentages were mostly canister ﬁre and other
similar ‘shot gun’ type munitions.

20

of indirect ﬁre, or ﬁring at an unseen target based upon predetermined
coordinates, was in its infancy and considered unreliable. Although
artillery pieces were capable of ranges exceeding 2000 meters, gunners
nonetheless relied on direct ﬁre by utilizing sights on the artillery pieces
(Gudmundsson 1993). Thus, battleﬁelds were small and the impact
exerted upon the physical landscape from such engagements was limited

due the conﬁned nature of the battleﬁeld.

Introduction of Smokeless Gunpowder and the Age of Modern Warfare

The American Civil War is often thought of as the ﬁrst ‘modern war’
because of its highly industrial nature and the implementation of ‘total
war’ tactics (Gates 1965). Whereas many precursors to modern war
ominously appeared in this war, including riﬂed infantry weapons,
trench warfare, and rapid troop movements, the war was still waged
using ﬁrst generation warfare tactics (Hammes 2004). The most
devastating environmental damage from this war derived from the
incredible consumption of resources on both sides to support the war
effort. Forests were leveled to produce railroad ties and fuel for railroad
transport — a relatively new innovation that allowed rapid deployment of
troops and greatly expanded the military campaign theater. Also, coal
was mined with abandon to produce the steel needed for the war

machine, and hastily dug iron ore mines produced detrimental

21

environmental effects that are visibly apparent, even to the present day
(Whisonant 1998).

In addition to the inadvertent destruction associated with resource
consumption in this war, the concept of ‘total war8’ also left a massive
swath of destruction across the south. However ominous and foreboding
were the signs of modern war, European observers returned to their
respective countries at the end of the American Civil War with little
thought of a revolution in warfare tactics, not fully realizing the full
power of industrial warfare and riﬂed infantry weapons (Bailey 2004).

Armies continued to use weapons with black powder as a propellant
for several decades following the American Civil War. Rapid ﬁre, breech
loading, and riﬂed barrel artillery were introduced to compete with the
longer range of infantry, but the nature of the black powder propellant
made them unreliable and dangerous due to build up of powder residue
in the barrel. Then, in the late 19th century, Alfred Nobel introduced the
world to smokeless gunpowder, blasting caps, and a new ‘safer’ form of
explosive called Trinitrotoluene, commonly known as TNT (Hogg 1985,
1987; Webster 1996). Shortly after this development, in 1899 the French
introduced the highly explosive (HE) form of munition. This artillery shell

was ﬁlled with highly explosive cordite and ﬁred from a riﬂed, breech

 

8 In total war, everything is subject to the consequences of war - including civilian
populations of belligerent countries. Prior to the concept of ‘total war’, warfare between
western nations was limited to engagements between the armies themselves. Damage to
enemy resources and civilian populations was generally frowned upon as irncivilized’.
However, the practices used in total war would soon become the norm in modern
warfare of the 20th century

22

loading, artillery device. Soon, the British followed with the more
explosive melanite and through the use of chemistry the world came to
know the possibilities of ever larger and more powerful HE rounds. These
explosives, combined with the age of industrialization, ushered in a new
form of warfare capable of leveling forests and cratering landscapes
beyond recognition.

Although several wars, such as the Franco Prussian, the Russo-
Japanese, and the Spanish-American, allowed armies to ‘test’ and
develop munitions that utilized the weapons of modern war, it was not
until WWI that these developments were fully implemented at an
industrial scale (Bailey 2004; Keegan 1993). In WWI the same concepts
associated with the Industrial Age were introduced into the philosophy of
war. Instead of armies that numbered in the thousands, a nation needed
armies in the millions in order to be a powerful, warring nation state. A
nation required a well-built infrastructure and massive industrial
complex just to support its massive armies. For example, by several
months into the ‘Great War’ (as WWI would soon be known), it was
realized that those nations capable of out producing the other nation
would have a distinct edge. Commanders also realized that the days of
dashing calvary charges and brightly colored uniforms, used so armies
could communicate in the thick smoke of battle, were over; new tactics

needed to be implemented.

23

The extremely long range of riﬂed infantry weapons and the rapidly
ﬁring machine gun forced commanders to take artillery off the front lines
after several devastating losses in the beginning stages of WWI9. Artillery
took up positions in the rear and perfected the art of indirect ﬁre, based
on the calls of forward observers. The role of artillery was to heavily shell
an area in order to destroy enemy defenses and shatter its morale. Terms
such as the “straight barrage”, “rolling barrage”, “piled up barrage”, and
“creeping barrage” were coined to refer to curtains of artillery ﬁre placed
directly in front of advancing troops to obliterate anything on the surface.

Before WWI, artillery units attached to armies were allotted, at most,
100 rounds per day for combat operations. By the end of the war,
artillery units were assigned several hundred rounds per hour“). At the
start of the war, artillery was seen as an arm to directly support the
infantry and wars were won by élan, or courage of the infantry; by the
war’s end, the mantra of all commanders was, ‘Artillery conquers and
infantry occupies” (Gudmundsson 1993). Artillery therefore emerged

from WWI as the deciding factor in battle (Figure 3).

 

9 Breech loading riﬂes and rapid ﬁring weapons such as the Gatling Gun were in existence since the
American Civil War, but army commandeers were slow to adopt to changes brought about by these
weapons, mainly because most countries did not upgrade their arsenals with these weapons until the advent
of WWI.

1° In the age of smooth bore artillery, artillery units often brought one round per gun into battle, siege guns
ﬁring more than 5 rounds per day was considered exceptional.

24

 

- - ~ , lining; --
Figure 3. A German 310 mm (lo-inch) howitzer at Verdun in June, 1916.
The Germans employed several hundred of these guns during the battle,

typically concentrating their ﬁre into very small sections of the front.
Source: German Bundesarchive

 

The environmental consequences of this type of warfare obliterated
forests and signiﬁcantly cratered the landscape, thus creating wide
swaths of destruction (Figure 4), limited only by the range of artillery
which could ﬁre, which was well beyond the visible range of the gunners
(Hogg 1987). Perhaps the best known example of this swath of
destruction is the Western Front, which was an average of 20 km wide
and stretched from the English Channel to the border of Switzerland

(Keegan 1998).

25

 

Figure 4. Forest and soilscape destruction along Western Front
during WWI (1914-1918) Source: Clermont-Ferrard, 1919.

European and American foresters took notice of the destruction
wrought by WI and, by the end of the ‘Great War’, foresters began to
assess the toll exacted on the environment (Graves 1918). This
assessment was accomplished primarily by determining forest damage in
terms of board feet of lumber lost by: (1) outright destruction, (2) damage
due to shrapnel impregnation, and (3) harvest to support the war effort.
Several studies (Demorlaine 1919; Graves 1918; Kernan 1945) estimated
that 2.5 billion board feet of lumber in French forests had been destroyed
during the course of the war. Ridsdale (1916), an American forester
attached to the US army, reported that not only did the artillery
bombardments reduce forests along the Western Front to splinters,

particularly those in France, they also created a cratered landscape that

26

reduced a once stable soil ecosystem into mounds of loose,
unconsolidated sediment that was hardly worth calling ‘soil’. Veterans of
WWI described the landscape after an artillery bombardment as
unworldly and like a scene of destruction that is incomprehensible.
Ralph Bagnold, an eminent soil physicist and veteran of both WW1 and
WWII, provided an account of the landscape after an artillery
bombardment in his autobiography Sand, Wind, and War. “...On the
main Passchendale ridge, whole villages were blown up, woods
disappeared, and the courses of streams were changed (Bagnold 1990,
p.32).” Beyond description of the horrendous effects to soils and the
landscape however, no scientiﬁc assessment was made beyond that of
estimated losses of trees.

After the brief interest displayed by foresters immediately following
WWI, the western front was largely forgotten; humankind was so
horriﬁed by the death and destruction associated with this war that it
was said to be The war to end all wars’. Unfortunately, WWI only set the
stage for WWII and barely 20 years after the last shot of WWI, Europe
plunged into another round of warfare. In this war however, the damage
to the soilscape (at least in the countryside) was much more limited. In
the years between, the war’s explosive munitions had become much more

powerful; the toll exacted on the landscape was, however, minimized due

27

to the ﬂuidity11 of the front lines. In addition, the majority of artillery and
aerial bombardments of WWII were concentrated in urban areas.

In WWII the soil surface may have been spared, but not the forests.
Over 100 million acres were directly destroyed through combative
activities in French forests alone during WWII (Kernan 1945). Artillery
shells were also much improved, with better timing devices designed to
explode directly above troops taking cover in foxholes and trenches.
Explosions in the forest canopy would not only rain down shrapnel, but
also thousands of wood splinters from the exploded trees. In the Paciﬁc
campaign, many islands endured days of naval and aerial bombardments
to ‘soften up’ the enemy before the beaches were stormed. Islands such
as Tarawa, Iwo J irna, and Attu were subjected to heavy naval and aerial
bombardment prior to amphibious infantry operations (Palka 2000).

European forests also underwent heavy exploitation during both WW1
and WWII (Kernan 1945; Ridsdale 1919). Wood products were heavily
utilized during these wars to construct rail lines, provide posts for barbed
wire entanglements, telegraph lines, strengthen trenches, and many
other war related activities. During both wars, occupied countries were
heavily exploited for their resources in order to supply the war effort. It is
estimated that nearly 17 billion board feet of lumber was harvested from

the forests of France during WWI (Ridsdale 1919). The cedar tree on the

 

n The weapons associated with WWI such as machine guns and the subsequent heavy reliance favored
stagnant defensive positions. It was not until the introduction of the tank and other armored vehicles near
the end of WWI that technology allowed the rapid ‘blitzkrieg’ tactics associated with WWII.

28

ﬂag of Lebanon is now merely a symbol of what was a once mighty forest,
after being obliterated by the Ottoman Empire during WWI to supply fuel
for their railways. During WWII, German forces occupying France
increased harvesting activity by a full 50% more than French harvesting
in times of peace (Kernan 1945). Britain also heavily exploited her
forests during both wars and many majestic timbers from protected
parks and recreational areas were sacriﬁced for the war effort
(Anonymous 1915).

Following WWII, many individuals in military circles believed that the
widespread destruction associated with the two previous wars of the 20th
century was a relict of the past. Warfare was seen as approaching a new
age; one of rapid movement (likely, over the eastern plains of Europe)
and, if it came to it, mutual nuclear devastation. These misconceptions
would have been quickly disabused if those same individuals witnessed
the magnitude of environmental destruction created by the Second
Indochina War, or the Vietnam War as it is referred to in the United
States. In WW1 and WWII, the damage inﬂicted upon the forests and
soilscape was incidental, in that the damage was a side-effect of the
intention to eliminate enemy forces. The Vietnam War differed from
previous wars of the 20th century in that destruction of key components
of the country’s physical environment was a deliberate military strategy
(Westing 1976). For example, a major portion of the US. war effort in

Vietnam was the elimination of forests (Westing 1996; Westing and

29

Pfeiffer 1972). Deforestation of the dense, tropical selva was done to
eliminate cover for enemy troops, provide bases of operation, and to
create landing strips for aircraft and to establish landing zones (LZ’s) for
troops deployed by helicopter (Lewallen 1971).

Three main factors helped contribute to the elimination of
Vietnamese forests: (1) explosive munitions, (2) herbicides (Agent
Orange), and (3) land clearing operations from specialized bulldozers
called ‘Rome Plows’ (Westing 1971). Although artillery bombardment was
heavily utilized in this war, aerial bombardment inﬂicted damage to the
forests and the enemy at a scale never before accomplished. Much of the
damage inﬂicted upon the forests through highly explosive, shrapnel-
producing munitions was the same type as seen in previous wars, except
that it was accomplished with larger and more effective 500 lb. bombs,
typically dropped from B-52 bomber formations (Westing and Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute. 1984). These bombs destroyed
vegetation outright, tore it open with shrapnel, and left it impregnated
with small pieces of shrapnel (Westing and Pfeiffer 1972). US Air Force
bombers in this war also widely practiced ‘carpet bombing’ in which B-52
bombers would ﬂy over and lay down a blanket of bombs into an area
thought occupied by enemy forces. The B-52 bombers left wide swaths of
disturbance, dotting the Vietnamese landscape with millions of craters
(Figure 5). Typically, these bombing runs consisted of 3 to 12 aircraft,

each carrying 108 500 lb. bombs. The swath of disturbance created by

30

such missions saturated an area with bombs approximately half a
kilometer wide and over 1000 meters long (Orians and Pfeiffer 1970).
Conservative estimates place the number of craters left behind from
these carpet bombing missions at around 26 million (Westing and Pfeiffer
1972). The effects from these bombing runs can still be seen on the

Vietnamese landscape today (Figure 6).

 

Figure 5. Cratered South Vietnam agricultural ﬁelds. The linear pattern
of the craters is due to the path of 8—52 bombers. Source: Westing, 1972

Carpet bombing by 8-52 bombers was not only limited in use to the
attempt of exposing the enemy taking cover in the forests, it was also
used to destroy large expanses of agricultural land (Westing and Pfeiffer
1972). One soldier remarked on the destruction, as seen from above,

“...bombers and artillery pound the [land] into the gray porridge that the

31

green delta land becomes when pulverized by high explosives (Westing

1976, p.18).”

 

Figure 6. A 500 lb. bomb crater (beneath yellow arrow) in Cat Tien
National Park, Vietnam. This area of southern Vietnam was heavily
bombed and sprayed with herbicide agents. Date of photo unknown.
Source: http: / /www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/ ~sdwyer/ sites

32

 

Figure 7. Aerial view of land clearing operation by Rome ploughs in
southern Vietnam. Source: Westing, 1972

Not surprisingly, many of the same activities employed by the US.
Army to destroy enemy forests were used to destroy enemy agriculture.
Herbicidal chemicals were dumped on large expanse of rice paddies while
“Rome Ploughs” were used to destroy the dikes associated with rice
production (Figure 7). As should now be obvious, in Vietnam, the war
against forests and agriculture was as much a component of the overall
war effort as was the attrition against the Viet Cong.

Sometimes, specialized aerial bombs were dropped for the singular
purpose of clearing a large tract of land in the thick forests of Vietnam.
One such bomb frequently employed by the US. military during this time
was the infamous ‘Daisy Cutter’. In fact, this bomb and others more

powerful than this are seeing use in our current wars being fought in

33

Iraq and Afghanistan. The bomb, about the size of a Volkswagen, is
dropped from a C-47 transport plane and drifts to the ground via
parachute. It explodes immediately upon contact with the ground. A
parachute is employed to reduce the amount of penetration into the
ground thereby directing the blast outward instead of into the ground
(Westing 1972). In this manner, a large diameter landing zone, about the
size of a football ﬁeld, is carved out of the forest without producing a
crater. The cleared area of former forest is then used for troop implant

and extraction purposes (Figure 8).

 

explosion. Source: Public domain,
http: / /members.aol.com/samc130/bc130.html

34

Incendiary bombs were also implemented in Vietnam at larger scale
than any previous war (Lumsden 1975). In 1965, ‘Operation Sherwood
Forest’ was implemented as a measure to destroy, through massive forest
ﬁre, almost 30,000 hectares of Vietnamese tropical forest (Westing 1976).
The results from this operation leveled hundreds of villages and left
hillsides scarred to the present day. The US. military soon realized the
tropical rainforests did not contain enough ground cover nor were they
dry enough to sustain large wildﬁres. Thus, a new strategy was needed to
clear large tracts of forests, forcing the military to turn its attention to
chemical agents. Herbicides known collectively as agents orange, white,
and blue were implemented at an industrial scale with the sole intention
of eliminating massive tracts of forest vegetation (Westing 1976; Westing
1977). Unfortunately, the chemicals in these herbicides not only harmed
the vegetation they were intended to eliminate (Figure 9), but they had
severely harmful effects on the people occupying the forests, e.g., US.
troops and rural villagers. Anyone familiar with the Vietnam War
probably knows of some horror story associated with the herbicide Agent

Orange.

35

 

Figure 9. Aerial view illustrating effects of herbicide 'agent orange’ (upper
left portion) on Vietnamese forests. Note additional destruction due to
500 pound bombs. Source: Westing, 1976

As in Europe at the end of WWI, the forests of Vietnam were
examined near the end of the war to assess the extent of disturbance
(Orians and Pfeiffer 1970; Pfeiffer 1969). After ﬂying over many areas that
had just been subjected to an aerial bombardment, foresters reported a
landscape that resembled the surface of the moon. It was estimated that
1.65 million hectares of forest had been completely destroyed. In
addition, foresters estimated that 4% of the country’s forests were so
impregnated with shrapnel they had no lumber value whatsoever (Flamm

and Cravens 1971).

36

In addition to forest damage, the impact of warfare on soils is also
widespread, though much less studied. Following aerial bombardments
in Vietnam, foresters described the Vietnam landscape as a moonscape
of craters and scorched dirt. They proposed that after the soil loses its
protective forest cover, it may undergo laterization — a process that turns
exposed soils into dry, rock-like laterite (Westing and Pfeiffer 1972). Soil
disturbance also has implications for the way vegetation and soil respond
to changes local water table conditions wrought by disturbance. In some
instances, impermeable bedrock and soil layers are breached by
cratering, depriving the vegetation of its former source of water. In other
instances, cratering exposes the water table and inhibits deep rooting of
vegetation occupying that crater, limiting subsequent reforestation.

One of the largest environmental catastrophes of the 20th century,
if not the largest, is associated with the Kuwaiti oil ﬁres of the 1991
Persian Gulf War (Figure 10) due to the intentional destruction of oil
facilities by Iraqi armies under orders from Sadam Hussein (Husain
1998). Iraqi forces sabotaged about 730 oil wells, 20 collecting centers,
and 3 or more oil tankers (Westing 1994). These ﬁres polluted the
atmosphere, contaminated the soil and underwater groundwater
resources, and decimated millions of acres of shoreline habitat (El-Baz
1992). More than 60 million barrels of oil were released on land and into
the ocean. Massive amounts of atmospheric pollution resulted from the

over 700 burning oil wells. Soil samples taken in a 1000 km radius from

37

the disaster site contained higher than normal amounts of organic
carbon in their upper horizons, probably from soot that had fallen from
the atmosphere. Downwind up to 6 km from the ﬂaming plumes, two
inches of oil covered the surface due to the fallout of heavy oil droplets
(Husain 1998). Several studies have also examined the effects of heavy
vehicle trafﬁc upon the desert soils of Kuwait and found that dust storms
increased in magnitude and occurrence following these disturbances (Al

and Beg 1998; E1 1992, 1994; El, Al, and A1 1994; El and A1 1996).

Persian Gulf

 

Figure 10. Smoke drifting to the southwestfrom the burning oil ﬁelds to
the north of Kuwait City in April, 1991. Source: Public domain,
(http: / / science.ksc.nasa. gov / mirrors / images / htrnl / STS37.htm)

38

As the reader may have noted by now, environmental disturbance
is a constantly recurring theme of war. It started in antiquity and has
continued right up to present time. The only aspect of wartime that has
changed is that weapons and armies become ever capable of creating
disturbances that continue to increase in magnitude, type, and perhaps,

frequency.

Landscape Resilience and Stability

The ability of a landscape to resist disturbance and to recover from
various forms of disturbance is referred to as landscape resilience (Miles
et al. 2001). Landscape resilience is based on various bio-ecologic
measurements, such as biodiversity, biomass, and net primary
production (Miles et al. 2001; Usher 2001; Wali 1999). However, most of
these parameters were developed mainly to measure landscape recovery
from an ecological perspective. Surface instability and degradation, as
well as soil development, are often ignored, although they also reﬂect
overall landscape resilience. Geomorphologists have therefore expanded
upon the concept of landscape resilience by including geomorphic factors
into a factor called landscape sensitivity; i.e. the stability vs instability of
a landscape (Brunsden and Thornes 1979). For example, a stable
landscape contains surfaces that do not easily erode and recover quickly

from disturbances that cause erosion/burial (Usher 2001). Under stable

39

conditions, soil formation can proceed relatively uninterruptedly. Thus,
soils are often used as indicators of stable conditions (Brunsden 2001).
Most soil-related sensitivity applications, however, have been in long-
term landscape studies, such as research involving Quaternary
environments (Balek 2002; Dan and Yaalon 1968; Parsons, Balster, and
Ness 1970), because they generally take a long time to develop and
therefore reﬂect long periods of landscape stability (Schaetzl, Barrett, and
Winkler 1994).

Because soils indicate long-term landscape stability, they have
often been ignored in short-term landscape recovery studies (Thomas
2001). Indeed, only a limited amount of research has examined soil
properties as an indicator of short-term recovery in under both natural
and human forms of disturbance (Indorante and Jansen 1984). And
studies that have examined soil development after disturbance usually
focus on disturbance by commercial activities, e.g., mining or logging
operations (Lebedeva and Tonkonogov 1995; McPherson and Tirnmer
2002; Roberts et al. 1988; Wali 1999). With regard to disturbance from
military activities, a few limited studies have examined the ability of a
soil surface to recover after being subjected to tank and other forms of
heavy military vehicle trafﬁc (El-Baz et al. 1993; Gatto, Halvorson, and
McCool 2001; Lebedeva and Tonkonogov 1995 ; McPherson and Tirnmer
2002; Nichols and Bierman 2001; Prose and Metzger 1985; Roberts et al.

1988; Wali 1999). Taken together, this body of research has clearly

40

shown that soils, in conjunction with bio—ecologic factors, can be used to
assess anthropogenic environmental impacts, along with the spatial
variations of recovery, on disturbed landscapes (Brunsden 2001; Wali
1999}

The above review also shows the dearth of previous research
regarding military impacts on the environment. Research involving
landscape disturbance due explosive munitions is limited to immediate
assessments of vegetation, with only brief mention of the soil. More work
is needed beyond disturbance to soil surfaces from military vehicles. My
goal is to expand upon this previous limited body of research by utilizing
soil parameters to examine landscapes affected by the explosive

munitions associated with war.

Theoretical Concepts Surrounding Human Impact on Soil Formatiﬂ
Processes

In his 1941 work, The Factors of Soil Formation, Hans Jenny
mentioned humans as implicitly contained within the biotic (oh) soil
forming factor (Jenny 1941). Jenny went on to discuss how humans have
greatly changed many of the environments in which they live. He
mentions how we have changed the surface of the earth in many ways to
suit our needs. He discussed in detail the degree of soil transformation

that has gone on in the Great Plains due to human inﬂuence. Despite the

41

detail of discussion, Jenny did not formally detail the human component
into his ﬁve soil forming factors.

The work of Jenny was cited several times after this during the
1950’s and a piece by Sirnonson (1959) compared soils under natural vs.
culturally inﬂuenced conditions. Although Sirnonson compared soils
under cultural vs. natural environments, he never directly addressed
how humans play into soil formation theory. During this decade, Jacks
(1962) also wrote of humans as a fertility agent upon the land. Jacks
praised the work of humans and dismissed the reports of humans as a
pure exploiter of soils. Jacks pointed out how, through human additions,
many soils in forested areas, especially in Europe, are now more fertile
than ever before. Today, the reader may conclude that both these
authors implicitly included humans into the factors of soil formation, but
neither author ever addressed the theory.

In 1965, Bidwell and Hole published a paper that directly
addressed the human component in soil forming theory (Bidwell and
Hole 1965). They proposed that humans, unlike other living organisms,
contain a cultural component along with a genetic component. Therefore,
different cultures will exert different inﬂuences on soil formation. They
also addressed the cultural inﬂuence of humans on each of the ﬁve soil
forming factors. Examples of human inﬂuence, both positive and

negative, were cited for each of the ﬁve soil forming factors.

42

Shortly after the Bidwell and Hole 1965 article, Yalon and Yaron
(1966) published a work that once again attempted to place humans
within existing soil formation theories. These authors recognized the
human inﬂuence on each of the ﬁve soil forming factors, but disagreed
with the way in which humans are treated as a separate factor or
included within the biotic soil forming factor. Yalon and Yaron proposed
that when human inﬂuence is involved, then the theory of
metapedogenesis should be applied. This means that natural pedogenic
conditions have stopped and new inﬂuences are now applied to the soil.
Essentially, the soil forming clock is stopped with human inﬂuence and a
new phase of development then occurs.

After this brief stint of incorporating humans into the theory of soil
formation, several decades went by before the issue of human inﬂuence
on soil formation was once again focused upon. Hans Jenny wrote
another book in 1980 that was much a follow up on is 1941 classic
(Jenny 1980). In his new work, Jenny went into much more detail
concerning humans as a factor in soil formation. Then, in 1991,
Amundson and Jenny produced a work that took into account the
Bidwell and Hole article and the Yalon and Yaron article (Amundson and
Jenny 1991). In this work, the authors acknowledged that humans have
indeed inﬂuenced each of the soil forming factors. The authors
maintained that humans should be considered as having a cultural

element and should be considered a separate soil factor. They even

43

suggested an anthroposequence concept and that these can be negative
after human occupation of an area ceases. They cited castles in Europe
as examples. Perhaps the most important point of this piece was that
humans alter pedogenic processes but are not in themselves pedogenic
agents. Anthropogenic inﬂuence only goes as far to change the path of
natural processes. In other words, the ﬁve natural soil forming processes
still create the soil but the human hand alters the path or speed of the
process.

Today, an ever growing body of research is developing theories
concerning the human element as a factor in soil formation. Much of this
research is occurring in Europe (Grieve 2001), particularly Germany
(Beyer 2001; Mueser 2001). Current literature focuses more on the
anthrosol concept (Lebedeva 1995). This is a newly proposed soil order
that owes its origins to humans, predominately through creation by
human parent material. Current Anthrosol research focuses on urban
areas where the parent material of many soils derives from human by-
products such as mine tailings, garbage dumps, and industrial fallout.
Research concerning the taxonomy of Anthrosols has also been
addressed along with the methodology of mapping such soils (Schleuss
1998; McIntyre 1999).

Although a good deal of progress has been made to incorporate the
human inﬂuence into soil formation, there is still a great deal that needs

to be adequately addressed. This brief review of the literature indicates

44

that research concerning ‘natural’ soil forming factors far outweighs
research involving human inﬂuence on soil formation. The soil forming
theories have been placed into the literature, now it is up to pedologists
to test the theories and perform more research involving soils inﬂuenced
by humans.

The best way to better conceptualize the human factor is through
more research in the ﬁelds of pedology and soil geomorphology. Soil
scientists will readily admit that ﬁnding extensive areas of ‘natural’ soils
is becoming more and more difﬁcult. Finding an unaltered prairie soil is
next to impossible yet research continues to study soils in the
‘ideal’ state. The ﬁrst step in conceptualizing the human factor within soil
formation is to recognize that a great deal of soil has been altered by
humans and the time has come to document these soils. Increasing the
amount of research in this ﬁeld will not be an easy task. More work is
required involving how anthropogenically inﬂuenced soils tie into the
physical landscape. My work on the Verdun battleﬁeld will contribute

towards this body of research.

Conclusions

In conclusion, a great deal of geographic literature has focused on
the ways in which the physical environment has altered the outcome of
military campaigns (Doyle and Bennett 2002; Demorlaine 1919; Guth

1998; Kiersch and Underwood 1998; Winters et al. 1998). However, very

45

little research has focused on the impacts of war upon the environment.
This research ﬁts within a new avenue of research within the realm of
geomorphology by studying the impact of warfare upon the environment.
In addition, the contextual ﬁndings of this research may assist in
enhanced management and maintenance of other anthropogenically
disturbed landscapes, such as those areas subjected to mining, logging,
and detrimental agricultural practices. Soil geomorphic research has
made great advances in landscape recovery following disturbance events,
although more research is needed to address the impacts of humans on
the physical environment (Beyer et al. 2001; Grieve 2001). To address

these issues, I chose to study the WI battleﬁeld of Verdun, France.

46

Chapter 3
Study Area
The battle of Verdun remains one of the most intense battles

fought between two belligerent nations in all of history. Verdun remains
a textbook example of a battle of attrition. Both nations, Germany and
France, expended millions of rounds of ammunition and sent hundreds
of thousands of men to their death. Although the scars of battle still
remain scattered on the European Western Front, the Verdun battleﬁeld
remains one of the better documented, most scarred and unaltered

battleﬁelds, since WWI ended on November 11, 1918.

Hiptorical Context

In regard to traditional military geography, the Verdun area
presented Germany with some of the worst physical conditions to launch
an offensive operation: heavy and prolonged precipitation, long, cold
winters, steep, east facing escarpments, and clayey soils that bogged
down equipment and soldiers (Winters et al. 1998). Knowing of the area’s
physical geography, one may wonder why the Germans ever launched an
offensive in such an unsuitable area, over all the other possible locations
along the Western Front. Therefore, it is important to explain the factors
leading up to the. battle as well as a brief history of the battle.

By 1915 WI, which began with dashing calvary charges and

brightly colored uniforms, had succumbed to the reality of technology

47

(Home 1993). The central and allied powers were locked in a stalemate
along the Western Front (Figure 11), from the English Channel to the
border of Switzerland (Brown 1999). Offensive movements were extremely
limited due to extensive trench networks and the deadly efﬁciency of
machine guns. It seemed that no matter what offensive action was taken,
breakthrough was impossible; stalemate had become the reality of this
war.

Late in 1915, however, the German high command came up with a
contingency plan that was designed to break the stalemate and
ultimately knock France out of the war (Holstein 2002). The plan was
unconventional in that it contained no strategic objectives and was
designed merely to break the will of France to ﬁght, via a battle of
attrition by ‘bleeding her to death’. Germany reasoned that by
eliminating France from the war, Russia could be defeated in the East,
and then Germany could turn around and conquer her true enemy in the
west - England. In essence, Germany wanted to ‘eliminate the sword
from England’s right hand’ by demoralizing France to the point of
surrender and ultimate defeat. Germany chose the Verdun region to
launch the offensive because they knew it to be a highly symbolic French
region and they (France) would throw everything they had into defending

it.

48

 

 

 

France

OUUOA

char

1 I
ouuMA

law

3301

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. The political geography of modern Europe in relation to
Europe's Western Front in 1916. Source: ESRI data products, 2005.

49

 

 

The strategy behind the decision of the German high command
was based on French pride and patriotism. During the Franco-Prussian
war of 1871, France suffered a humiliating defeat at Sedan and was
forced to cede control of its Alsace-Lorraine province to Germany (Ousby
2002). Verdun suddenly became part of the French frontier, bordering
newly acquired German territory. France, to protect her borders from
further losses, set up a massive ring of forts to protect the region. The
area had thus become a symbol of pride for France and a bulwark
against German invasion. Thus, WWI began with Verdun located in
proximity to border of Germany.

An additional incentive for the Germans to choose Verdun as a
launching point for a major offensive operation centered on supply line
logistics. France had few roads to supply the front and these roads could
easily be destroyed (and were) by well-placed artillery, whereas the
German side of the front was blessed with a plethora of supply lines to
feed the offensive (Clermont-Ferrard 1919; Winters et al. 1998).

The battle of Verdun began on February 218‘, 1916 with the
German army launching a massive artillery barrage in the Bois de
Caures, the center of the Verdun salient (Figure 12). The opening artillery
barrage lasted for two days and was the largest artillery bombardment of
the war to that point (Martin 2001). At ﬁrst, the Germans made large
offensive gains, but eventually this battle, like the war itself, became

locked in stalemate with both sides pouring hundreds of thousands of

50

men into a futile struggle (Brown 1999). Both sides relied heavily upon
artillery to break the morale of the enemy and ‘soften up’ the other side
for an offensive effort to retake a fort, pillbox, trench, ridge or high point
on the battleﬁeld. Objectives changed hands daily, with fresh craters
forming within old craters and trenches re-dug into trenches excavated
only hours before (Cowley 2004). Ironically, the same artillery barrages
designed to soften up the defense only created a quagmire for the
offensive, leading many troops to drown in the very craters their own side
created to help them. For nearly a year, this exchange of artillery
continued to pulverize the landscape into what many soldiers described
as ‘something from another world’ (Bagnold 1990) or what pilots ﬂying
above would relate to as ‘the surface of the moon’ (Home 1993).

In July of 1916, the Germans offensive drive began to slow down
due to the need to redirect men supplies towards staving off the allied
offensive at the Somme, another atrocious battle of WWI. Soon thereafter,
the French began to push the Germans back towards their original lines
with the usage of their own heavy artillery. The battle officially ended
when the French regained territory lost to them during offensive
operations in October, 1916. Thereafter the Germans withdrew to
prepared defensive positions and the area remained fairly quiet until the
Americans began offensive operations to push the Germans out late in

1918.

51

 

 

    

 

Figure 12. Verdun and surrounding villages, circa 1916. The lines on the
map represent the movement of the front lines through the course of the
battle. The heaviest ﬁghting occurred in the center of the battleﬁeld near
the forts of Vaux, Douaumont, and Souville. Correspondingly, this is
where the heaviest landscape disturbance occurred. Source: Clermont-
Ferrard, 1919

 

After WWI, the Verdun battleﬁeld was abandoned; many bodies
were left to decay and the remnants of war were strewn everywhere.
Large expanses of agricultural land were never replowed due to the tens
of millions of craters and unexploded shells lying on or just beneath the
surface. Many of the villages that once dotted the region were never
rebuilt. Eventually the barren, cratered surface became covered with a

thick mass of shrubby vegetation. French officials believed the area was

52

forever devastated and abandoned any plans for restoration (Holstein
pers. comm. 2003).

When veterans’ groups in the mid-1920’s complained to the French
government that they could no longer visit their former positions due to
the dense vegetative cover, the government bought the land and
designated it as a Zone Rouge (Red Zone), which meant that it was too
dangerous for normal public access. This policy allowed the government
to direct land reclamation efforts for eventual access as a memorial
(Holstein pers. comm. 2003). The French government then began the
arduous process of clearing the thick vegetative cover, corpses, and
unexploded shells from the surface of the battleﬁeld. Next, an effort was
undertaken to replant the landscape with trees and manage the forest
appropriately as an eventual timber resource. Heavily damaged portions
of the battleﬁeld were ﬁrst replanted with fast growing Scotch pine (Pinus
sylvestris) seedlings because they were able to tolerate nutrient-poor
conditions. The pine forests were eventually thinned and many areas
were then replanted to European beech (Fagus sylvatica). Today, 88
years after the ﬁghting ended, some areas remain covered with conifers,
although the majority of the battleﬁeld is covered with a beech-

dominated, deciduous forest (French Forest Service unpublished data).

53

Physical Setting

The Verdun area receives some of the highest amounts of
precipitation (700-800 mm mean annual ppt) in Europe. Precipitation
events occur 150-200 days out of the year: 20-50 of these events involve
snowfall (Montagne 2003). The average temperatures in January range
from 0-2° C in the Meuse River Valley and from 0-5° C in the
surrounding uplands. Average July temperatures fall within the O-5° C
range. Figure 13, a Climograph from Luxembourg City approximately 100

km to the north, illustrates the general nature of the regions climate.

 

Climograph for Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

Precipitation in mm

Temperature in Degrees c

 

 

 

 

Figure 13: Climograph for Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. The city is
located approximately 100 km to the north of Verdun. The line on the
chart is for temperature while the bars represent precipitation. Source:
http:www. worldclimate. com

54

Pre-war deciduous forests in the Verdun area were dominated by
European Beech, European Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), European Oak
(Quercus sessiﬂora) and English Oak (Q. pedunculata). Today the most
common species is European Beech with large expanses of Austrian pine
(Pinus nigra) and lesser amounts of Scotch pine (Figure 14). Austrian pines
have been planted primarily in areas that are heavily visited, since it is
believed the trees cast a memorial like, soft lighting (Figure 15). Some
attempts have been made to diversify the forests, but the magnitude of
disturbance in some areas and the sheer size of the battleﬁeld have
hindered efforts to restore the forest into its original, diverse state.
Today, near-monoculture forests dominate the once diverse forest

ecosystem in many areas.

55

 

Figure 14. Beech tree plantings on Verdun battleﬁeld in
May, 2003. Note conifers between beech rows in process
of being removed. Source: Author’s Collection, May 2003.

 

Figure 15. Austrian black pine planting near Colonel
Driant memorial on the Verdun battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s Collection, May 2003.

56

Bedrock at Verdun consists of gently dipping Jurassic age
limestones and shales that comprise the eastern portion of the Paris
Structural Basin (Johnson 1921). The dominant geologic / geomorphic
feature of the region is the series of northeast-southwest trending
cuestas (Figure 16). The cuestas and valleys have been heavily dissected
by rivers and streams, thereby providing the region with a great deal
(z200 m) of local relief (Figure 17). Fort Douaumont at 396 meters
elevation is situated on the highest point of the battleﬁeld while the
eastern portions of the battleﬁeld, on the fringes of the Woevre valley are
at elevations of around 200 meters. Erosion-resistant, almost pure,
limestone of the late to mid Jurassic Oxfordien (154-146 Ma) formation
forms the ridges while a weaker, marly limestone incorporated with thin
sequences of shale occupies the valleys (Figure 18).

In the Woerve Valley, east and below the limestone escarpments,
lie the erodable shales of the early Jurassic Callovien (160-154 Ma)
formation (Johnson 1921). The heavy, clay-dominated soils that formed
over the shale and colluvial parent material have slow permeability rates.
In addition, these soils are often situated above a water table that is in
close proximity to the surface through the majority of the year. Perched
water tables are also not uncommon in upland areas and are located
where a marl type limestone overlies a silty limestone. Perched water
tables occur seasonally, usually from fall until late spring (Ollivier Marcet

pers. comm. 2003) when snowmelt and spring rains impact frozen soil.

57

The wet conditions created by the perched water tables impact vegetation

and pedogenic processes, especially in cratered areas.

         

I
A
\

_ W3“? 2;.) _ _ 25'») ,
Figure 16. Geologic map of Verdun battleﬁeld and vicinity. The yellow
tones represent various grades of limestone making up the cuesta
highlands while the blue and dark organge tones comprise the shales of
the Woevre valley to the east and northeast. Note the cuesta escarpment
along the eastern edge of the yellow highland area. Source: Carte
Geologique de la France, Metz and Verdun (l:80,000), 3rd Edition.

58

           

, ._»-l.-’_ _=- 1.1231432... 7,1 7-

Figure 17. Physiography of the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. The
southeast/northwest trending ridges are cuestas, comprised of
erosionally resistant limestones of the Paris Basin. Source SRTM digital
Elevation data, world wide web.

 

Figure 18. Geologic cross-section of the Paris Basin. Note the steep
escarpments facing east - the direction of German advance. This
geomorphic character helped slow the German offensive and
subsequently contributed towards stalemate conditions along the
Western Front. Source: modiﬁed from Johnson, 1921

59

Soil formation in the region is strongly inﬂuenced by the generally
shallow bedrock, landscape position, and relationship to the water table
(Table 1). Most of the soils in the valleys are poorly-drained, according to
the NRCS natural drainage classiﬁcation (Schoeneberger et al. 2002).
The area consists of many wetlands and shallow stagnant standing
bodies of water during the winter months, when the area receives most of
its precipitation. Some of the upland areas in the region also maintain
shallow and /or perched water tables, depending on local bedrock.

Upland soils have developed in weathered limestone residuum.
Generally these upland soils are thin due to the “pure” nature of the
limestone bedrock, which leaves behind little residual material as the
bedrock weathers (Duchaufour 1982). Soils on ridge tops are typically
more weathered, and therefore thicker, than soils on the slopes (Figure
19). These ridge top soils, in addition to soils on the more gentle slopes of
the uplands are mostly Calcic Brown soils (French Soil Classiﬁcation)
and the most common soils within the study area uplands. Steeper
slopes that experience more runoff and soil erosion maintain Rendzina
soils on the shoulder slopes. An exception to this is when especially pure
limestone comprises the ridges, which leads to Rendzina type soils on the
ridgetops. Rendzina type soils on ridge crests are often slightly thicker
and show more development than Rendzina soils on the slopes.

Therefore, the ridgecrests often contain Bruniﬁed Rendzinas while the

60

ridge shoulder slopes contain especially thin Rendzina type soils (Table

1).

calcic brown soil

///////////y,/»..

\'\\ rsndzina
0°.“
9° , .
' <3
0 a 9
/ 9 Q
colluvium

25' '.
calcareous ‘1
brown soil

 

Figure 19. Typical soil catena on Jurassic limestone of
northeastern France. Modiﬁed from Duchaufour, 1982.

Table 1: Typical soils found on the battleﬁeld of Verdun,
France. Source: United States Soil Conservation Service, 1975;
Montagne, 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

French Soil USDA-NRCS Parent Landscape
Classiﬁcation Eluivalcnt Material Position
Rendzina Rendolls “Pure”limestone Ridge
shoulders
crests
Bruniﬁed Rendolls “Pure” Ridge crests
Rendzina limestone
Calcareous Hapludalfs Limestone Ridge back
Brown Soil and foot
slopes
Calcic Brown Hapludalfs Limestone and Ridge
Soil Colluvium Crests
Gley Hydraquents Shale and Valley
coluvium bottoms
Pseudogleys Aquepts Shale and Valley
colluvium bottoms

 

 

 

 

 

61

Chapter 4
Research Design and Methods

Obiective #1: Assessgg Landscape Disturbance

Landscape disturbance varies markedly across the Verdun
battleﬁeld. In some areas, isolated craters are spaced tens of meters
apart, while in other areas the craters are nearly overlapping, divided
only by hummocky mounds of blasted-out rubble. Many areas have
several smaller craters within preexisting, larger craters. But before any
description or assessment of soil development in disturbed areas can be
performed, it is important to gain an understanding of the varying
magnitudes of disturbance rendered by the battle. Therefore, the purpose
of my ﬁrst objective was to characterize and describe the range of
disturbance on the battleﬁeld.

I decided to use soils and geomorphic data as a means of
addressing the degree and character of landscape disturbance primarily
because the soil surface has largely remained unchanged since the
period of initial disturbance (~ 1916). I decided not to characterize
disturbance through the means of bio-ecologic factors, as has been done
by others (Flamm and Cravens 1971; Graves 1918; Orians and Pfeiffer
1970; Ridsdale 1919; Westing 1972), for two reasons. First, most of the
existing vegetation, with the exception of the lightly disturbed areas, was
completely destroyed due to the actions of artillery. Thus, there exists no

“control’ vegetation sites in many areas, as there is with soils. Secondly, I

62

am examining the battleﬁeld 88 years after disturbance took place.
Thus, comparing disturbed vegetation to ‘control’ vegetation is difﬁcult;
trees that predate the war provide the exception rather than the rule in
most areas. Vegetation that has replaced pre-war vegetation is mostly
either successional grth or replanted forest. Thus, there exists no
reliable means by which to gather data to compare vegetation
disturbance between the study sites - soils and geomorphic data provide
the best means of recording the disturbance magnitude regardless of the
time that has elapsed. Therefore, no survey of vegetation was performed
to assess disturbance magnitude.

In May of 2003, I ﬁrst visited the Verdun battleﬁeld to formulate
research questions and gain a better understanding of the type and
degree of surface disturbances across the battleﬁeld. I realized during
this visit that disturbance magnitudes did vary by location. I placed the
varying magnitudes of disturbance into several groupings based on
amount of pre-war forest still standing, changes to micro and
mesotopography, and overall density of craters. Keeping these variables
in mind, I determined that the degree of disturbance can be assigned to
one of four disturbance categories: light, moderate, heavy, and extreme
(Table 2.) This categorization was designed to allow the ranges of
disturbance to be easily grouped on an ordinal, qualitative scale without
being too general, and yet not with so many categories that it created

confusion (such as may occur when an inordinately large amount of

63

categories are assigned or designated). The classiﬁcation scheme is

designed so that an individual familiar with the ranges of disturbance on

the battleﬁeld can quickly categorize an area’s disturbance based on a

quick examination of the forest cover and surface topography. The

classiﬁcation was also designed to be applicable to other areas disturbed

by explosive munitions without creating the need to expand or generalize

the four categories. An individual can enter a disturbed area, make a

quick assessment of the surface and forest cover, and then decide on the

disturbance based on the extremes of Table 2.

Table 2: Categories of disturbance magnitude among the ﬁve study sites
at the Verdun battleﬁeld

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disturbance Crater density Magnitude and Magnitude and Microtopography
magnitude type of forest type of soil characteristics
Catepq disturbance disturbance
Light Sparsely spaced Many pre-war Many areas of Generally level
individual craters trees still eidst; undisturbed surface, broken
some damaged by soils remain; by the occasional
shrapnel disturbance crater
limited to area
within and
adjacent to
craters
Moderate Abundant craters Most pre-war Majority of soils Surface mostly
spaced generally forest destroyed; disturbed; some dented by craters;
evenly; some some pockets of areas of surface is level
closely spaced undisturbed undisturbed between craters
clusters forest exist soils remain
Heavy Craters dominate Original, pre—war Surface nearly Level areas
surface, many forest completely completely between craters
overlap destroyed; dead disturbed are rare to
tree trunks can be nonexistent
found
Extreme Craters inundatc Pre-war forest Soil disturbance No remnants of
surface; smaller completely complete to original surface
craters common destroyed depths remain
within larger craters exceeding eight
meters

 

64

 

For example, if the area contains some areas of undisturbed soils,
but very little original forest, the individual would determine that it is
neither lightly nor extremely disturbed. Further scrutiny will allow the
individual to determine if the disturbance is heavy or moderate, without
the burden of over-categorization. Prior works have categorized
disturbance from war, but were conducted shortly after the disturbance
(war) occurred and were based primarily on lumber value, and did not
include geomorphic criteria (Pfeiffer 1969; Ridsdale 1916; Westing 1976).
My categorization is unique in that it includes geomorphic criteria in its
formulation.

Using/ applying these disturbance categories, I identiﬁed ﬁve
representative sites for detailed study upon a return visit to the
battleﬁeld in September, 2004 (Figure 20). These sites were selected to
reﬂect the spectrum of disturbance across the Verdun battleﬁeld. For
example, the Etraye site was selected because the disturbance was
notably light while the site at Thiaumont Platform was chosen because
the disturbance was clearly extreme. The other sites were selected to
represent disturbance degrees between these two extremes. Other site
selection criteria included the need for similar bedrock, soils, and
topography, allowing only the degree of disturbance to vary among them.
Each study site is approximately 0.5 hectares in area, contains primarily

calcareous soils over limestone bedrock, and is situated on the summit

65

and shoulder slopes of gently to moderately sloping, upland surfaces on

erosionally resistant ridges (Figure 21).

 

 
     
 
   
    

 

{3 ' .—
I . '0 N“ I] ',
Etraye , \ . Fri: 1
1 N ‘ i

AV

    

.
ll.....'-I.'-.I.lllllll.

 

Map Symbols

I Study sne
. Villages

* Destroyed Villages
MFronlline Feb 20. 1916

11 Maximum German Advance

—- Major Roads
. Forts
— Red Zone
— Forested Areas 0 0.5 1 2 Km :

 

 

 

 

\

Figure 20. Surface disturbance plots that were studied on Verdun,
France battleﬁeld.

 

66

 

  

Shaded Relief:
Verdun Battleﬁeld
France

“North
I
Red Zone South

‘4 .

L":

' Hoseland

 

 

 

ComobyJoeephPHwy
MSW mercuMMHonn-e
GndResoMiorrSmelers

 

 

 

Figure 21. Local relief of surface disturbance study sites on Verdun
battleﬁeld. The outline of each relief map is shown in matching color and
order on the inset map.

67

At each site, two 50x50 meter, representative plots were surveyed
and marked using a GPS unit, a sonic range ﬁnder, and an azimuth
bearing compass. The GPS unit was used to record, in UTM coordinates,
a known starting point from which the remainder of the plot would be
surveyed. From this recorded starting point the remaining comers of the
plot were surveyed by placing stakes 50 meters from the starting point at
right angles, thus making a square, quarter-hectare plot. The location,
length, width, and depth of each crater within the plots were then
recorded by relying on the same azimuth-distance method used to survey
the plot boundaries.

The procedure required the participation of two individuals, with
one person remaining stationary on one of the comer plots to record data
and the other methodically moving throughout the plot, identifying and
measuring craters and calling out the data to the other individual, who
recorded the data in a ﬁeld notebook. Using a known starting point, in
this case the plot corners, the stationary individual would stand at this
point and obtain the distance and azimuth direction to a given crater
within the plot. The individual in charge of ﬁnding the craters was
equipped with a targeting device for the sonic range ﬁnder and a
measuring rod to obtain crater dimensions. After a crater was
identiﬁed”, the distance, azimuth, length, width, and depth of the crater

were recorded and the crater was then marked with a pin ﬂag to prevent

 

‘2 Any surface indentation that had a round to oblique shape was considered a crater
minimum size. No minimum or maximum size limit deﬁned a crater.

68

re-counting. This procedure was repeated until all craters within the plot
were counted and recorded. These raw data were later compiled and
entered into ARCGISTM software using the survey analyst extension. This
extension allowed for import of the data in database format into a GIS,
facilitating the plotting of the location of each crater within the quarter
hectare plot based on its azimuth and distance from the UTM
coordinates of the plot corners. The extension also allowed me to import
the data about the dimensions of each crater, so that each crater could
be described quantatively, based on its area. I was able to make
interpretations concerning disturbance magnitude of the soil landscape,
variability of crater size, density, and the percentage of the ground

surface covered by craters, using these spatial data.

Survey of Changes in Microtopography Due to Cratering

The battle at Verdun dramatically changed the microtopography of
the landscape. Whereas the survey of craters within the 50x50 meter
plots (described above) is useful in quantifying the size and density of the
craters on each study site, it does not provide continuous spatial
information about meso and microtopography. Thus, a topographic
survey at each of the ﬁve study sites was performed to provide a second
means of assessing landscape disturbance magnitude. The topography of
each plot at the ﬁve study sites was surveyed by running three, SO-meter

transects, at 15-meter spacings, across the plot, in a direction

69

perpendicular to the contour. Elevations at 0.5 meter increments along
the transect were recorded to the nearest centimeter using a sonic
distance range ﬁnder, a survey stadia rod and a hand leveling device
(Figure 22). The data were then plotted as a line graph without vertical
exaggeration to create a topographic proﬁle. The proﬁle generated from
this survey was also used to quantify the amount of material displaced
along the transect lines, which is another means of assessing site
disturbance. This information, when presented in graphical format,
readily allows for visual comparison of disturbance magnitude, which
contrasts nicely with the quantitative data obtained from the crater
survey plots.

Data from both survey methods were used to quantify the extent of
and variability of soil and surﬁcial disturbance across the battleﬁeld. No
previous study has attempted to quantify the extent of soil or landscape
disturbance due to explosive munitions. Previous research has, instead,
focused on the immediate effects of warfare by mainly quantifying

vegetative disturbance (Pfeiffer 1969; Ridsdale 1916; Westing 1976).

70

 

Figure 22. Survey of microtopography. Individual on left is holding a
leveling device while individual in the crater is holding a stadia rod in an
artillery crater. Measurements were taken every 0.5m along 50-meter
transect.

Gaining an understanding of the effects of warfare on the physical
landscape is important. Equally important, however, are data that
address the long-term ramiﬁcations of warfare, or the ability of a
particular landscape to recover. Landscape recovery, in the form of soil
development, is addressed in my second research objective. Keep in mind
however, that the term ‘recover’ is loosely applied here since, based on
the disturbance data gathered in objective one, the landscape has never

truly reverted back to its original state. The landscape has changed and

remains changed, however the original destruction has largely been

71

erased due the landscapes ability to ‘recover’ from such a disturbance.
Therefore, when the term recovery is used, it is meant more so as
‘healing’ the original surface disturbance in the form of vegetative

succession and soil development.

Q_biective #2: Assessing Post-Warianglscape Recovery

Historical accounts and contemporary descriptions have
documented the intense and widespread disturbance on the Verdun
battleﬁeld (Clermont-Ferrard 1919; Home 1993; Martin 2001; Ousby
2002). However, beyond descriptions of how the landscape appeared
immediately following the battle and a brief mention of the contemporary
landscape, the degree of landscape recovery at Verdun has not been
discussed in the scientiﬁc literature. Landscape recovery from these
types of disturbances is of interest because not only does it contribute to
the growing body of literature concerning human impact on the physical
environment, but it also adds insight into how landscapes subsequently
evolve following catastrophic disturbances. Questions that can be used to
describe landscape evolution following disturbance from explosive

munitions include the following:
a To what extent has the landscape been disturbed?

c To what extent has the landscape been changed and how

has its progress towards recovery progressed?

72

o How has this landscape evolved along different process

pathways following disturbance?

In chapter one, the ability of a landscape to resist and / or recover
from various forms of disturbance was deﬁned as landscape resilience
(Miles et al. 2001). Often, landscape resilience is determined by various
bio-ecologic measurements (Miles et al. 2001; Usher 2001; Wali 1999).
The drawback to relying solely on bio-ecologic measures is that the whole
of the landscape is not taken into account. That is, most of these
parameters ignore surface instability and degradation, as well as soils
and soil development - parameters which also reﬂect overall landscape
resilience. Geomorphologists have therefore expanded upon the concept
of landscape resilience by including geomorphic factors into what they
call sensitivity; i.e. the stability vs instability of a landscape (Brunsden
and Thornes 1979). For example, a stable landscape contains surfaces
that do not easily erode and that recover quickly from disturbances that
would otherwise induce erosion/ burial. Under such stable conditions,
soil formation can proceed relatively uninterruptedly. Basically, the more
developed a soil is, the longer it has been around and thus, soils are
often used as indicators of stable surface or slope conditions (Birkeland
1999). Most soil-related applications, however, have been a part of long-
term landscape studies, such as research involving Quaternary

environments (Balek 2002 ; Dan and Yaalon 1968; Parsons, Balster, and

73

Ness 1970), because soils generally take a long time to develop and
therefore reﬂect long periods of landscape stability (Birkeland 1999; Gile,
Hawley, and Grossman 1981). However, because soils develop slowly,
they have largely been ignored in short-term landscape recovery studies
(Thomas 2001). Indeed, only a limited amount of research has examined
soil properties as an indicator of short-term recovery under both natural
and human forms of disturbance (Beyer et al. 2001; Grieve 2000, 2001;
Mueser and Blume 2001; Roberts et al. 1988; Schleuss, Wu, and Blume
1998). And studies that have examined soil development after
disturbances usually focus on disturbance by commercial non-warfare
activities, e. g., mining or logging operations (Lebedeva and Tonkonogov
1995; McPherson and Timmer 2002; Roberts et al. 1988; Wali 1999).

Regarding disturbance from military/ wartime activities, several
studies have examined the ability of a soil surface to recover after being
subjected to tank trafﬁc (El and A1 1996; El-Baz et al. 1993; Gatto,
Halvorson, and McCool 2001; Nichols and Bierman 2001; Prose and
Metzger 1985). Taken together, this limited body of research suggests
that research on soils as indicators of landscape recovery following
anthropogenic disturbance is needed. An even larger dearth of research
exists when soil parameters are used to examine landscapes affected by
the actions of war. My goal in this research objective is to apply the

principals of soil geomorphology to landscapes affected by war.

74

Soil Development Theory

A variety of theoretical models have been used to describe soil
development as inﬂuenced by a combination of outside factors or
through a series of internal processes (Jenny 1941; Johnson and
Watson-Stegner 1987; Runge 1973; Sirnonson 1959). Among these
models the best known, and most referenced, is the Jenny (Jenny 1941)
state-factor model, in which soil formation is assumedly based on the
inﬂuence of ﬁve soil-forming factors: climate, organisms, relief, parent
material, and time. The model serves as a simple way of stating that soil
formation is a function of one or a combination of the above factors.
However, the model has its drawbacks, since it is mostly qualitative and
the factors are somewhat overlapping (Huggett 1976). Thus, it is difﬁcult
to obtain data to determine how much faster one soil is developing
compared to another. Basically, the model does nothing to explain how a
soil system acquires its properties, via pedogenic processes; it merely
states the factors that lead to the development of a particular soil and
highlights their interaction (Amundson and Jenny 1997). While the
model serves as an excellent tool for teaching purposes, the soil forming
factors are fairly conceptual. Thus it is difﬁcult to quantify soil
development rates unless the soil-forming factor can be isolated and
compared between several soils that are inﬂuenced under varying

degrees by the given factor.

75

Sirnonson (1959) attempted to elaborate on the drawbacks of the
Jenny model by explaining soil formation as inﬂuenced by a series of
processes that include additions, removals, transfers, and
transformations. However, his model fails to elaborate on the speciﬁc
processes involved in soil formation.

Johnson and Watson-Stegner (Johnson et al. 1987) combined both
soil-forming processes and factors to propose that soil formation is
always in a dynamic state, undergoing both progressive and regressive
states of development. The model is useful in explaining soil evolution,
but too general to apply towards speciﬁc rates of soil development
between undisturbed soils and soils in artillery craters.

For my study, I applied a pedogenic model that is more focused on
speciﬁc processes of soil formation. The other models described above ﬁt
certain components of my research, but do not focus on key processes
occurring on crater bottoms such as organic matter accumulation and
inﬁltration /percolation. Therefore, I determined that the best model to
apply to my research is that of Runge (1973), aka the Energy Model,
because it allows me to isolate and examine speciﬁc processes of soil
formation whose products should be measurable at Verdun even after
only 87 years. The Runge Energy Model

8=f (o, w, t),
assumes that soil development (S) is primarily a function of organic

matter (OM) production (0), the amount of water available for leaching

76

(w), and time (t). Inﬁltrating water is assumed to be the primary energy
vector driving soil development. Most would agree that soil development
is enhanced as more water moves vertically through the soil column; the
energy model builds this assumption directly into its formulation.
Conversely, when water is lost on the surface due to runoff or when
water movement is retarded due to a high water table, soil development
is not enhanced; it may even be impeded.

In the Energy Model, OM production is viewed as a renewing
vector, and an impediment to soil development. The model was developed
amidst the grassland soils (Mollisols) of Illinois, where organic matter
coatings protect soil particles from weathering, and at the same time, the
biocycling of bases by plants keeps pH levels high, and in so doing
inhibits translocation of clay and the formation of Bt horizons. Runge
also noted OM accumulation when there was a lack of mineralization of
OM due to a high water table that retarded the decomposition of OM in
the soil column. Basically, the high water table resulted in (1) a loss of
the energy of water moving through the proﬁle and, (2) absences of
aerobic microbes that were able to mineralize the organic contributions
to the soil. Based on these observations, Runge listed the presence (or
abundance) of OM as a limiting factor in soil development. Although the
Energy Model works well in grassland soils, Schaetzl (1990) found that,
in forest soils, OM production enhanced, rather than retarded soil

development due to the production of organic acids that promoted litter

77

decay and weathering within the soil column. He noted that treethrow
pits were loci of increased inﬁltration and areas where OM preferentially
accumulated - both acted in unison to accelerate soil development in pit
sites.

In the forested soils of Verdun, the model predicts that soils within
artillery craters will exhibit enhanced development because they are
within an area of greater leaching (more “uf’). However, where perched
water tables exist, soil development may actually be retarded due to lack
of percolation, even within craters. Applying the principles of the Runge
model, under perched conditions the energy of water movement through
the soil proﬁle is lost and soil development will be impeded.

The data from this dissertation, therefore, have the potential to
serve as a veriﬁcation (and application) of the “w” part of the Runge
model, by showing that, in forested environments; soil development is
largely driven by the energy of water movement through the proﬁle.
Based on Schaetzl’s (1990) work and principles of the Runge model, the
depressions (craters) should serve as areas of increased water moving
through the proﬁle. Like Schaetzl’s (1990) work, these depressions are
also, however, a collection point for large amounts of litter. Increased
amounts of water movement through the proﬁle serve to break down the
litter into humiﬁed organic matter, which forms organic acids that may
contribute to enhanced weathering. Therefore, another possible outcome

of this work is to not only to verify the Runge model, but to provide a

78

caveat to the Runge model that accumulations of OM. within the soils
column are not necessarily a sign of retarded soil development, as did
Schaetzl (1990).

Translocation of cations, and OM accumulation are some of the
ﬁrst measurable pedogenic properties in young soils (Schaetzl, Barrett,
and Winkler 1994; Beyer et al. 2001; Roberts et al. 1988). Based on the
above discussion, I applied the principles of the Runge Energy Model to
my data as a guide for my interpretations of soil development/recovery at
the ﬁve research sites. As an indicator of the effectiveness of the w factor,
I examined the degree of leaching and translocation of various cations
inthe soil proﬁle. Generally, leaching refers to materials that are taken
out of the soil and translocation refers to downward movement of those
materials within the soil column. By comparing the degree of leaching
and translocation of various cations within craters, I can determine
weathering rates of newly exposed parent material

To indicate the effectiveness of the a factor, I examined the texture
of the upper horizons, and the amount of organic matter that has
accumulated in, the O and A horizons. My sampling and data acquisition
design (below) reﬂect the approach I used to gather data that ﬁt within

these two pedogenic vectors.

79

Sampling Design

Data from disturbed soils within craters were compared to that
from undisturbed soils in order to address my second research objective.
The focus of this discussion is on organic matter accumulation, degree of
translocation of soluble cations vs those that are found mainly in stable
and insoluble materials, translocation of clay, and water table
relationships; these are soil development principles whose explanation is
treatable within the conceptual context of the Runge (1973) model.

To compare soil development in disturbed and undisturbed areas, I
excavated and sampled undisturbed soils next to craters, as well as
disturbed soils within craters. I chose sites that had a limited amount of
disturbance with large areas of undisturbed soils adjacent to craters. I
also based and stratiﬁed my selection criteria on soil properties. The soils
the Etraye site are Bruniﬁed Rendzinas over nearly ‘pure’ limestone
bedrock (Table 3). The Red Zone soils are Calcareous Brown soils, which
have developed on a more weathered but less ‘pure’ limestone (Table 4).
Soils at Bois de Thill are Pseudogleys over nearly pure, clayey colluvium
valley deposits (Table 5). Two of the study sites (Etraye and Red Zone) are
in the vicinity of the disturbance study plots while Bois de Thill is in a
new location. The new location was chosen to represent soils that are in
a poorly drained, high clay content soil with a parent material other than
limestone. The site was also selected to represent soils other than those

on the upland ridges of the Meuse heights.

80

To view, describe and sample the soils, trenches were excavated
across three craters representing the typical range of crater sizes at each
of the three soil development study sites (Figure 23). Trenches were
excavated with a backhoe to a depth of one meter or until reaching
limiting impediments such as bedrock or a high water table. The backhoe
trenches extended across the entire width of each crater, onto the
undisturbed soils adjacent to that crater (Figure 24). Data from
undisturbed soils adjacent to the craters were used as a baseline to

which the data from the disturbed sites were compared.

Table 3: Typical pedon descriptions of a Bruniﬁed Rendzina soil at the Etraye site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizon Depth Colorb StructureC Consistenced dec Coarse Fragsf
(cm) (moist) (moist) (estimated, by
volume)
A1 0-19 10 YR 3 m/c gr VFI CI 25% CG
3 / 1
A2 19-36 10 YR 2 m gr VFI G1 60% CG
4 / 3
Crl 36-53 10 YR 2 m sbk Fl GW 60% CG
6 / 6
Cr2 53-64 10 YR 2 m sbk F1 GW 80% CG
6 / 6
R 64+ 10 YR -—— --- --- Limestone
7 / 8 Bedrock

 

a: Descriptions based upon Soil Survey Division Staff (2002)
b: Hue, Value, and Chroma according to Munsell Soil Color chart

c: Abbreviations: m: medium, c: coarse, gr: granular, sbk: sub-angular blocky
d: Abbreviations: VFI: very ﬁrm, FI: ﬁrm

 

e: Abbreviations: CI: clear irregular, gradual irregular, gradual wavy, gradual wavy
f: Abbreviations: coarse gravel (20—7 6 mm)

81

Table 4: Typical pedon descri

tional of a Calcareous Brown soil at the Red Zone site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizon Depth Colorb Structurec Corrsistenced de° Coarse Fragsf
(cm) (moist) (moist) (estimated, by
volume)
Oi 0-4 10 YR --- AS None
3 / 2
A 4-17 10 YR 3 m gr VFI CS 10 MG
31 2
Bw 17-29 7.5 YR 3 fgr/sbk FR CW 20 CB
3 / 4 10 CG
Crl 29-55 5 YR 3/4 1 vf abk VFR GW 50 CB
10 YR 25 CG
8 / 2
Cr2 55+ 10 YR 1 vf abk L --- 7O CB
6 / 4 20 CG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: Descriptions based upon Soil Survey Division Staff (2002)

b: Hue, Value, and Chroma according to Munsell Soil Color chart

c: Abbreviations: m: medium, f: ﬁne, vf: very ﬁne, gr: granular, sbk: sub-angular blocky,
abk: angular blocky

(1: Abbreviations: VFI: very ﬁrm, FR: friable, VFR: very friable, L: loose

e: Abbreviations: AS: abrubt smooth, CS: clear smooth, CW: clear wavy, GW: gradual
wavy

f: Abbreviations: MG: medium gravel (5-20 mm), CB: cobbles (76-250mm) CG: coarse
gravel (20-76 mm)

Table 5: Typical pedon descri tiona of a Psuedogley soil at the Bois de Thill site

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizon Depth Colorb Structurec Consistenced dee Coarse Fragsf
(cm) (moist) (moist) (estimated, by
volume)
A 0-22 10 YR 2 f/m gr Fl CS none
3 / 2
Bg 22-59 5 YR 5/4 3 m/c VFI CS none
sbk
Cgl 59-91 5 YR 4 / 6 2 m / c VFI GW none
5 YR 5/ 2 sbk
Cg2 91+ 5 YR 4 / 6 2 m / c VFI --- 10 med gravel
5 YR 4 / 6 sbk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: Descriptions based upon Soil Survey Division Staff (2002)
b: Hue, Value, and Chroma according to Munsell Soil Color chart

c: Abbreviations: f: ﬁne, m: medium, c: coarse, gr: granular, sbk: sub-angular blocky

(1: Abbreviations: Fl: ﬁrm, VFI: very ﬁrm
e: Abbreviations: CS: clear smooth, GW: gradual wavy
f: Abbreviations: MG: medium gravel (5-20 mm)

82

 

 

      

Red Zone South

*

\

NA /

 

*
"Map Symbols
I Soil Study Site
l
4 o vm
.1 ages

* Destroyed Villages
M Frontline Feb 20. 1916

311! Maximum German Advance

«on-i—

 

Major Roads
. Forts
Red Zone

 

— Forested Areas
\ L j: K A J .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 23. Distribution of soil development study sites across the study
area of Verdun, France.

 

, ‘. V acme ,wa. I: .3 ‘5
Figure 24. Backhoe excavating a trench across a typical crater on the
Verdun battleﬁeld of France. Line outlines proﬁle of the crater.

Soil proﬁles were then described and sampled from the face of the
backhoe trench according to NRCS guidelines (Staff 1993). Descriptions
and samples were taken from three pedons in the following positions
within the trench: crater bottom, crater side, and in the undisturbed
soils adjacent to the crater (Figure 25). Samples of approximately 500
grams were then removed from the proﬁle face at depths of 10, 20, 30,
and 50 cm, air-dried in France, and transported back to the USA in
sealed, plastic sample bags. Coarse fragments were removed from the
samples in the MSU Geography soils’ lab by gently crushing and then

repeatedly passing the soil through a 2mm sieve.

84

Crater Undisturbed

rat-1x. Crater W3” cr +4 um

 

 

Figure 25. Typical artillery crater and location of sampled pedons.
Each pedon was sampled at depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm below
soil surface.

Degree of soil development is often associated with the differential
translocation of soluble vs insoluble constituents (Singh, Parkash, and
Singhvi 1988). Particularly useful in this regard are the amounts of
weatherable and translocatable minerals vs those that are not (Howard,
Amos, and Daniels 1993). Certain minerals such as tourmaline and
zircon are highly resistant to weathering and will remain in the soil
proﬁle while other less resistant minerals like olivine, plagioclase
feldspars, and biotite will be preferentially removed via weathering

processes. However, some of these minerals such as zircon and

85

tourmaline are rare in soils while other minerals are not easily
identiﬁable. Elemental data are often used as a surrogate for
mineralogical data (Busacca and Singer 1989; Murad 1978; Santos, St.
Amaud, and Anderson 1986) because certain elements only derive from
their parent minerals. For example zirconium mainly derives from the
resistant mineral zircon, and titanium derives mainly from the minerals
rutile, tourmaline, and anatase. Thus, by comparing certain elements
from minerals that are resistant, to elements that derive largely from
weaker, weatherable minerals, it is possible to use elemental data as
surrogates for mineralogy, and hence, weathering (Murad 1978).

In this study, the degree of translocation of soluble materials was
examined by comparing the ratios of elements from easily weathered
minerals, e.g., Ca, Na, K, to elements from minerals that are more
resistant to weathering and translocation (Fe, Zr, Ti), by depth (Beavers
et al. 1963; Evans and Adams 1975; Howard, Amos, and Daniels 1993).
Such data can be used not only to evaluate the uniformity of the
“control” soils, such as the undisturbed soils adjacent to the craters, but
also to compare pedogenic development among horizons and study sites.

To prepare the samples for elemental analysis, I ﬁrst ground each
to silt size (approx. 30-50 micrometers in mean diameter). Three grams of
this ﬁnely ground powder were then diluted by adding 9.0g of lithium
tetraborate (LIzB4O7) and 0.5g of ammonium nitrate (NH4N03) as an

oxidizer. This mixture was then melted in a platinum crucible at 1000°C

86

of oxidizing ﬂame for >20 minutes while being stirred on an orbital
mixing stage. The melt was poured into platinum molds to make glass
disks, which were analyzed with an X-ray ﬂuorescent (XRF) spectrometer
within the Geosciences Department at Michigan State University. XRF
major element (Si, Ti, Al, Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca, Na, K, P, Rb, Sr, and Zr)
analyses were reduced by a fundamental parameter data reduction
method, while XRF trace element data were calculated using standard
linear regression techniques. Software for reduction was supplied from
Bruker’s Spectraplus software.

From these reduced data, a number of possible ratios were
examined that might best illustrate the degree of translocation of
relatively mobile vs immobile elements, and hence weathering and soil
development. I chose the ratio of (Zr+Ti)/ (Ca+Mg+K) to assess weathering
in the proﬁle, because it compares immobile elements (considered to
reﬂect minerals in the soil that are stable and in an unweathered state)
to common elements that represent minerals in the parent material that
are easily weathered and highly mobile. For example, the limestone
parent material (CaCOa) will have retained the minerals containing Zr
and Ti while the more easily weathered Ca, Mg, and K will have been
weathered out of their parent minerals and, presumably, rendered
translocable (Busacca and Singer 1989). Other ratios were also
attempted that placed larger numbers of mobile elements in the

denominator, but the results were similar and I choose to use this

87

simpler ratio that contained elements commonly found in soils formed in
limestone residuum.

Other indicators of soil development include pH, texture, and
organic matter content. Analytical procedures to obtain data on these
indicators were performed in the Geography department’s soil
geomorphology laboratory at Michigan State University. In soils formed
in calcareous parent materials and developing under leaching
environments, pH generally increases with depth. Such is the case at
Verdun, where residual soils have formed on calcareous bedrock
(Duchaufour 1982; Montague 2003). Conversely, underdeveloped or
thoroughly mixed soils should contain uniform or erratic pH values
throughout the proﬁle. Soil pH values were determined in a 2:1 water:soil
suspension using a handheld electronic pH meter (Model IQISO,
Scientiﬁc Instruments Inc.). To maintain consistency and to ensure
accurate pH levels, the 2:1 suspension was stirred after one hour with a
glass rod, and then after another hour had passed the probe was
inserted into the suspension to record the pH.

Particle size analysis can be used to illustrate clay translocation
(lessivage) (Creemens and Mokrna 1986; Dixit 1978). Increased amounts
of clay in the lower proﬁle are commonly taken as signs of clay
translocation, which has assumedly been driven by percolating water -
hence its application to the Runge model. Soil textural analyses were

conducted via the pipette method (Day 1965) on all samples except those

88

containing mainly organic material, i.e., O horizons. Sand sized particles
were removed by passing a pre-weighed, dispersed, oven dried soil
sample, weighing 10-12 grams, through a 53 micrometer sieve directly
over a 1000 ml cylinder. Then, the sand sized particles (2.0 — 0.05 mm)
remaining in the sieve were dried at 104 C. The dried sand fraction was
then weighed again to the nearest 0.01 gram and further dry sieved to
obtain sand fraction data as well. The silt and clay sized particles that
washed through the sieve were pipetted after a speciﬁed amount of time
(~8 hours) based on settling rates of the particles at a given room
temperature, using Stokes’ Law.

The accumulation of organic matter in the soil proﬁle serves as one
of the ﬁrst indicators of soil development in recovering disturbed soils
(Beyer et al. 2001; Roberts et al. 1988). Typically, recovering disturbed
soils will develop an O horizon before any other. This will be followed by
the development of an A horizon as the organic material is broken down
and incorporated into the soil proﬁle (Birkeland 1999; Schaetzl and
Anderson, 2005). I used the loss on ignition (LOI) procedure to determine
organic matter content of my soil samples (Davies 1974). Samples (~25 g)
were ﬁrst oven dried overnight at 104 C and then weighed to the nearest
.001 g before being placed into an oven for 8 hours at 340 C. After this,
the sample was cooled in a dessicator and weighed again. The LOI
procedure is used to determine the amount of organic carbon in the

sample by ‘cooking oﬁ’ the organic matter as C02. To obtain the

89

percentage of organic carbon (DC), the following two equations are used
(Davies 1974):

L0! = (oven dry soil wt. — soil wt. after combustion) I (oven dry

soil wt.) X 100

0C (%) = 1.01] 1.72

Taken together, these analytical procedures facilitate observations
on the degree of soil development in craters compared to undisturbed
areas. In the remaining chapters of this dissertation I will report and
discuss the results of the data I gathered using these procedures and

methods.

90

Chapter 5
Results and Discussion
Objective One
Disturbance Inﬂuences
The purpose of my ﬁrst research objective was to characterize and
describe the range and character of disturbance on the Verdun
battleﬁeld. During a preliminary trip to the battleﬁeld in May of 2003,
and before I even began to set up my experimental design, it became
apparent that the degree and intensity of disturbance varied markedly
across the battleﬁeld. My data and ﬁeld observations show that the
differences in disturbance magnitude are mainly a function of various
combinations of four separate variables, which vary spatially (and
somewhat predictably) across the battleﬁeld:
(1) Location of armies in relation to the front lines;
(2) Degree of stagnation of front lines;
(3) Position of armies in relation to topographic position on the
landscape; and
(4) The characteristics of the underlying parent material or bedrock.
Each of these variables will be discussed in detail below, followed by a

discussion of disturbance magnitude at each of the ﬁve study sites.

Of the four variables listed above, the location(s) of the front lines

exerted the most inﬂuence on landscape disturbance. Fighting in WI

91

was based upon massive concentrations of ﬁrepower from ﬁxed positions
of entrenched artillery (Mosier 2001), and Verdun typiﬁed this usage of
artillery (Horne 1993). The front line trenches were ﬁlled with infantry
and were thus subsequently prime artillery targets for both German and
French gunners. Each side was attempting to make forward gains of
sometimes just several hundred yards to seize trenches and territory of
the opposing army, but the offensive capabilities of the time were
outweighed by the defensive capabilities of the infantry machine guns
and bunkers along a line of fortiﬁed positions. This meant that
destruction to the landscape and the enemy was mainly limited to the
objectives and range of the artillery.

Although the disturbances on the Verdun battleﬁeld are often of a
higher magnitude than that of other areas along the western front in
Europe, the same pattern of destruction can be witnessed along the
entire length of the front from the English Channel to the Swiss border.
The disturbance is greatest in the immediate vicinity of the front line,
often referred to as ‘no man’s land’. Moving away from no man’s land, the
degree of destruction/ disturbance generally diminishes. On the Verdun
battleﬁeld, as elsewhere along the western front, beyond the 20 km range
of the heavy artillery, the countryside is virtually untouched by the
spoilage of war. In these outlying areas, there are often only sporadic

large craters associated with some of the heavier siege guns of the war.

92

Stagnation of the front lines is closely related to the ﬁrst variable -
proximity of armies to the front lines. Because WWI was often associated
with stalemated ﬁghting conditions, the ﬁrst two variables (stagnation
and location of trenches) frequently coincide. In some cases however,
ﬁghting along the Western Front and, for that matter, Verdun, witnessed
ﬂuid movement of armies. In the case of Verdun, these conditions
occurred at the beginning of the battle when the Germans made massive
gains due to the surprise nature of the offensive, and at the end of the
battle when the German army was so demoralized it had no will to ﬁght
and was making an orderly retreat back to an already fortiﬁed defensive
position at the Hindenburg line (Mosier 2001). Destruction / disturbance
associated with artillery accompanied these ﬂuid conditions but the
damage was less extensive and limited to smaller, more mobile artillery
pieces. In addition, because the armies were not in one place for more
than a few days at most, the degree of shelling that the forests and
soilscape received was light compared to when stalemate conditions left
armies ﬁghting over a 500 yard swath of land for months.

Because of stalemate conditions and the long, accurate range of
infantry weapons, most artillery in WW1 was situated well beyond
(behind) the front lines. Prior to WI, artillery gunners were on much
smaller ﬁelds of battle and used iron sights to ﬁre directly into oncoming
troops. This type of artillery was situated in the immediate vicinity of the

‘action’ and the intent of the artillery was mainly to cut up massed

93

enemy formations (Gudmundsson 1993). In WWI, however, commanders
and oﬁicers quickly realized that the long, accurate, rapid-ﬁre nature of
infantry weapons was rendering the capabilities of current artillery
tactics virtually useless. Artillery was therefore pulled further and further
back from the front lines. The previously unreﬁned concept of indirectly
ﬁring at an unseen enemy using trigonometric equations became the
norm. Therefore, gunners were ﬁring at targets established by foreword
observers and aerial observation platforms, such as planes and blimps.
In this type of indirect artillery ﬁring tactics, hitting a target on the
backside of a ridge proved much more difﬁcult than hitting the crest or
fore-slope.

Armies were quick to note that they were easy targets when on a
ridge crest because this is what the gunners used to sight in their
artillery pieces. Before long, both sides realized that the crests and facing
hillslopes on high—ground were most vulnerable to artillery ﬁre and the
slopes facing away, or back slopes, were least vulnerable. Unfortunately
for those infantry groups on the front, the fore slopes and ridge crests
still had to be occupied in order to observe the enemy and stave off on
surprise offensive movements. These positions were favorite targets of the
artillery and, as much of artillery gunners tried to place their sights on
the back-slopes, ridge-crests and foreword slopes received the brunt of
artillery barrages. This led to slopes and hillcrests facing the enemy

incurring much more damages than the back slopes. Thus, the location

94

of armies in relation to topographic position is a variable that inﬂuenced
the degree of disturbance across the battleﬁeld.

Crater width and depth varied according to the nature of the
geologic parent material, i.e. bedrock and sediment. During the course of
performing my ﬁeld work, I observed that in areas with deeply weathered
bedrock and thick soil proﬁles, craters were generally deeper and steeper
sided than areas of shallow, lithic soils. When the nature of the parent
material was colluvium over shale, the craters were often deeper and
wider than were craters over shallow, dense limestone bedrock. In areas
with perched water tables, the craters were much wider than they were
deep, probably due to eventual collapse of wet soil along the sides of the
crater. The craters may have originally have been of the same size as at
other site, but with the mass wastage of material on the crater sides over
time, they have become much shallower in these areas.

Of course, when larger artillery rounds are considered, regardless
of underlying geologic conditions, the craters take on a similar nature
because the blast is so powerful that it will exhume roughly the same
amount of material regardless of bedrock type. For example, a 420 mm
‘Big Bertha’ round will produce the same size crater over pure limestone
bedrock that supports Rendzina soils as it would in unconsolidated
colluvial sediments within the Woevre valley. In addition, in those areas
that were under repeated heavy shelling, the underlying geology becomes

less and less signiﬁcant because the disturbance to bedrock was

95

everywhere extensive, pulverizing the uppermost bedrock and, forming a
heterogeneous mass of rock fragments and heavy, clay-rich sediments.
Crater size and depth in these conditions were limited only to the
viscosity Of the sediment and the size of the artillery round.

In conclusion, while the ﬁrst three variables of disturbance
inﬂuenced the degree of disturbance across the battleﬁeld, the last
variable, bedrock (depth to and type), did not inﬂuence the degree of
disturbance so much as it inﬂuenced the nature of the each individual

cratered disturbance.

Disturbance Characteristics of Study Sites

Generally, based on my observations and from my limited sample
of ﬁve study plots, disturbance increased in magnitude moving from
north to south within the study area, closer to the center of the ﬁghting
(Figure 12; Tables 6, 7, 8). Variation in the amount of disturbance, from
north to south at Verdun, can be attributed to other disturbance
magnitude variables such as topographic location and stagnation of the
front lines, or combinations of the two. Site disturbance magnitude will
be discussed below for each of the ﬁve study sites by starting with the
northern most site, Etraye, and concluding with the southern—most,

Thiaumont Platform.

96

Table 6: Disturbance attributes based on data from ‘A hectare
plots at ﬁve study sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Name Craters Craters Total Area of Plot
in Plot (n) / krn2 Plot Disturbed Disturbance
(In?) 1% of area)
Etrasg: 1 70 2800 593.6 23.8
Etraye 2 49 1960 420.8 16.8
Site Mean, 59.6, 2380.0, 507.2, 20.3,
S.D.* 14.8 594.0 122.2 5.0
Red Zone 87 3480 552.0 22.1
North 1
Red Zone 115 4600 706.1 28.2
North 2
Site Mean, 1 01.0, 4040.0, 629.1, 25.2,
S.D*. 1 9. 8 792.0 1 09.0 4.3
Red Zone 72 2880 362.8 14.6
South 1
Red Zone 41 1640 169.6 6.8
South 2
Site Mean, 56.5, 2260.0, 266.2, 1 0.7,
SD. * 22.0 876. 9 136. 6 5.5
Hoseland 1 120 4800 1128.0 45.1
Hoseland 2 118 4720 824.1 33.0
Site Mean, 1 1 9.0, 4760.0, 976.1, 39.1,
SD." 1.4 56.6 214.9 8.6
Thiaumont 131 5240 1508.7 60.4
Platform 1
Thiaumont 215 8600 2167.0 87.3
Platform 2
Site Mean, 1 73.0, 6920.0, 1 83 7. 9, 73. 9,
SD. * 59.4 23 75. 9 465.5 1 9.0

 

 

 

 

 

* Standard Deviation from the mean values at the two sites

Table 7: Crater disturbance dimensional (depth) data based on sample data from ﬁve

sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Name Mean Crater Min Max Crater
Depth Crater Depth (cm)
(cm) Depth
(S.D.)* (cm)
Etraye 1 53.4, 12 166
32.2
Etraye 2 53.2 10 212
46.9
Site Mean, 53.3, 11.0, 189.0,
SD." 0.1 1.0 32.5
Red Zone 52.4 10 112
North 1 28.6
Red Zone 40.3 10 144
North 2 23.8
Site Mean, 46.4, 10.0, 128,
SD." 8.6 0.0 22.6

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

Table 7 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Red Zone 46.4 12.0 90.0
South 1 1 7.0

Red Zone 30.2 10.0 72.0
South 2 16.5

Site Mean, 38.3, 1 1.5 11.0, 81.0,
SD. ** 1.4 12.7
Hoseland 40.1 10.0 236.0
1 24.2

Hoseland 47.0 10.0 136.0
2 27.8

Site Mean, 43.6, 10.0, 186.0,
S. D. ** 4. 9 0. 0 70. 7
Thiaumont 98.2 14 300
Platform 1 42.3

Thiaumont 96.3 16 330
Platform 2 45.7

Site Mean, 97.3, 1 5.0, 315.0,
SD.“ 1.3 1.4 21.2

 

* Standard deviation and mean generated from speciﬁed site
** Standard deviation and mean generated from combined between the two site
averages

Table 8: Crater disturbance dimensional (area and volume) data based on sample data
from ﬁve sites on the Verdun battleﬁeld

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Name Mean Max Min Mean Max Min
Crater Crater Crater Crater Crater Crater
Area (m2) Area (m2! Area (m2) Volume Volume Volume
(8.0)" (m3) (m3) (m3)
(S.D.)*

Etraye 1 8.5 35.5 0.9 386.3 3267.2 6.1
7.2 604.2

Etraye 2 8.6 39.6 1.2 418.0 3590.0 8.2
7.0 708.3

Site Mean, 8.5, 37.6, 1.1, 402.2, 3428.6, 7.2,

S. D. ** 0. 1 2. 9 0. 2 22.4 228.3 1 . 5

Red Zone 6.4 21.8 0.6 268.7 1236.7 3.2

North 1 4.6 311.4

Red Zone 6.1 30.0 0.7 188.7 2521.6 4.2

North 2 4.5 315.3

Site Mean, 6.2, 26.0, 0. 7, 228. 7, 1879.2, 3. 7,

SD. ** 0.1 5.9 0.1 56. 6 908. 6 0.8

Red Zone 5.0 10.4 1.7 144.7 403.0 14.4

South 1 2.0 95.0

Red Zone 4.1 10.7 0.5 95.8 370.2 2.7

South 2 2.8 108.6

Site Mean, 4.6, 1 0. 6, 1. 1, 120.3, 386.6, 8. 6,

S. D. ** 0. 6 0.2 0.8 34.6 23.2 8. 3

Hoseland 9.4 50.3 0.5 217.4 1383.1 9.4

1 7.0 232.6

Hoseland 7.0 33.1 0.4 233.9 2377.4 5.1

2 5.2 326.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

Table 8 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Mean, 8.2, 41.7, 0. 4, 225. 7, 1 880.3, 7.3,
SD." 1.7 12.2 0.1 11.7 703.1 3.0
Thiaumont 11.5 52.6 0.7 880.7 5253.7 7.2

Platform 1 10.3 992.8

Thiaumont 10.1 60.7 1.2 923.4 5573.3 6.6

Platform 2 9.1 887.3

Site Mean, 1 0.8, 56. 6, 0. 9, 902. 1, 54 1 3. 5, 7. 0,
S.D.** 1.0 5.7 0. 4 30.2 226.0 0. 4

 

* Standard deviation and mean generated from speciﬁed site
** Standard deviation and mean generated from combined between the two site
averages

Etraye

The far northern (Etraye) study plots are on the outside fringes of
the Verdun battleﬁeld (Figures 20, 21). The average crater disturbance
coverage for the two plots was 20.3%, or about 1 / 5 of the plots’ area
(Table 6). The area was most likely shelled toward the very end of WWI
when the Americans were driving the Germans out of the area. Not only
is this an area where the armies were not in close proximity to the front
lines of the main battle, but also an area that did not experience the
stalemate conditions associated with areas further south on the
battleﬁeld. No trenches were observed at the Etraye site, which supports
the assumption that stagnant conditions did not exist and troop
movement through the area was fairly rapid. Artillery disturbance may
have only occurred when the American forces shelled the ridges prior to
launching offensive operations.

Because the study plots are situated on the upper shoulder of a
ridge facing to the south, the magnitude of disturbance is greater than if

the study plots were placed on the opposite side - the ridge’s north-facing

99

slope (Figure 26). I observed that on north—facing slopes on the Verdun

battleﬁeld, little to no disturbance was noticeable.

 

 

Figure 26. Due north-facing, oblique view of Etraye study plots and
surrounding area. Vertical exaggeration is 3.0 and the area is 4X3 km.
Craters within each of the Etraye study plots are widely spaced,
although I recorded several clusters of craters within the two plots
(Figures 27, 28). The clusters contain craters that are slightly more
spherical and deeper than other surrounding, individual craters. For
example the maximum crater volume in these plots exceeds 3000 m3
(Table 8), approaching volumes in the most heavily disturbed area at

Thiaumont. While several of these larger craters existed in the plots, they

100

were the exception rather than the rule, with smaller craters approaching
the mean volume of ~400 m3 being much more common. These common,
small craters likely came from artillery that ﬁred rounds at a high
trajectory, such as mortars and howitzers. The gunners presumably
‘walked’ the rounds forward, based on pre-determined coordinates from a
forward observer, thereby producing clusters of craters in the area

where artillery ﬁre was called for. Crater depth at this site, with the
exception of the larger artillery rounds, is limited by the shallow depth to
bedrock. The Etraye area contains thin Rendzina-like soils that are
shallow to pure limestone bedrock; each crater penetrated only a small
distance into the bedrock, with an average depth of 0.5-1.0 meters
(Figure 29). Appendix A1 and A2 provide detailed slope proﬁles for each
of the transects in the two study plots.

Herbaceous vegetation covered undisturbed soils outside of the
craters but often did not occupy areas within the crater (Figure 30). In
some deeper craters, close proximity to the water table lead to hydric
conditions, preventing the colonization of crater bottom by surrounding
vegetation at the study site. The majority of the soil surface between the
craters is undisturbed and contains trees that pre-date the war, thus

providing further evidence the area was only lightly disturbed. 13

 

‘3 Pre-war trees were easily observed because, besides their larger size compared to other surrounding trees,
they often grew in contorted forms and were heavily scarred from artillery shrapnel.

101

 

EtraYe Plot 1

  
 

 

 

 

Figure 27. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,
Etraye study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to
differences in proportions of crater sizes.

 

Etraye Plot 2

 

 

 

Figure 28. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two, Etraye study
site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in
proportions of crater sizes.

102

 

361

0 2 4 6 8101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

 

 

 

Figure 29. Transect 1 from Etraye study plot 2, as an example of surface
microtopography at the Etraye study site. The transect shows three
craters at the following locations on the horizontal axis: 4-9 meters, 20-
25 meters, and 42—43 meters.

 

Figure 30. Crater cluster within the Etraye study plots at the
Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Note the paucity of vegetation in crater
bottoms. Source, Author's collection, September 2004

103

Red Zone North

The Red Zone North plots are located on what was French territory
prior to the battle, in close proximity to where the opening phases of the
battle took place on February 215‘, 1916. Shelling at this location was
heavy, yet the German offensive moved through the area fairly rapidly
following the bombardment, sparing the area months of constant
shelling. Several trenches and Stollen (underground German bunkers)
were observed in the vicinity, which suggests that the Germans ‘dug in’
for long-term occupation of the area after pushing out the French in the
opening phases of the battle. Because of the south-facing location of the
study site (Figure 31), it may have received German artillery ﬁre at the
outset of the battle and then received shelling from French artillery after
the Germans became entrenched in the area.

Cratering at this location is fairly heavy and undisturbed patches
of soil are not extensive. Approximately 25% of the surface in the plots is
disturbed (Table 6), with a conservative average estimate of 2380 craters
km'z. Crater counts in this plot are conservative compared to the
probable actual number of craters, due to the herbaceous ground cover
and grasses (~50 cm in height), which obstructed the view of many
craters.

Craters are scattered in a random pattern, although again, as at Etraye,
there are several clusters of craters within the plots (Figures 32, 33). In

some places, smaller craters were found inside larger craters, as seen

104

along a typical microtopographic survey transect line (Figure 34).

Appendix A3 and A4 provides the slope proﬁles for each of the transects

in the two study plots.

 

 

 

Figure 31. Due north oblique View of (from top of image down) Red Zone
North, Red Zone South, and Hoseland study plots, and surrounding
area. Vertical exaggeration is 3.0 and the area is 4X3 km.

The craters in Red Zone north are also fairly deep and steep sided
when compared to the shallower craters at Etraye. The soils at this
location are Hapludalfs (calcic brown soils, French Classiﬁcation), which
implies that they are thicker and better developed than the thinner

Rendzina soils found at Etraye. The thicker soil, i.e. layer of

105

unconsolidated materials, allowed the artillery explosions that created
the craters to penetrate deeper before encountering bedrock, which
would have limited the depth of the blast. Nonetheless, some of the
smaller, shallower craters only dent into the upper portions of the soil,
which indicates that the caliber of the artillery round still determines the
minimum depth of disturbance penetration. The shallower craters are
covered with herbaceous vegetation, grasses, and even some smaller
trees, while the deeper craters are ﬁlled with leaf litter and lack extensive

amounts of growing vegetation. No trees that pre-date the war were

observed in the study plots.

 

Figure 32. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,
Red Zone North study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as
reference to differences in proportions of crater sizes.

106

 

Figure 33. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two,
Red Zone North study site. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as
reference to differences in proportions of crater sizes.

 

 

0 2 4 6 8101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

 

 

 

Figure 34. Transect 2 from Red Zone North study plot2 as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Red Zone North study site.
The transect contains discemable craters at the following locations on
the horizontal axis: 6-12 meters, 21-25 meters, 27-31 meters, and 39-42
meters.
Red Zone South

Red Zone South, although further south than the previous two

sites and therefore closer to the center of the ﬁghting, contains the least

107

disturbance of all the study plots (Table 6). For example, the site
contains smaller craters (Tables 7, 8) than either the Etraye or Red Zone
North sites, even though both were much farther from the center of the
ﬁghting. Less than 20% of the surface in each plot was disturbed by
explosive munitions and the average crater volume of 120 m3 is the
lowest of all the study sites (Table 8). The explanation for this is unclear,
although it may be due to the position of the site in relationship to the
topography. The area was probably far enough south to escape the brunt
of German shelling at the opening stages of the battle and, due to its
north-facing slope location (Figure 31), was a difficult target for the
French artillery.

Red Zone South is located close to a now removed narrow gauge
railroad supply line (Figure 35). The rail line can be seen as a ﬂat
bottomed depression on the far right of the transect line in Figure 36.
Numerous Stollen and trench works are in the vicinity of the rail line and
the pattern on the crater plots (Figures 37, 38) suggests that the French
gunners knew about the rail line and were able to observe some of the
trench works. In WWI, if artillery gunners knew the location of a ﬁxed
target like a railroad line and had a forward observer to direct their ﬁre,
they would have been able to place artillery rounds in the vicinity of the
target. The north side of plot one at this site runs parallel to the old rail
line: this is where the majority of the craters are located. Other crater

clusters are nearby the underground Stollen (Figure 37). The sparse

108

cratering in plot two of the study site (Figure 38) occurs because this site
was further from the Stollen complexes, although the north side of this
plot runs parallel to the rail line as well. There were no Stollen in this plot
and hence few craters, all of which suggests the French gunners had an
idea of what they were ﬁring at. In sum, the evidence provided by the
cratering pattern at this site suggests that the area was under
observation and the shells were not being ﬁred blindly into a location
with an unknown target. Rather, the craters here support the

assumption that the artillery ﬁre was directed at the Stollen complexes

and the narrow gauge rail line.

 

Figure 35. Remains of a narrow gauge rail line in close proximity to
Red Zone South study plots on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September, 2004.

 

 

332
331
330
329
328

0 2 4 6 8101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

 

 

 

Figure 36. Transect 2 from Red Zone South study plot two, as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Red Zone South study site.
The transect shows one discemable crater at the 13- 15 meter mark
along the horizontal axis. The drop off on the far right is the edge of a
former narrow gauge rail line.

 

Figure 37. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,
Red Zone South study site. The former narrow gauge rail line runs along
the north side of the plot.

110

 

Figure 38. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two,
Red Zone South study site. The former narrow gauge rail line runs along
the north side of the plot.

The craters at Red Zone South are shallower and smaller than the
craters in Red Zone North, even though the soil and bedrock types are
similar (Tables 4, 5; Figure 16). Large expanses of undisturbed soils exist
(90.3% undisturbed) between the occasional craters denting the surface
(Figure 36). Most of the craters penetrate into bedrock and have large
amounts of leaf litter and other forms of decaying herbaceous debris
ﬁlling in the bottoms. The main forms of disturbance are the rail line and
the craters found in proximity to it as seen in ﬁgure 36 and the ﬁgures in
Appendix A5 and A6. Due to the light disturbance, several trees that pre-

date the wars exist at this site. mostly in the less disturbed plot two. An

111

additional, noteworthy characteristic of this site is the numerous forms

of human remains (Figure 39) and unexploded ‘dud' artillery rounds found

littering the surface (Figure 40).

 

Figure 39. Possible human femur bone remains found on
surface within Red Zone South study plots on Verdun, France
battleﬁeld. Source: Author's collection, September 2004.

  

L- ‘. 2‘ ,2 77‘ V . .
‘. " r‘ "a 1‘; 3‘8!" g,“ 4*" M31", a.

Figure 40. Author holding one of many unexploded munitions
littering surface at Red Zone South study plots on the Verdun,
France battleﬁeld. Source: Author's collection, September 2004.

112

Hoseland

The Hoseland site is located on high ground surrounded by ravines
and ridges of lower elevation (Figure 31). This topographic position made
it a highly desirable one for both armies, and therefore a hotly contested
location. In addition, the site is just off the crest - facing slightly to the
south - so it was an easy target for the French artillery gunners. The
study site has the wettest soils of the four. A perched water table is
present due to the marl-type limestone that is sequenced above an
aquitard layer of highly impermeable clay-rich shale, was present at the
time of sampling (Setember, 2004) (Montagne 2003). Here, the limestone
contains a high amount of silt, lowering its permeability, and is situated
over the still less permeable layer of bedrock, leading to perched water
conditions.

Disturbance, in the form of large intertwined crater complexes, at
this location covers from over a third (Plot 2, 33.0%) to nearly half (Plot 1,
45.1%) of the soil surface (Table 6). Clusters of several large craters
coalesced into one large crater complex are numerous; often smaller
craters dent the larger craters within the complexes (Figures 41, 42). At
the time of sampling (September, 2004), many of the craters were ﬁlled
with water, thereby making crater counts in some of the complexes
diﬁicult for two reasons. First, the water in some of the crater bottoms
was so high that the crater could not be entered for proper

measurement. Secondly, when crater bottoms could be entered, the

113

water covering the bottom obscured the individual craters within the
complex in part due to the perched water conditions and frequent
standing water within the craters (Figure 43); individual craters have
since ﬁlled in with sediment, becoming large, shallow, crater complexes.
While the average crater depth for the two locations was 43.6 cm (Table
7), very few craters exceeded 50 cm in depth and many were less than 40
cm deep.

The crater complexes at the Hoseland site have a curving, sinuous
oval-like pattern and often link up with other crater complexes,
surrounded only by islands of trees. I was rarely able to measure the
individual craters within these complexes. Instead, the collection of
individual craters within the complex was measured together as one
large ‘super crater’. For example, in plot one at this location, the crater
with the maximum area of 50.3 m2 (Table 8) is not an individual crater,
but instead a complex of many craters that have merged.

Surrounding the many water-ﬁlled, crater complexes are islands of
small stunted trees growing out of the crater hummocksl4 (Figure 43). As
stated earlier, disturbance at this location was so heavy that counting
the actual number of craters proved difficult and the amount of
disturbance recorded in Tables 6 and 7, along what is shown in ﬁgures

41 and 42, should be considered a minimum estimate of the actual

 

‘4 The name Hoseland was assigned to this site because of the strange, twisted, hose-like appearance of the
trees growing out of the hummocks dividing the craters as seen in ﬁgure 30. For lack of a better term, this
name stuck and the site received its “ofﬁcial” name.

114

degree of disturbance. A better representation of the surface disturbance
can be seen in Appendix Figures A7 and A8, or the typical transect
provided in ﬁgure 44, where individual craters as well as the large,
shallow crater complexes tens of meters across can be observed in cross-
section. The surface is also noticeably more disturbed than those
surfaces at the previous study sites to the north. For example, while the
number of craters krrr2 at Etraye, Red Zone North, and Red Zone south
are 2380, 4040, and 2260 respectively, the number of craters km:2 , at
Hoseland jumps is a much higher 4760 km-Z. Also, keep in mind that
crater counts here are conservative at best and do not capture the true
nature of ground disturbance. Many of the ﬂatter areas are due to the
area ‘smoothing out’ from years of constant ﬂooding which ﬁlls the
craters and ﬂattens out the hummock crests.

With time, individual craters within the complexes will likely
become less discemable and the area will contain large sinuous
depressions divided by hummocks that contain the main woody
vegetation. However, with more time, these depressions may ﬁll in with
material in the hummocks and the areas could ‘ﬂatten out’ and return to
something approaching its original state. In sum, this is a process that I
see in the future ﬂattening the surface, and thus reverting the surface

back to its original stat.

115

     

~.,A .‘x.

Figure 41. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,

Hoseland study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative
and do not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The
50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions
of crater sizes.

       
 
  

.. 4....-.V- 2.1.1

gland stud)
‘ Eireitioﬂby
9:1." {$343311

. p“)

 

 

Figure 42. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two,

Hoseland study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best, conservative
and do not represent the actual number of craters within the plot. The
50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in proportions
of crater sizes.

116

  

Figure 43. Stunted tree growth among water ﬁlled craters at the
Hoseland study plot on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author's Collection, May 2003

 

 

0 2 4 6 8101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

 

 

 

Figure 44. Transect 2 from Hoseland study plot one, as a typical example
of surface microtopography at the Hoseland study site. The transect
shows numerous indiscernible crater complexes along the horizontal
axis.
Thiaumont Platform

Surface disturbance is greater at the Thiaumont Platform than at
any of the other study sites (Tables 6, 7, 8). The size of the craters as well
as the area of disturbance clearly shows that this study site contained
the highest amounts of disturbance (Table 6, 7, 8). The site is on high
ground (Figure 45) near the terminal limit of the German advance, where

C

117

stalemate conditions prevailed throughout most of the battle. Three forts,
part of the Place de Verdun (Fortress of Verdun), exist in the vicinity: Fort
Souville, Fort Douaumont, and Fort Vaux, along with numerous
fortiﬁcations on the Thiaumont Platform (Figures 12, 20). These
fortiﬁcations were all highly contested and were continual targets of both
the French and German heavy artillery (Figure 46). Massive craters from
420 mm and 380 mm siege guns, each exceeding 10 meters in diameter,
blanket the platform and surrounding area. Disturbance in this area was
so complete that after the battle, no trees were left standing (Home,
1993). Historical documentation of the complete deforestation is
supported by data on forest destruction following WWI (Graves 1918).
Contemporary signs of forest cover destruction are also evidenced by the
stunted, shrublike vegetation that has grown in place of the pre-war
forests. _N_9_ areas of undisturbed soil remain, and bedrock is often deeper
than 10 meters, due to the millions of artillery shells that pulverized the
surface over months of ﬁghting (Montagne, 2003). The original micro and
meso topography of the surface of the Thiamont platform has literally
been completely altered by these millions of artillery rounds. The area
has remained unforested because it is part of the Thiaumont memorial
and therefore kept in herbaceous vegetation by frequent mowings and
other forms of landscape maintenance. Small pockets of wetland
vegetation occupy some of the craters, many of which contain standing

water throughout the year (Figure 47). The unforested parts of the

118

Thiaumont Platform were chosen for study because the forest vegetation
surrounding the vicinity of the memorial is so thick that movement in it

is next to impossible.

 

 

 

Figure 45. Due north view of Thiaumont Platform study site (red
dot). Vertical exaggeration is 3X and the area is 6X4 km.

119

  
     

Figure 46. Aerial image showmg crater disturbances and trench works
on the Thiaumont platform in 1916. Source: Authors collection, taken
from Verdun memorial museum.

3.,

Figure 47. Cattails (Typha spp) growing in water-ﬁlled crater at the
Thiaumont Platform site on the Verdun, France battleﬁeld. Source:
Author's collection, September 2004.

120

Obtaining a count of the actual number of craters, along with
crater dimensions, on the Thiaumont study plots proved impossible due
to the shear number of craters and the swampy conditions in the
bottoms of many craters and crater complexes. The crater disturbance
plots in Figures 48 and 49 may, therefore, be misleading because no
original remnants of the surface remain. The entire study site, along with
the remainder of the platform, is one mass of interconnected crater
complexes. Large depressions, with multiple craters within them (‘Super
Crater’ complexes), are often divided by uneven hummocky ridges (Figure
50). By deﬁnition, a super crater complex is one that is a large depression
exceeding 10 m in diameter that contains larger craters exceeding ﬁve
meters in diameter, with smaller craters within the larger craters in the
complex.

As with the crater complexes at the Hoseland study site, the large
crater volumes here do not represent individual craters, rather they are
volumetric estimates of many large craters within the ‘super crater’
complexes. Crater counts in plot two are higher only because less of the
plot’s craters were under standing water and therefore more accessible
for sampling; plots one and two were 60 and 87 percent disturbed,
respectively (Table 6). Surface disturbance at both of the study plots
should actually register 100%, since no undisturbed area of the surface
is remaining. The recorded disturbance is based on discrete craters that l

was able to identify and measure. Dividing the craters are large

121

hummocks with small craters denting even their surfaces. Although I
tried to count each crater in each plot, the results indicate that a true
crater count was not achieved.

A better representation of the surface disturbance at the
Thiaumont study site can be seen in the transect line, taken from plot
one (Figure 51). Figure 51 shows that the original surface has been
completely altered and craters are separated only by uneven hummocks.

Appendix ﬁgures A9 and A10 provide the slope proﬁles for each of the

transects in the two study plots.

 

Figure 48. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot one,

Thiaumont Platform study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best,
conservative and do not represent the actual number of craters within
the plot. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in
proportions of crater sizes.

122

 

Thiaumont Plot 2

  
  

 

 

 

Figure 49. Crater disturbance patterns on study plot two,

Thiaumont Platform study site. Crater counts on this plot are, at best,
conservative and do not represent the actual number of craters within
the plot. The 50 meter scale bar is provided as reference to differences in

proportions of crater sizes.

Figure 50. Craters and hummocks dividing multiple crater complexes at
Thiaumont Platform study site on Verdun, France Battleﬁeld. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004.

123

 

 

0 2 4 6 8101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

 

 

 

Figure 51. Transect 2 from Thiaumont Platform study plot one as typical
example of surface microtopography at the Thiaumont Platform study
site. The transect shows numerous indiscernible crater complexes along
the horizontal axis.
Summary: Objective One

The spatial character and variations in the magnitude of
disturbance at the ﬁve disturbance study sites can be attributed to the
following four variables: (1) location of armies in relation to the front, (2)
degree of stagnation, (3) topographic location of armies, and (4) geologic
characteristics of the site. The variables that exerted the most inﬂuence
on the magnitude of disturbance were the location of armies in relation
to the ﬁghting (front lines), and the degree of stagnation in terms of the
battle itself. For example, Etraye received very little disturbance due to
its location being far from the center of ﬁghting and the ﬂuid nature of
movement when disturbance occurred in the area. Red Zone North,
although somewhat removed from the center of ﬁghting, had a
reasonably high amount of disturbance due to the heavy artillery
barrages it received when the battle opened on February 215‘, 1916. Red
Zone south was closer to the center of ﬁghting but its topographic

location likely prevented it from receiving the disturbance that the other

124

areas in the vicinity were subjected to. Hoseland is located on a piece of
high ground and was, therefore, a target for artillery. Craters at this
location, due to the presence of standing water in crater bottoms for
most of the year, have merged together into large, shallow crater
complexes. Finally, Thiaumont Platform, the most disturbed of all the
sites, was a highly contested area where stagnant conditions persisted
through months of ﬁghting. Crater counts at this location, as at
Hoseland, were extremely high, and yet represent minimum disturbance
estimates. Counts were difficult to obtain due to the near total
disturbance of the study sites. In summary, both the crater plots and the
transect data show that disturbance magnitude differs predictably
among the ﬁve sites, and a spatial examination of their distribution
within the study plots clearly helps understand the dynamics of the

battle and how it relates to the variables of disturbance.

Objective Two

The results stemming from research objective one (above) focused
on the disturbance characteristics of the soilscape 88 years after
disturbance, and the variables that contributed to that disturbance. In
this section I will report the data associated with my second research
objective, which centers on soil development in those disturbed portions
of the battleﬁeld. I will focus this discussion on soil development within

and near craters, around three main topics:

125

(1) How soil development differs within the crater proper, through a
comparison of soil development on the crater side vs. the crater bottom;

(2) How the developmental pathway of soils within craters differs in

kind from undisturbed soils adjacent to the crater

(3) How much soil development has occurred in the past 88 years

following initial disturbance, through a discussion of chemical and
physical indicators of soil development.

I begin this section with pedon descriptions taken from crater
bottoms and crater sides, as well as undisturbed sites at each of three
study sites: Red Zone, Bois de Thill, and Etraye. I conclude the section
with a discussion of analytical results meant to assess the degree of soil
development within the craters and compare that to development in

undisturbed soils adjacent to craters.

Soil Pro Desc ‘ tions

Three soils in and near craters at each of three study sites (Red
Zone, Bois de Thill, and Etraye) were sampled and described (nine
craters total). The craters at each study site were selected to be
representative of typical small, medium, and large craters at that
particular site (Table 9). Smaller and larger craters were always present
at each of these sites, but were not deemed representative of the typical

range of crater sizes. Detailed descriptions of all nine pedons are reported

126

in Appendix B. In the discussion below, each study site is discussed

according to the order in which it was sampled.

Table 9: Dimensions of, and soil type within, excavated craters on the Verdun, France

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

battleﬁeld.

Study Site Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Depth Soil Type
(Crater #) (cm) (cm) (cm)

Red Zone 1 620 640 106 Calcic Brown
Red Zone 2 232 256 38 Calcic Brown
Red Zone 3 396 402 59 Calcic Brown
Bois de Thill l 430 352 52 Psuedogley
Bois de Thill 2 396 362 44 Psuedogley
Bois de Thill 3 276 282 36 Psudogley
Etraye 1 356 320 57 Rendzina
Etraye 2 470 474 103 Rendzina
Etraye 3 472 476 104 Rendzina
Red Zone

Soils at this study site are well drained and support mainly

 

European Beech forest. The soils are thicker than most soils in the study
area, and classify as Calcic Brown Soils (French Classiﬁcation System).
Crater bottoms have accumulated large amounts of leaf litter, branches,
and other forms of organic, forest debris (Figure 52). Within the craters, a
thick layer of unaltered leaf litter, usually ~10 cm of thickness, has
accumulated on the soil surface. Generally, the combined thicknesses of
the O and A horizons are greater on the crater bottoms compared to the
crater sides and undisturbed soils (Figure 53). The thicknesses of the O

horizons on the crater sides are usually approximately half (~6 cm) of

127

those on the crater bottoms; the O horizons on the undisturbed soils are

approximately 4 cm thick (Appendix B).

   

7 ’ , a" . mgr,“ .. _‘ ,.; ,, ..
Figure 52. Excavation of crater two at the Red Zone soil development
study site. The crater, as with other craters at the site, contains large
amounts of forest litter in the form of branches and leaves. Source:
Author‘s collection, September 2004.

A sharp boundary exists between the O horizons and the A
horizons within soils in the crater bottoms, sides, and undisturbed soils.
The boundary between the O and A horizons for each of these pedons in
all three craters was either abrupt/ smooth or clear/ smooth (Appendix
B). The distinctness of the boundary, although not apparent in the
Appendix data, is stronger in the craters than in the undisturbed soils

(Figure 53). The A horizon in the undisturbed soils occasionally contains

128

lenses of limestone gravel charmers in its lower portion. The gravel layers

are a likely result from ejecta thrown from the nearby crater at the time

of disturbance.

   

.l err-V. .rv _. .3". ‘kﬁ ' .- r \
g y) '~ :‘~,'_ 9‘: 1*: , ' W -1
Figure 53. Proﬁle of excavated crater (crater one) at Red Zone soil
development study site. Note thick 0 and A horizon in the crater bottom.
Crater bottom is at top—center of the image where the orange measuring

tape is located. Source: Author’s collection, September 2004.

 

129

Now after 88 years of bioturbative activity and forest litter cover,
the gravel has been incorporated into the soil proﬁle. The gravel is now
beneath the surface because organisms, such as earthworms, have a
sorting effect on the soil, thus contributing towards horizon development
(Johnson et al. 1987; Johnson et al. 2005; Whitford 1999). Continuing
with earthworms as an example, the worms are able to move smaller
particles upward as they track through the soil, but unable to move the
larger clasts of gravel, thus the gravel that was thrown upon the surface
has now been buried and incorporated into the soil column.

Gravel is also abundant in crater bottoms, and these coarse
fragments generally increase in abundance and size with depth (Figure
54). For example, in the crater bottoms the O horizons contain no gravel,
the A horizons 5-250/0 coarse fragments, and the C horizons 80-90%
coarse fragments (Appendix B). Soils in the crater bottoms are weakly
developed and either contain O and A horizons directly above weathered
bedrock (now C horizon material) or contain a very weak B horizon, as
was apparent in the third crater excavated at this study site. A weak B
horizon exists within the third crater at the Red Zone site, as evidenced
by its reddish color (10 YR 5 /4). It also had developed moderate, ﬁne,
sub-angular blocky structure and ﬁrm consistency, as compared to the
more yellow colored (2.5 YR 7/ 2) C horizon with its weaker structure
(weak, ﬁne to very—ﬁne sub-angular blocky) and consistency (very friable)

in the C horizon material below (Figure 55).

Figure 54. Soil in the bottom of crater one at Red Zone soil development
study site. Note that coarse fragment content increases with depth.
Source: Author's collection, September 2004.

 

 

Figure 55. Weakly developed B horizon between 20 and 40 cm depth, in
the bottom of crater three, Red Zone study site. Area beneath the 60 cm

mark is in shadow. Source: Author's collection, September 2004.

132

The C horizon material within the craters at this site represents
parent material that was once bedrock prior to disturbance 88 years ago.
Now, the layer of soil that once protected the bedrock beneath from
signiﬁcant weathering and soil forming processes is gone, due to the
artillery blast that exumed the sediments, thus forming the crater. Since
the battle, the bedrock, now within the craters, has taken on a
signiﬁcantly weathered appearance and characteristics. The
unweathered bedrock is hard limestone; material had to be chipped out
with a geologic hammer for examination. In contrast, the weathered C
horizon has a weathered saprolitic appearance and could be broken into
smaller pieces without tools, manually. The saprolite also contained
weathering rinds on bedrock clasts, which was broken down into clay
with coarse fragments along the fracture lines. The weathered C horizon
material grades gradually into unweathered bedrock with depth. The
weathering seems to follow fracture lines in the limestone bedrock,

probably generated from, or at least exacerbated by, the artillery blast.

Bois de Thill

Soils here are poorly drained with evidence of redoxirnorphic
features (e.g. reddish areas where iron in the soil has been oxidized with
mottles of grey where iron is in a reduced state) clearly evident
throughout the proﬁle (Figure 56). Poor drainage is a result of a

seasonally high, unconﬁned water table and clay textures with low

133

permeabilities. The heavy clay soils classify as Psuedogleys (French
Classiﬁcation System).

0 horizons only rarely occur within the crater bottoms due to the
extremely high amount of bioturbation, mainly earthworms, which act to
incorporate the raw organic material into the mineral soil and thereby
facilitate its breakdown. The high amount of earthworm activity at this
site was surprising, considering the evidence of a high water table. Casts
formed by the earthworm activity have led to the development of strong
granular structure within A horizons at this site. The A horizon in each of
the craters excavated is thickest in the centers of the crater bottoms,
thinning as it approaches the crater side and the undisturbed adjacent
soils on the nearby upland, where it is thin ( ~20 cm) and not as
apparent (Figure 57 ; Appendix B). The undisturbed A horizons were not
as dark and did not have the abrupt horizon break to the Cg horizon
below like the A horizons in the craters (Figure 58; Appendix B). Instead.
the A horizons would blend into the B horizon below them with no
discemable break in the boundaries. Using crater l as an example, the
thickness of the A horizon in the crater bottom was 24 cm, in the crater
side the A horizon was 19 cm thick, and in the undisturbed soil it was 22
cm. The A horizon in the undisturbed soil was nearly as thick as, but it
was not as dark (10 YR 3/2) as the A horizon in the crater (10 YR 2/1) as
seen in Figure 57 and the data provided in Appendix B. Beneath the A

horizons on crater bottoms are Cg horizons containing mainly oxidized

134

iron concentrations in the upper portions and reduced iron
concentrations in the lower proﬁle. Depths to predominately reduced iron
concentrations increases as distance from the crater bottom increases,
i.e., up the crater sides. In the undisturbed soils, weak Bg horizons can
be observed. Signs of redoxymorphic features are apparent in the C
horizons as well.

The soils at the Bois de Thill site do not appear to be as developed
as the soils at the Red Zone site. Horizonization boundaries are
discemable by a color contrast that separates the darkly colored A
horizons from the gleyed horizons below (Appendix B). Although there are
earthworm casts that penetrate into the upper portions of the gleyed
horizons, the poorly drained conditions at this site conﬁne earthworm
activity to the upper portions of the soil. The limited depth of earthworm
activity is apparent not only in the color contrast between the horizons,
but also by the structure of the soil, that changes from a moderate
granular structure in horizon A to a moderate subangular blocky

structure in the B and C horizons below (Appendix B).

135

Figure 56. An A horizon overlying the redoxymorphic features in a Cg
horizon, on crater side within crater one at the Bois de Thill soil
development study site. Source: Author's collection, September 2004

 

Figure 57. Excavated trench in crater one at the Bois de Thill soil
development site. displaying a thick A horizon over a Cg horizon.
Boundary is situated at the 30 cm depth. Source: Author’s collection,
September 2004.

 

Figure 58. Undisturbed soil proﬁle at Crater three. Bois de Thill soil
development study site. The golf tee at the 20 cm depth indicates the
boundary between the A and B horizons while the golf tee at the 55 cm
mark indicates the boundary between the B and C horizons. Source:
Author’s collection, September 2004

138

 

Etraye

Soils at this study site are Rendzinas; they are shallow soils that
developed out of a ‘pure’ limestone bedrock with little residium (Figure
59). The Rendzina soils at this site support mainly European Beech
forest. In some of the deeper craters, standing water is present
throughout most of the year due to a seasonally perched water table
(French Forest Service, unpublished data). The craters I excavated and
sampled were not inﬂuenced by the seasonal water table and contained
only minimal amounts of redoxymorphic features (Appendix B). Due to
the shallowness of the soils to bedrock, the depth of most of the craters
is limited (Table 9), except for those stemming from large caliber artillery
rounds. Large amounts of bioactivity, mainly from earthworms, had
removed most of the organic material from the soil surface by the time of
sampling. Worm casts and middens were omnipresent within the study
area. An O horizon was observed within only two of the three crater
bottoms (craters one and two). The O horizon thickness in these crater
bottoms was ﬁve and four cm thick, respectively.

A horizons are thickest on the crater bottoms and are situated
above a highly weathered C horizon comprised of fragments of limestone
bedrock, clay peds, with tongues of organic matter extending down
between fractures in the limestone bedrock. Using crater two as an
example, the A horizon on the crater bottom is 28 cm thick, the Cr

horizon below extends to 43 cm, below which lies mostly unweathered

139

limestone bedrock (Figure 60). In craters one and two, no B horizon was
recorded, the soil consisted of an A horizon above a highly weathered C
horizon (Appendix B). In crater three, I noted a weakly developed B
horizon that was apparent by its reddish color (10 YR 4 / 4) in comparison
to the darker (10 YR 3/ 2) A horizon above and the more yellow colored
(10 YR 5/ 6) C horizon below (Appendix B). Post-war bioactivity and
percolation of water has led to thick tongues of organic material
penetrating well into fractures in the limestone bedrock, likely associated
with the effects of the artillery blast. Bedrock along the sides of these
tongues of organic matter has weathered to a clay-like composition with
embedded rock fragments ranging in size from small gravel to large
cobbles. The fragments of rock generally increase in size moving down

the proﬁle.

140

 

Figure 59. Trench ( solid line proﬁle) extending across crater one (edge
deﬁned by dotted line) at the Etraye soil development study site. Note the
thin nature of the soil and lack of a B horizon. Also note thickness of A
horizon within crater (left center of image).

      

.
A?“ - -r, .

Figure 60. An A horizon above C horizon material (below 25 cm) that,
before disturbance, was unweathered limestone bedrock, at crater two at
Etraye soil development study site. Note the smeared clay (right of tape)
indicating weathering of the former limestone bedrock to right of tape.

.33 f
. _ “
"".' .1.

141

Summary: pedon descriptions

Soils within craters at each of the three study sites contained
substantially darker A horizons than those undisturbed soils adjacent to
the crater bodies. At most of the study sites, with the exeption of craters
at Bois de Thill, the A horizons were also thicker in crater bottoms
compared to the soils adjacent to the craters. Although the A horizons at
Bois de Thill were thicker than on the crater bottoms, they were not
nearly as dark and did not have the distinct boundary delineations as
those soils within the crater. The A horizons were generally thickest at
the crater bottom and thinned out progressing towards the crater rim.
Organic horizons followed the same pattern as A horizons at the Red
Zone site, but were generally absent at the Bois de Thill and Etraye sites.
The lack of organic horizons at these two sites was likely due to the high
amounts of bioturbation that rapidly incorporates the organic matter into
the A horizon.

Soil development within craters at the Etraye and Red Zone sites
was apparent by the development of an A horizon, several weakly
developed B horizons in crater bottoms, and by the presence of a C

horizon that once, prior to disturbance, unweathered limestone bedrock.

142

Lab Analysis

Texture

Soils from each of the three study sites contained large
percentages of clay and had USDA textures that ranged from clay loam to
clay (Appendix C). Soil textures at the Red Zone site were loamy (~50%
sand, 25% silt, and 25% clay); soil textures at Bois de Thill fell within the
clay textural class (~20% sand, 20% silt, and 48% clay); soils at Etraye
ranged from clay loams (~25% sand, 45% silt, and 30% clay) to clays (~
15% sand, 35% silt, and 50% clay). The thick O horizons on crater
bottoms at the Red Zone site (and the crater bottom in crater three at
Etraye) did not contain enough mineral content in the sample to for a
particle size analysis to be performed at the 10 cm depth. Since the
horizons at this depth contain mainly ﬁbric organic material and little
mineral material, they classiﬁed as Oi horizons, only organic carbon
content and pH analysis were run on samples containing primarily
organic matter. Soil textures were fairly uniform throughout each of the
soil proﬁles and clay content shows little to no increase with depth
(Figure 61). For example, at the Etraye site, craters two and three have
soil textures that are classed as clay throughout the proﬁle (with the
exception of the undisturbed 50 cm depth in crater three). Clay content
in each of these craters ﬂuctuates randomly between 30 and 70 percent
clay (Appendix C). At the Bois de Thill site, clay content in each of the

craters is also relatively high, between 26 and 57 percent (Appendix C).

143

The 26% clay percentage is an anomaly, from a sample on one the crater
bottoms that contained a lens of sandy material. Without this number,
clay content actually ranges between 37 and 57 percent. Soils at the Red
Zone site had the largest variance of textural classes and clay content.
Clay content in these soils ranges from anywhere between 9 and 55
percent. Also apparent in Figure 61 is that the differences in clay content
between the crater bottom, side, and undisturbed soil are random.

These data show that clay content is (l) a signiﬁcant component of
the parent material at each of the study sites, and (2) that translocation
of clay particles is not signiﬁcant enough to be measurable. I had
originally speculated that an increase in clay content with depth would
serve as an indicator of soil development. The depth plots in Figure 61
and the particle size data in Appendix C clearly illustrates that the
parent material, in these instances, contains signiﬁcant amounts of clay.
A signiﬁcant amount of clay would have to be translocated before any
notable changes occurred. In addition, the calcium in the limestone also
acts to retard lessivage (Duchaufour 1982). In clay rich soils such as
these, this would probably take a much longer period of time than soils

that consisted of coarser textured parent material.

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 'i'?' I l ljvg. .lTrwf'rijr 1 v..:vlvr.r"'r
I E :'
l3 5

2d,. |' 20)- i 20- a
r i: Red Zone t... Red Zone Red Zone
I '-. Crater 1 Crater 2 Crater 3

30_ l 1 - 30— 1 30; q
l :'
'

4ou : § _ 4d, a 40_ a
| i l
| E l

50 : 5 .11 .1 1.1. 11. 5 r r

o

‘50 75‘ 100 o‘ ‘ A‘so“ ‘A75“' 300

 

 

 

   

    
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104...I..“.T...,...r 10....I..." 1 .,+‘2‘,....,rT-+
I IE
1 l3
m- 1‘ ' -1 20— d 2G)- ‘ —r
.,r \
30~ . . ~ 30- I ~ 30+— '?I -
Bors de Til" Bois de Thil " . Bois de Thill
Cratert Crater2 ,.-‘ ICrater3
4o_ 40_ i 40. r ..
:' I
.-’ I
50 50....1141 -1 5 .i.4"1. .11....1...a
O 25 50 75 100 O 25 100 0 25 50 75 100
10 T' l 10 T 1"Y'ILrI’T‘I‘r' 10 ﬁT'T"!
20- a 20- .1 201.
Etraye Etraye : Etraye
C rater 1 Crater 2 ,: I Crater 3
30- - 30L 30L
40.. _ 40 40)—
w .‘r.+i.1ia.. 50 50....1J:
O 50 75 100 0 25 SO 75 100 O 25
- . Crater Bottom
Soul Development. .
o ——— Crater Srde
/o Clay ......... Undisturbed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 61. Verdun soil development as shown by the clay contents at
sampled depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm.

145

pH

Soil pH values increased with depth in each pedon sampled at the
three study sites (Figure 62; Appendix D). This increase in pH with depth
in the disturbed soils within the crater, as well as in undisturbed soils
adjacent to the crater, indicates that a measureable amount of soil
development, especially with regard to leaching and acidiﬁcation, has
occurred in the 88 years since disturbance. The pH of the undisturbed
soils is generally lower (~0.5 pH) than the pH of the soils within the
craters, indicating that the disturbed soils are not as developed or
leached as are the undisturbed soils (Figure 62; Appendix D). At each
study site the rate of change in soil pH with depth between the crater
bottom, side, and undisturbed soils is fairly consistent.

Soil pH values at the Bois de Thill site are lower than the pH
values at Etraye and Red Zone due to the more acidic nature of the
parent material at Bois de Thill. For example, in the bottom of crater one
at Bois de Thill the pH at 10 cm is 5.58 while the pH is 7.23 at 50 cm
depth (Appendix D). In contrast, pH in the bottom of crater one bottom at
Etraye is 7.38 while the 50 cm pH value is 7.56 (Figure 62; Appendix D).
These differences in pH are attributable to the differences in parent
material between the sites. Parent material at Bois de Thill is colluvium,
consisting mostly of clayey sediment derived from the bedrock of the
Woerve valley, whereas the parent material at Red Zone and Etraye is

dominantly limestone residuum. While shale contains minerals that lean

146

towards the acidic side of the Ph scale, the primary component of
limestone, CaCOs is a mineral that is basic, resulting in much higher Ph
values.

The change in pH with depth on both undisturbed soils and within
craters is less at Etraye and Red Zone because the high clay contents
and the limestone bedrock tend to buffer the changes in pH at the latter
two sites. Nonetheless, the fact that pH changes this noticeably with
depth in these highly buffered limestone soils is an indication that the
basic cations weathered from the minerals that comprise the limestone
are being leached out of the proﬁle. The high concentrations of organic
matter and focus of water movement in the crater bottoms likely
contributed to the rapid lowering of pH levels in the upper portions of the
soil proﬁle. In locations where there was an organic horizon such as the
craters at the Red Zone site, the organic matter contained a pH value
that was around 7.0 (Appendix D). The neutral value of the pH in these
organic horizons likely contributed towards lowering the pH values of the
normally more basic pH values associated with a limestone soil (Schaetzl

and Anderson 2005).

147

 

 

 

   
  
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 ""t""t"'
20'- d
FledZme
Craterz
30)- q
40— ..
so i. 1.1.. .
4 5 9
10 a. 'ﬁl .
a, \
so 4
F 0'...
mt q
0.. I d
BasdeThll
Crater2 -.
so4 ‘éh‘iq
10v "1' tweawﬁ
5.!
Z) 1“
h— { ‘
Etraye 1|
Crater3 at
_ '.-,l A
30 I
I
.0- 1‘ ,
l
t
A A‘ AA ‘ ‘ a) 4411 414 .rL. L
4 S 7 8 9 4 5 7 9
Soil Development: ——- Crater Bottom
-—— Crater Side
pH --------- Undisturbed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 62. Verdun soil development as shown by pH levels at sampled
depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm

148

Organic Carbon

Organic carbon (OC) contents are signiﬁcantly higher within crater
soils when compared to undisturbed adjacent soils at each of the three
study sites (Figure 63; Appendix D). In all but one crater (crater one at
Etraye), the organic carbon contents are notably higher in the crater
bottom soils than in the soils on the crater sides. The large spikes of
organic carbon content in the upper reaches of the proﬁle in the craters
at Etraye and Red Zone are from samples taken from O horizons.

These OC data illustrate that signiﬁcant amounts of organic matter
are collecting within the crater bottoms at each of the study sites. These
concentrations of OC show up as established organic horizons or as A
horizons with signiﬁcant amounts of OC. For example, the soils in each
of the crater bottoms at the Red Zone site each contain an O horizon
between 8 and 15 cm thick above an A horizon that extends at least
another 15 cm in depth. At the Etraye and Bois de Thill sites, although
an O horizon was not present (with the exception of craters one and
three at Etraye), there was still a signiﬁcantly higher amount of OC in the
crater bottom when compared to the undisturbed adjacent soils. Not only
does the development of O and A horizons serve to indicate the very
beginnings of soil formation in formally exposed unaltered bedrock, but
also that soil development on the crater bottoms is different than the

adjacent undisturbed soils.

149

 

 

 

     
  

 

 

     
 
    

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
 
   

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1,0 i‘IIIITFII 1q—ﬁ—T—V|"| II
If :
2 . . -
Red Zone Red Zone Red Zone
Crater 1 Crater 2
3 _1 .. q
4 - q -t
5.11111411111 Errirrrrrrnr errrrJ_I_,|_L_,
061218232935 061218232915 61218232935
1 [fill-111111 10 A541111 III I 1 TiAFT I I I I I II
: ‘ ‘
:I I!
20!- a) q m) . . -r db”: . .1
IE Bois de Thil BOIS de Imu f BOIS de Thil
'5 Crater 1 Crater 2 ,- Crater 3
" 3) - ”hr: 4
l5
f
.0 4m: .
:i
so 5'
:5 .5 We;
1|?T filllll 1OIIiI‘I‘ILIIIITI 1olliflT'lIl ‘T
: - I;
E! ’5
201- .g -4 zqr- -I Z))- i": q
, 3 Etraye Etraye ,5’ Etraye
I 5 Crater 1 Crater 2 .5 Crater 3
30 : '1 aq ml— . _,
40 3 4q 4» .
50 50
l 18 23 36
Soul Development: ___ 32):; 33;”
°/o Organic Carbon ......... Undisturbed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 63. Verdun soil development as shown by organic carbon contents
in soils at sample depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm.

150

Elemental Ratios

The XRF analysis yielded a suite of data on elements from the
sediments collected at each of the sample depths. As stated in my
methods section, I used the percentages of the elemental data to
construct ratios that reﬂect primary mineral weathering. This was done
by comparing elements that reﬂect minerals in the soil that are highly
resistant to weathering to those elements that represent minerals that
are more easily weathered and ‘washed out’ of the soil proﬁle by
weathering and translocation. By using this ratio approach, at sample
depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm, horizons and pedons can be examined
and compared to assess, in general, the amount of weathering that has
occurred. Higher ratios presumably indicate more weathering.

Results from the XRF “weathering” ratios are mixed (Figure 64;
Appendices D, E). Data are not available from several of the crater
bottoms because the samples lacked ample amounts of mineral material
with which to perform the XRF analysis. In this section I will discuss the
Zr+Ti)/(Ca+Mg+K) elemental ratio. Other ratios that placed larger
numbers of mobile elements in the denominator were constructed from
the elemental values derived from the XRF procedure, (Appendices D, E),
but the results were similar. Therefore, I have decided to report on this
simpler ratio that contained elements commonly found in soils formed in

limestone residuum.

151

 

 

.
I‘.
,,,,
.
u
.-
o
I...
.0

5" Red Zone
Crater 1

 

 

Red Zone
Crater 2

 

 

 

20 ' "..f' -r
I .......
I .....
30 l :"
:' Red Zone
Crater 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 10 15 20 5
1 ﬁﬁl I‘ -‘l-' I ‘ I I ‘If 'I = ‘ I" r- I':
\ t: ‘ ; ’I 1:
| ‘-. I 5 ,’ =.
20) I _ 20- .5 - 20- < l _
I I | _- \‘ .'
’ I ,r' \\ :’
I - I .' :
30— q f - - . . g - 30— \ .9 -
\\ 5 Bors de ThIll ,’ 3 .-"‘
-' rater 2 E _.-" , _
40- \\ _ _ 40- ,I 5 _ 40- ,.-|" 8015 de ThIIL
Bois de Thill» .- I :’ ‘ Crater 3
\ I : ‘
Crater 1 \
so
) 5 10 15 20 25

   
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ti+Zr)/(Ca+Mg+K)

 

 

m "1: I I arI—ﬁ m ‘ T5 I'i' I m "Ii" 'I"-‘.‘. I” ‘*T
l I I -.
J. 20 ”'1', 20 ’, "
20 _ ._ _ ' _
I ,’ : Etraye '1 : 5‘:
' . ,’ 5 Crater2 L I
so!I ' ' so- I j .l so I _,I -
I traye ,’ 5' I
I Crater1 I '| .r"'...Etra e
40, ,. -l 40.. , I 4 40- | C Y _
. , l rater 3
I I 5 -
m I I I r . :n .11 . l .1. I r m .n' I I r l
J 5 10 15 20 2 J 5 10 15 20 25 J 5 10 15 25
Soil Development: ___ __ €333,312“
We athenng Ratio ......... Undisturbed

 

 

 

Figure 64. Verdun soil development as shown by the ratio
(Ti+Zr)/(Ca+Mg+K) at sample depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm.

The graphs in ﬁgure 64 reveal that. while a general decrease in

weathering with depth does exist, several trend breaks or anomalies are

152

 

apparent. For example, while soils at the Red Zone site had an overall
trend of lower ratio values with depth, there are several breaks in this
trend within the Etraye and Bois de Thill depth plots. Craters one and
three at the Bois de Thill site have ratio values from the crater side that
are higher at 50 cm depths than the ratio values at the top of the proﬁle.
Ratio values from the Bois de Thill site may have erratic patterns
because the parent material is colluvium and not material weathered in
situ from bedrock below, as is occurring at the Etraye and Red Zone
sites. The colluvium consists of varying stages of weathered material
brought in from higher elevations of the Meuse escarpment to the west.
The elemental ratio graphs (Figure 64) also illustrate that the
undisturbed soils are more leached and weathered than are the
disturbed soils within the craters. Excluding crater three at the Bois de
Thill site, the undisturbed soils generally have higher ratio values than
the soils within the crater. In addition, the undisturbed soils and
disturbed soils within the craters start out with markedly different ratios,
yet coalesce into nearly identical elemental ratios at 50 cm in the
majority of the soil proﬁle bottoms. The equiﬁnality of the ratios suggests
that these lower depths contain ratio values that reﬂect what the
unweathered bedrock, now exposed as the surface of the crater bottoms.
once contained. For example, craters at the Red Zone site contained ratio

values at around 0.5 at the 50 cm depth (Appendix D). At this depth in

153

the crater bottoms the bedrock was unweathered and reﬂects what was
exposed immediately following the disturbance by explosive munitions.
As further support for limited weathering of the now exposed
bedrock in the crater bottoms, the differences between the ratios at the
top and bottom of the proﬁle are not as large as are the ratios for the
undisturbed soils (Figure 64; Appendices D, E). Using crater one from
the Red Zone site as an example, the ratio difference between the 20 cm
(0.69) and 50 cm (0.08) sample depth on the crater bottom is a mere
0.61. In contrast, in the undisturbed soil of this crater the difference in
ratio values between the 10 and 50 cm depth is a much larger 19.42.
Thus, although weathering is occurring within the crater bottom, the
soils within the crater are nowhere nearly as weathered 0as the
undisturbed soils adjacent to the crater. The lack of strong weathering in
crater bottoms is apparent in the other depth plot trends at the Red Zone
site (Fig. 62). (The trend is also somewhat apparent in craters one and
three at the Etraye site (Fig 62).) Depth plots from the craters contain low
ratio values while the undisturbed portions of the proﬁle have much
higher ratios, indicating higher amounts of weathering. Bedrock in the
craters has only recently been exposed and has ‘only’ had 88 years of
exposure to weathering processes. Nonetheless, weathering, leaching and

acidiﬁcation have occurred in the crater soils, indicating that after 88

years, measureable amounts of soil development are apparent.

154

Soil development processes

Pedon descriptions and the resulting data from the analytical
procedures discussed above clearly indicate that some degree of soil
development has occurred within the craters since the battle of Verdun.
After the initial disturbance 88 years ago, there was likely no “soil” in the
crater bottoms, only an exposed face of fractured limestone and rubble.
Since that time, most of the newly exposed surfaces within the craters
have developed thick accumulations of organic matter and the then-fresh
bedrock has weathered somewhat. The early stages of soil development
are indicated by a decrease in pH near-surface horizons (Figure 62;
Appendix D), indicative of acidiﬁcation, weathering and leaching.

Also indicative of soil development is the weathering of materials in
the upper portions of the soil proﬁle and their translocation within the
proﬁle, as indicated by the elemental ratio values generated by the XRF
analysis procedure (Figure 64; Appendices D, E) and the formation of
distinct O and A soil horizons in the crater bottoms. If these indicators of
soil development are examined within the theoretical principles of the
(Runge 1973) energr model, one could conclude that soil formation is
largely driven by gravitational energy, aka water movement through the
soil column.

The energy model,

S=f (o, w. t).

155

assumes that soil development (S) is primarily a function of organic
matter (OM) production (0), the amount of water available for leaching
(w), and time (t). Inﬁltrating water is assumed to be the primary vector
driving soil development. A comparison between soils in the crater
bottoms and the ‘control’ undisturbed soils illustrate this point. The once
unweathered bedrock on crater bottoms is now weathered and contains
thick accumulations of humiﬁed organic matter above it. Over the years,
the crater bottom has acted as a focal point for precipitation, forest litter,
and eroded sediments from the soil surface. Not only does organic matter
tend to concentrate in the crater depressions, but also water associated
with precipitation events and snow melt. The concentrated movement of
water percolates through the accumulations of organic matter and the
energr of its movement tends accelerate the humiﬁcation of that organic
matter (Runge 1973). The bedrock in the crater bottoms has also
experienced accelerated weathering due to the increased focus of water
moving through the crater bottom (Figure 64). The organic matter that
has been deposited in the joints of the bedrock and the organic
complexes that result when the organic material is broken down by
microbial activity help to chemically weather the bedrock. Water
movement through the soil column has removed minerals that
contributed to higher pH values. With the removal of these minerals, and
the accumulation of organic matter, the pH values tend to lower or move

closer to the neutral value of seven. The movement of water is also

156

leaching the proﬁle of soluble minerals which leads to the weathering of
the soil from top down. In this regard, the gravitational energy associated
with water in the Runge energy model clearly is driving soil development,
and this type of development is preferentially stronger within the craters,
where there is a focal point for water movement.

Other processes of soil formation not mentioned in the Runge
model, such as bioturbation and microbial activity, have also largely
contributed to soil development at the Verdun battleﬁeld. The degree of
horizonization, and the rapidity by which the soil horizons formed within
the craters, would not have occurred as it did in the absence of key
biopedoturbation processes. Worm activity is notable deep into the
weathered C horizon material in crater bottoms. Tongues of organic
matter, brought down by earthworms consuming surface litter, penetrate
well into fractures within the C horizon. Clay weathering rinds surround
the organic material brought down into these cracks. The litter that has
accumulated on crater bottoms, when not subjected to high water tables,
is shortly thereafter consumed by earthworms and incorporated into the
soil proﬁle. It can be argued that without this sort of activity in the
craters, they would consist of a layer of leaf litter over a much less
weathered bedrock. Instead the litter inside the craters is mostly broken
down and incorporated into the weathered bedrock. Decomposed organic
matter also produces organic acids that facilitate the breakdown of

bedrock and the soil proﬁle gradually thickens. In conclusion, it is the

157

two processes of bioturbation and the gravitational energy of water that

have shaped the course of soil development within these soils.

Bombturbation as a form of Pedoturbation

As the previous section has demonstrated, pedoturbation has
strongly inﬂuenced soil development within the newly exposed material
in craters. There are numerous forms of pedoturbation that stem from
biologic or physical processes (Hole 1961; Johnson 2005; Whitford and
Kay 1999). The majority of soil mixing is due to biological processes and
these processes are either proanisotropic (horizon forming) or anisotropic
(horizon mixing) (Johnson et al. 1987). Johnson, Domier and Johnson
(2005) have deﬁned four bioturbation process styles: upward
biotransfers, biomixing, cratering, and soil/biomantle volume increases
(Table 10). According to Johnson et al. (2005), through biotransfers and
biomixing processes, conveyor belt and mixrnaster organisms shape
horizons through movement of materials in the soil. Cratering organisms,
such as badgers, skunks, and humans, on the other hand, impact the
surface and destroy soil horizons, thus leading to regressive pedogenesis.
A large surface impact that removes a signiﬁcant amount of surface
material would expose enough unaltered parent material so that soil
formation would be reset to timezero, or the beginning of new soil

formation.

158

Table 10: Bioturbation styles. organismic examples. and effects on soil properties
(Modiﬁed from Johnson et al.. 2005)

 

Bioturbation Process Styles

Examples of
Organisms

Effects on soils and sediments

 

Upward biotransfers of ﬁne-
fraction and small gravels from
the lower soil into the upper
portions by conveyor belt or
moundmaker organisms

some ants, worms.
crayﬁsh. clams.
ground squirrels.
badgers

Loosened, texturally anisotropic
biomantle. contrasts between soil
horizons. biologically driven
particle size differentiation,
surface mounds

 

Blomixing via rnixmaster and
moundmaker organisms that

Moles, pocket
gophers, myriad

Loosened, texturally anisotropic
biomantle, contrasts between soil

 

burrow. wriggle, mix, and /or marine and horizons. material from below
churn material mainly within terrestrial biomantle brought to surface.
the soil invertebrates. surface mounds
humans
Cratering and other surface Badgers, pigs. birds. Surface craters, hollows.
impacting organisms (referred skunks. tree- depressions, shallow licks.
to as crater makers) uprooting. ﬁsh. scratchings. scrapings, sediment
humans burrow collars, surface rubble,

spoil heaps. excavationss

 

 

Soil/biomantle volume
increases by in situ organic
movements. growth.
bioagitations. and
bioaccumulations that occur
mainly within the biomantle.
but also below it through the
whole soil

 

Growth structures of
plants, fungi. algae.
and free living
protocists, and
bacteria

 

Loosened biomantle. soil
rnicrostructural features.
biopellets, biopores. biochannels.
biovugs

 

 

Not mentioned in Table 10 is cratering due to artillery, an activity
that is non-biologic, although tied to the humans. Bombturbation, or the
cratering of the surface by explosive muntions, is a physical
pedoturbative process that is capable of rendering drastic changes to a
soilscape. When a soil surface is subjected to bombturbation, large parts
of the surface impacted by such actions are exhumed to the point where
the unaltered underlying parent material is now frequently exposed and
subject to pedogenic processes. Here is where war differs from other

forms of pedoturbation in regard to its magnitude and extent. Since tree-

159

throw topography closely resembles cratering, I will use it as an example
as a comparison with cratering due to artillery. Following a massive
Windstorm, a forest may be largely disturbed by tree uprooting. thus
creating a pit and mount topography associated with treethrow
pedoturbation. However, unlike the actions of artillery, the wind event
that created the disturbance likely did not uproot 100% of the trees in
the forest nor does it create craters where trees did not exist. Even if the
winds associated with such a storm would uproot a large percentage of
trees in an area, the area covered does not even come close to the area
disturbed by artillery along the western front alone in WWI. In addition,
when tree throw occurs a pit is created where the tree roots were and the
ensuing mound is the tree roots and soil that were pushed up (Schaetzl
1990). When cratering occurs due to artillery, there is no mound
associated with the tree-throw pit. The soil that formally occupied the
crater is ejected outwards and thinly veils the soil surface in a given
radius depending on the size of the munition surrounding the crater.
The cratering of a landscape associated with the actions of war are
also capable of disturbing the soil to much deeper depths than other
forms of pedoturbation. Keeping with tree-throw as an example, the
depth of a tree-throw pit is often limited to the depth of bedrock or of
some other layer that impedes root penetration such as a fragipan or
perched water table (Schaetzl, Burns et al. 1990). When cratering is

caused by light to medium artillery, the disturbance is limited to depth to

160

bedrock. However, when larger artillery rounds are implemented, the
disturbance often penetrates deep into the bedrock. In addition, when an
area is heavily saturated with artillery craters, the disturbance
penetrates deep into what was once solid bedrock, often to depths
exceeding 10 meters as is the case in the vicinity of the Thiaumont
Platform and battleﬁeld forts, where the heaviest ﬁghting occurred
(Montagne, 2003; Figure 12).

In conclusion, although the cratering on the Verdun battleﬁeld
may at times resemble pit and mound topography associated with tree
throw processes, or the landscape may resemble a mima-mound like
surface associated with the activities of rodents, the magnitude and area
of disturbance associated with bombturbation is incomparably larger in
both cases. The implications of widespread bombturbation, although not
yet fully understood, include drastic changes in the way a soilscape

evolves after being subjected to such a disturbance.

Divergence in soilscape evolution

The term ‘Butterﬂy Effect’ refers to a changing course of events due
to some past occurrence. The term originates from a short story in Ray
Bradbury’s Illustrated Man (Bradbury 1967). In that story, a hunter goes
back in time to hunt a Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaur. The hunter deviated
from a strictly intended path and ended up stepping on a small butterﬂy

in the process. The hunter did not know he did this until the group

161

returned back to present time, only to ﬁnd out that humans and life as
we know it were completely altered by this one seemingly small and
insigniﬁcant event. Thus, the term butterfly effect is used to indicate
that, over time, past actions can set events on a completely different
evolutionary path. This concept can also be applied to principles of
landscape evolution following disturbance, such as the disturbance to
the Verdun battleﬁeld (Phillips 1999, 2001).

Prior to WWI, the Verdun landscape consisted of agricultural
valleys and densely covered forested ridges. The sedimentary bedrock
and the regolith above it contained a variety of soils, with most of the
soils being extremely thin due to the nature of the limestone bedrock.
Generally, soils were thickest in the valleys, thinnest on the ridge slopes,
and of varying composition and thickness on the ridge tops. In many
locations along the bottoms of ridge slopes, villages were set up to take
advantage of the many artesian wells in the area (Holstein 2002). The
artesian springs resulted from water percolating through the porous
limestone bedrock, only to become perched on a layer of clayey
limestone, forcing the water to ﬂow laterally until it came in contact with
the ridge bottom (Montagne 2003).

The explosions associated with artillery shells of WWI have
signiﬁcantly altered the surface of the Verdun battleﬁeld. Even 88 years
after this initial disturbance, soil and landscape development have

diverged along an altered path of landscape evolution -the butterﬂy effect

162

of war. Although the activities surrounding soils and their development
such as OM accumulation, leaching, and weathering occurred before
WWI, they now act on the soil in different ways and in vastly different
patterns, inﬂuenced by the highly altered microtopography. Even the
human inﬂuence has been largely reduced. Agricultural villages that
once inundated the area have all but disappeared due to the millions of
craters and unexploded munitions beneath the surface. What was
agricultural land is now covered with forest. In this regard, one could say
that the disturbance has, in one way, allowed the landscape to truly
revert back to its ‘natural’ state. While others have studied anthropogenic
pedogenesis (Beyer et al 2001; Lebebdeva et a1 1995; Roberts 1988), that
is the human impact on soil development, the reversion of this formally
agricultural landscape back into forest is a topic that calls for further
attention and study in the future.

Besides regressive anthropogenic landscape evolution however, the
landscape has evolved in other ways. Instead of smooth slopes that foster
surface runoff, now the ridge slopes are pocked with craters that range in
size from several meters across and 1-2 meters deep to craters that are
15 meters in diameter with depths exceeding 10 meters. The change to
the surface micro and meso topography has had major effects on surface
water ﬂow lines and groundwater inﬁltration, not to mention soil
development rates (Figure 65). Soil development is now enhanced along the

ridge slope (in preferred sites - crater bottoms) due to the increased

163

inﬁltration of water and organic matter contributions (Runge 197 3).
However, in locations where large hummocks divide the craters, the
hummocks likely act in the same manner as tree throw mounds,
shedding water and are experiencing only minimal soil development
(Scheatzl 1990). In some locations that contain geologic conditions
leading to perched water tables, or along some of the lower elevations in
the valleys, many of the crater bottoms are below the water table for a
signiﬁcant portion of the year. Situations like this not only impede soil
development, but they also prevent forest vegetation from taking root
since the trees are deprived of oxygen under such conditions.
Disturbance magnitude varies across the Verdun battleﬁeld,
ranging from severe (where the surface has been completely altered) to
light, where only a few scattered craters dent the surface (Table 1). As
discussed within the literature review in Chapter 2, the manner in which
a landscape evolves following disturbance greatly depends on the
magnitude of disturbance and the overall stability and resilience of that
particular landscape. Landscape stability refers to the overall ability of a
landscape to absorb any type of disturbance without becoming
signiﬁcantly altered while landscape resilience refers to the ability of a

landscape to revert back to its original state following disturbance.

164

 

Undisturbed Verdun
Surface

 

 

Verdun Surface
Following
Explosive Munition
Disturbance

     

 

 

Figure 65. Generalized diagram of divergence in soil developmental
pathways on the Verdun battleﬁeld surface prior to and following
disturbance by explosive munitions.

The magnitude and type of disturbance also determines the
resilience and stability of any particular landscape. Landscapes are
constantly subjected to varying forms of disturbance, whether they are

anthropogenic or natural (Bazzaz 1983; Brunsden 2001. With all of the

165

increasing advances in technologi, the disturbances and changes
wrought by anthropogenic activities have the largest potential to alter
landscapes and landscape appearance (Usher 2001). Here is where the
actions of war, in this case explosive munitions, are a unique form of
pedoturbative disturbance that differ from other forms of bioturbation in
regard to the sheer magnitude and extent of disturbance. The amount of
disturbance that can be inﬂicted by these weapons can be incredible in
very short periods of time (Westing 1980). A forest that contains a diverse
array of soil patterns due to tree-throw processes may be complex
(Schaetzl, Burns, et al. 1990), however that complexity is created by a
process that has been acting on the area over thousands of years. The pit
and mound topography is in varying stages of soil development and the
forest is able to react to these changes accordingly. With cratering
associated with explosive munitions, the change is rapid and the craters
will, according to the duration of the battle, he very similar in regard to
time of disturbance. In addition, as mentioned previously, the cratering
is not limited to where trees exist and is capable of 100% disturbance of
an area as seen by the surveys performed on the Thiaumont Platform
(Figures 49, 50, 51).

Landscape recovery following large magnitude disturbances, such
as war, is often measured using solely bio-ecologic factors — that is
measures of vegetative growth. In the case of Verdun, the landscape may

have revegetated quickly, but is far from full recovery, and nor has its

166

recovery been uniform. While a thick mantle of vegetation now covers the
battleﬁeld, the surface is inundated with millions of small craters, many
of which contain standing water. The millions of crater depressions have
implications for surface hydrology, water table characteristics, and soil
development rates. Bio-ecologic factors may, therefore provide only a
partial picture of landscape recovery. Disturbances to soils and
landforms take much longer to heal; it is important to use data from
them in addition to vegetation as surrogates of landscape recovery.
Examining soil development rates and the amount of cratering on the
Verdun battleﬁeld provide a better assessment of the true resilience and
stability of this landscape, in those disturbed areas upon the battleﬁeld,

the landscape is far from ‘recovering’ back to its original state.

167

Chapter 6
Conclusions

A great deal of geographic literature has focused on the ways in
which the physical environment has altered the outcome of military
campaigns (Doyle and Bennett 2002; Demorlaine 1919; Guth 1998;
Kiersch and Underwood 1998; Winters et al. 1998). However, very little
research has focused on the impacts of war upon the environment. In the
small body of research concerned the impact of war, the focus is on the
immediate effects and relies on bio—ecologic factors to determine the
magnitude and extent. In this research I have forged a new avenue of
study within the realm of geomorphology by examining the impact of
warfare upon the environment with the use of geomorphic and soil
parameters.

The objectives of this Ph.D. research project were to examine, by
using data from soils and geomorphology, (1) the magnitude and
variability of disturbance due to explosive munitions across the WWI
battleﬁeld of Verdun, France, and (2) the degree of landscape recovery
that has occurred in the 88 years since the disturbance. The Verdun
battleﬁeld was chosen over other battleﬁelds to assess post-war
disturbance primarily because (1) it was an area of extreme disturbance
due to the large numbers of and prolonged use of artillery, (2) the time of
disturbance was known to within a year, and (3) the battle occurred

within a fairly conﬁned area.

168

Disturbance magnitude at the Verdun battleﬁeld was based upon
the degree and extent of cratering in a given area, while recovery was
based upon criteria indicative of soil development. The degree of soil
development was largely based upon principles of the Runge (1973)
energy model. Indicators of development included: horizon development,
relative degree of translocation of clay, leaching (removal) of mobile (eg.
Ca, Mg, K) vs. immobile (Zr and Ti) elements, pH, and organic carbon
accumulation. Most studies of landscape disturbance and recovery have
traditionally relied solely upon bio-ecologic factors as an indicator of
landscape recovery. This study examined the changes wrought upon a
catastrophically disturbed landscape through a survey of
microtopography and soil development. While a survey of vegetation
would lead to erroneous assumptions of landscape recovery, the use of
soils and geomorphic data presents a much clearer picture of the actual
changes this landscape has undergone due to the disturbance. This work
also illustrates that when landscapes are disturbed to this magnitude
and extent, they never truly recover and only vary in regard to how much
they differ from the original.

The spatial character and variations in the magnitude of
disturbance at the ﬁve disturbance study was attributed to the following
four variables: (1) location of armies in relation to the front lines, (2)
degree of stagnation in regard to movement of armies, (3) topographic

location of armies, and (4) geologic characteristics of the site. Magnitudes

169

of disturbance were mostly attributable to the ﬁrst two variables
mentioned above.

Signs of soil development within craters were visibly apparent by
the formation of O and A horizons above a C horizon that, prior to
disturbance, was unweathered bedrock. In several locations, such as
crater three at the Red Zone site, a weakly developed B horizon was
observed in the crater bottoms. In addition to visible signs of soil
development in craters, these soils were markedly different than those
undisturbed soils adjacent to the craters. Soils within craters at each of
the three study sites contained substantially darker and thicker A
horizons than those undisturbed soils adjacent to the crater bodies. The
A horizons were generally thickest at the crater bottom and thinned out
progressing towards the crater rim. Organic horizons followed the same
pattern as A horizons at the Red Zone site, but were generally absent at
the Bois de Thill and Etraye sites. The loss on ignition (LOI) procedure
clearly demonstrated that organic carbon amounts generally were
highest within the craters and tapered off moving towards the crater rim.

Soil development within craters was also made apparent by the
data generated in the XRF and pH analysis. Elemental ratios, designated
to signify the degree of weathering in the soil column, displayed trends
that showed weathering (and thus soil formation) within the crater
disturbances. The elemental ratios also indicated that, while weathering

was occurring within the craters, the undisturbed adjacent soils were

170

more weathered than the recently disturbed material exposed in the
crater depressions. The depth plot trends supported the data generated
from XRF analysis by also displaying lower pH values at the top of the
proﬁle that gradually increased with depth. Both the XRF and pH depth
plot trends show the weathering of the soil from the top of the proﬁle
downward.

While other bodies of research have examined soil development
using these parameters on other previously disturbed surfaces, this
study is unique in that it examines the development of a soil 88 years
after the initial disturbance took place, unlike other bodies of research
that examined soil development after several hundred, sometimes
thousands of years. The Verdun battleﬁeld presented itself as a
wonderful opportunity to examine short term disturbance due to the
knowledge of when that disturbance took place to, in some cases, within
month. In addition, the depth of the disturbance exposed previously
unweathered bedrock, thus allowing for a true assessment of the degree
of weathering that occurs in 88 years on a newly exposed surface.

Despite the advantages of Verdun over other battleﬁelds to conduct
a study such as this, many battleﬁelds around the world also need to be
examined to assess the degree of disturbance and recovery within those
areas. More research needs to be done in a variety of climates to
determine how landscapes subjected to the disturbances of war, in this

case explosive munitions, have recovered following those activities. The

171

Vietnam landscape, the deserts of the Middle East, and numerous
islands in the Paciﬁc (see earlier chapters) are just some of many
battleﬁelds around the world that hold promise as we expand this realm
of military geography.

Why study the impact of war upon the environment? As we have
seen, from the beginnings of warfare, the environment has suffered, both
incidentally and intentionally. The actions of war extend far beyond the
various types of disturbances occurring at military training facilities
around the world; war is global, far in scope, and its effects often
recognize no political boundaries. Military geography needs to extend its
traditional boundaries of examining the environmental inﬂuences and
begin to explore the alternate scenario — the results of battle upon the
environment. This sort of research has the promise to open many
avenues of research within the academic realm. With these sorts of
outside inﬂuences, military geography can expand into realms that not
only may promote the advancement of scientiﬁc theories concerning
landscape recovery following disturbance (such as military training
grounds), but also promises to promote the view of military geography

held by those outside the sub-discipline.

172

APPENDICES

173

_

%Q&9%ﬁﬁﬁéﬁ%%%?%%%%%2%%%?%%%%%

_ _ .- P p — _ — _ LI h h

— ___ ___—_—__>-p--— punPrl—l_

—

—

$$QQQQQ§QQQQooeoeaaezo

 

 

 

 

 

 

%
6k
‘35
(A
‘95
‘95
‘5
{is
Q
’5
05
%
%
Q
%
%
%
%
$
2
%
%
%
é
%
%
%
Q
%
9
%
6}
‘91
(1
‘91

 

-

h

p

—

n

p

h

—

b

h

—

 

QﬁﬁéﬁQaaeaeaaezo

 

 

 

 

 

 

09
5’s
‘95
‘15
‘95
‘95
‘5
‘93
C}:
[A
025

— n _ p p - - — h p — —

— p — n _ h pi b L p h h — p n p IF h - _ — _ _ _ - _

%%?%%%%%%%%%?%%%$%$%QﬂﬁQQﬂQQOQao

(

-

$959610

_

—

—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ BE 985m .8qu8; actsm oEnﬁwoaonEomE “3.. x€=oqm<

 

1 .L. r

0mm
Ann
own
mmn
own
won

wmm
5mm
mmm
mmm
own
Em

174

FPka- unpub-L-herPpprn

F p + b b h P h bl - p p P n b p - h h n n P r p p -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

own
now
mmm
mmm
com
«on

0.9
<5’5
‘95
(5
‘95
‘95
‘5
‘95
C1
’5
05
620
‘90
(a
‘90
‘29
‘5‘
’39
as
’0
0e
0e
9e
(a
9e
fa
‘e
0a
CIA
’e
oa
9}
01
(z
'91
‘91
‘1
‘91
C}
’1
01
o

a

e

.9

c

A

a

c)

I

o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p b p p p n b P P P h p P n p P P F b n p p p P n p n P n u p p p p P P P p P n p p p p p p n n -

 

 

 

 

 

l
l

 

 

m BE 935m .8398; Shaw 6298558822 HN< 598%?

mom
son
mmm
awn
com
won

0mm
hmm
mmm
mmm
08
won

175

 

%Q&9%Q&&éﬁ%%%?%%%%%?%%%$%%%%%

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

@%QQQ%Q$QQQQoaeacaaezo

P P

 

L P P P
!
I

run

 

11511

Nun

 

mum

 

vwm

 

 

 

 

mum

’e
%
6'1
‘91
(I
‘91
‘91
‘1
5}
‘1’
’1
01
6‘
<9
\’
I9
‘9
5
t.“
c}
1
0

 

PNm

 

Nun
mmm
van

 

 

mNm

 

 

own

 

rum
NNm

 

mNm
vmm

 

 

B11 mNm

 

 

own

_ BE .55 Z ocoN box .5853; Putnam oEdﬁwomoHoHBE #4 ﬁnd???

176

 

 

c)
9a
C?
’a
0a
6}
6’1
(1

o
I
81110_
516.

910.9,.

0
1
e
.50

no

0

(

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.9
6’5
‘95
(5
‘95
‘95
‘5
(’5
Ch
’5
05
6’0
‘39
(a
‘90
‘10
‘e
{in
‘2‘
’0
0a
0e
0a
(a
9e
‘23
‘e
. ‘52:“
C?
’e
0e
6}
01
(1
‘91
5}
A!
91
C)
I
_ 01
o
a
(
.9
.9
A
a
a
I
o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3..
on
a
in
Uv<

2

now

So

won

an.

E

035m 6.

%

2P

£8

.80

M

no

6N

0:

oz

.5.—

E

Ho

N

wmm

NM
MNM
mN

 

own

177

 

%Q&aﬁﬁﬂﬂéaQ%%?%%%%%?%%%Q%%$%%Q%QQ98969¢090a(scape/o

P P P P P P P IPI P P P P P

P ? P P P

 

can

 

 

Pam

 

 

wNm

 

 

mum

 

 

0mm

%Q%6%Qﬂﬁéa%%%@%%%%%%%%%Q%%%%%Q%QQQQQﬁQCQQoo(eaaaezo

PPPPPPrrPLPPPLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLPPPPrPlP

P

P

P

P

P

r

 

mum

 

Pun

 

mmm
mmm

 

 

omm

%&%Q&&%QQQ%%%%%%%%%®%%%?%%%%$?%QQﬁ®860¢090a(arace/o

 

mNm

 

 

Pm”

 

 

 

awn

 

 

_ 8E .ﬁsom oaoN pom Joomswoct racism 0392555822 um< 595394

awn
I own

 

178

%%&aﬂﬁﬂﬁéaQ%%@%%%%%?%%%é%$%$%é%®®GQQﬁQCQQoo(ecaaezo

 

PPPP
PPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLPPPLLPPPPFPPPPPP ”N”

 

/ mNm

1 LI 0mm

 

 

 

 

Nam

%
6’5
‘95
(5
95
‘95
‘5
95
Q
’5
05
%
%
Q
%
%
e
%
W
e
%
%
%
$
%
9e
2
%
%
é
%
6’1
‘91
(1
‘91
‘91
‘1
'91
C
’1
01
a

a

e

a

$5

5

0

e

I

o

 

P P
P P P P P r P P P P P P P P P L P P P P P P P P P P P P Pr P P P P P P L P P P P P P P P P P P P ”N”

 

II .1... 0mm
Ill—f

 

 

 

 

 

Nmm

%%&aﬁﬁﬁﬁéaQ%%@%%%%%%%%%é%%%%$9%®®QQQQQQQQoa(soaaezo

P P P L P P P P r P P P P P

 

P P P P P P P P P P P P r P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PiPl PIP P P P ”N”

 

mNm

i. in, 0mm

 

'l
>

 

 

1‘ II 5m

 

 

m SE .5nom oeoN box .8853; truism oEqﬁwoaowohoaz “or. x65qg<

179

%%%%$é%®%9%9§9¢0%o0«e05oezo

P P r P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P r P P

%
5’5
‘95
(5
‘95
‘95
‘5
‘95
Q
’5
05
5’0
‘90
(a
‘99
‘19
‘0
‘90
$
’0
00
0e
9a
. (e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now
non
wen
new
mom

 

Non

 

mom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non

 

mom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vow

.I new

 

_ BE dad—owe: .8023; Poi-5m 62925553822 K< 525%?

com

180

 

@Qﬁﬁ%&ﬂﬁéa%%%?%%%%%@%%%Q%%%%%9%QQﬁQQéQéGQoa(9956610

PL P P P P P PP FPP P PP P P P P P P P P

P

P P P P

P

P

Pl P

Pl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%Q&Q&&ﬁ&éﬁ%%%@%%%%%%%%%?%%%%%9%QQQQQéQQQQea(brace/o

PPPPPPrFPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLPPPP

P

P F P P

P P P P

P

 

 

l)

‘

 

 

 

%&&Q%&%QQQ%%%?%%%%%%%%%é%%%%%é%®®Q9960¢990o«095oezo

P P P P P P P P P P

P

P P P

Pl P

P

P P

P

 

 

 

 

all "Ul‘bdl 1'] III!

1?

 

 

 

 

[l]

m BE .9838: .8853; Shaw oEaeuonBBPE uw< ﬁnned“?

men
new
con
mom
own

Now
now
vow
mom
8m

New
mom
vow
new
com

181

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%Q&Qﬁﬁﬁ&%é%%%@%%%%%%%%%$%%%%$é%®%9%959¢090a«0959610

FrPPPPP P P P P P PiPPP PP P

P

PerlPP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%
6’5
‘95
(5
‘95
‘95
‘5
‘95
Q
’5
05
%
%
e
%
%
e
%
Q
%
%
%
%
é
%
$
%
Q
%
2
. 0e

P P P P Pl P P P P P P P

P

P r P F P

 

 

 

 

>‘I/ ll
QIB/\/III|III“

(I/

 

 

 

_ SE .550me Eoﬁsﬁﬁ. .8883; racism 0292358822 uo< 5239s

0mm
Pmm
mmm
mmm
com
Pom

0mm
5mm
mmm
mom
can
Pom

QQQQQﬁQQQQa0(aa5oe1o

mmm
Pmm
wmm
mnm
own
an

182

@%QQQ%Q§Q¢QQea(ocaaezo

rrrrPPPPPPPPPPlPPPPPLPP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9%Q999950¢990919r50e10

P1P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PIP P P P P

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Ill/'2‘) I

 

 

m SE .55me 86ng 40852... Poﬁsm oEQSonBBEE 63x xmpcoaqla

0mm
Pmm
mmm
mmm
own
an

0mm
5mm
mmm
mmm
com
Em

mom
Pmm
mmm
mmm
com
won

183

Appendix B: Morphological and physical data for soils and sediments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site and Horizon Depth Munsell Structure Consistence de Coarse Frags (%)
Pedon Color (moist) (moist)
Red Zone 1
Crater Oi 0-12 10 YR 3/2 ------ --- AS none
Bottom Al l2-22 7.5 YR 3/2 2 f gr Fl CS 5 ﬁne gravel
A2 22-29 10 YR 4/2 2 f gr F I CS 5 ﬁne gravel
Crl 29-41 7.5 YR 8/2 1 m sbk VFR CS 50 cobbles
30 coarse gravel
Cr2 41+ 7.5 YR 8/2 I m sbk VFR --- 50 cobbles
3O coarse gravel
Crater Side Oi 0-5 10 YR 3/2 ---- ---- AS none
Al 5-12 10 YR 4/3 2 fgr FR CS 5 ﬁne gravel
A2 12-23 10 YR 5/3 2 fgr FR AS 5 ﬁne gravel
Crl 23-51 10 YR 7/4 1 m sbk VFR GS 40 cobbles
20 coarse gravel
Cr2 51+ 10 YR 8/4 1 m sbk VF R --- 50 cobbles
30 coarse gravel
Undisturbed Oi 0-3 10 YR 3/2 ---- ---- AS none
A 3-29 10 YR 4/3 3 m gr VFI CS none
Bwl 29-44 7.5 YR 4/4 3 m sbk VF 1 CS 25 med gravel
Bw2 44-58 7.5 YR 4/4 3 f sbk Fl CS 25 med gravel
Cr 58-67 10 YR 7/4 1 f abk VFR D 60 coarse gravel
W
R 67+ 10 YR 8/4 ---- ---- ---- ----
Red Zone 2
Crater Oi 0-8 10 YR 3/2 --- --- CS none
Bottom A 8-17 10 YR 4/3 1 m/f gr VFI CS 25 coarse gravel
A/C l7-33 10 YR 4/2 1 m/f sbk VFI G 35 coarse gravel
W
Cr 33+ 10 YR 7/3 1 vf sbk VFI --- 50 cobbles
30 comggmvel
Crater Side Oi 0-8 10 YR 3/2 --- --- CS none
A 8-24 10 YR 4/3 2 m/f gr F I GS 35 coamavel
Cr 24+ 10 YR 7/3 I vf sbk VFR --- 50 cobbles
3O coarse gavel
Undisturbed Oi 0-4 10 YR 3/2 --- AS none
A 4-17 10 YR 3/2 3 m gr VFI CS 10 med gravel
Bw 17-29 7.5 YR 3/4 3 f FR CW 20 cobbles
gr/sbk 10 coarse gavel
Crl 29-55 5 YR 3/4 1 vf abk VF R G 50 cobbles
10 YR 8/2 W 25 coarse ggvel
Cr2 55+ 10 YR 6/4 1 vf abk L --- 70 cobbles
20 coarse gravel
Red Zone 2
Crater Oi 0-15 10 YR 2/2 --- --- CS none
Bottom A 15-32 10 YR 3/2 2 f gr FR CS 25 med gravel
Bw 32-56 10 YR 5/4 2 f sbk F 1 CS 30 med gr_avel
Crl 56+ 2.5 YR 7/2 1 f/vf VFR --- 50 cobbles
sbk 30 coarse gravel

 

184

 

Appendix B: (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crater Side Oi 0-9 10 YR 2/2 --- --- CS none
A 9-25 10 YR 3/2 2 fir FR CW 30 coarse gﬁlel
Bw 25-47 10 YR 5/4 2 f FI CW 25 coarse gravel
gr/sbk 25 cobbles
Cr 47+ 2.5 YR 7/2 1 f sbk VFR --- 6O cobbles
20 coarse gravel
Undisturbed A 0-11 10 YR 3/3 3 f/m gr FR G 20 ﬁne gravel
W
Bwl 1 1-27 5 YR 4/6 3 f/m Fl G 50 med gravel
gr/sbk W
Bw2 27-38 5 YR 4/6 1 f sbk FR G 50 coarse gravel
W 30 cobbles
Cr 38+ 2.5 Y 7/2 1 f sbk VFR m 50 cobbles
30 coarse gavel ‘
Bois de Thill 1
Crater Al 0-9 lOYR 2/1 2 vf/fgr FR CS none
Bottom A2 9-23 10 YR 2/1 3 mg Fl AS none
Cgl 23-60 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VF I G none
5 YR 5/2 sbk W
Cg2 60+ 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VF I --- none
5 YR 5/2 sbk
Crater Side A 0-19 10 YR 2/1 2 f/m gr Fl CS none
Cgl l9-52 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VF I GS none
5 YR 5/2 sbk
Cg2 52+ 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VF I m none
5 YR 5/2 sbk
Undisturbed A 0-22 10 YR 3/2 2 f/m gr Fl CS none
Bg 22-59 5 YR 5/4 3 We VF 1 CS none
sbk
Cgl 59-91 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VFI G none
5 YR 5/2 sbk W
Cg2 91+ 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VFI --- 10 med gravel
5 YR 4/6 sbk
Bois de Thill 2
Crater A 0-19 5 YR 2.5/1 2 vf/ﬂgL FR CS none
Bottom Cgl 19-34 5 YR 4/6 2 We VF l G none
5 YR 5/2 sbk W
Cg2 34+ 2.5 Y 5/2 2 m/c VFI --- 5 coarse gravel
sbk
Crater Side A 0-23 7.5 YR 3/2 2 f/m VFI GS none
@bk
Cgl 23-44 5 YR 4/6 2 rule VF l G none
5 YR 5/2 sbk W
Cg2 44+ 5 YR 4/6 2 m/c VF I --- 5 med gravel
5 YR 4/2 sbk
Undisturbed A 0-4 7.5 YR 3/2 2 vf/f gr FR AS none
AB 4-20 7.5 YR 3/2 2 We Fl GS none
10 YR 3/4 gr/sbk
Bg 20-53 10 YR 5/4 2 m/c VF l D none
sbk W
Cg 53+ 5 YR 4/2 2 m/c VF l --- none
5 YR 4/6 sbk

 

185

 

Appendix B: (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bois de Thill 3
Crater A 0-4 7.5 YR 3/2 2 vf/f gr FR AS none
Bottom
AB 4-20 7.5 YR 3/2 2 We Fl GS none
10 YR 3/4 gr/sbk
Bg 20-53 10 YR 5/4 2 m/c VFI D none
sbk W
Cg 53+ 5 YR 4/2 2 m/c VF l --- none
5/Y R 4/6 sbk
Crater Side A 0-18 5 YR 2.5/1 3 f gr FR AS none
Cgl 18-28 2.5 Y 7/2 2 m/c VF I CS 15 ﬁne gravel
2.5 7/8 sbk
Cg2 28-69 2.5 Y 6/2 2 m/c VFI G 15 ﬁne gravel
7.5 YR 6/6 sbk W
Cg3 69+ 2.5 Y 6/2 2 m/c VFI --- 20 fine gravel
7.5 YR 6/6 sbk
Undisturbed A 0—29 7.5 YR 3/2 2 f/m gr VF 1 GS none
A/Bg 29-46 7.5 YR 3/2 3 m/c VF l G none
2.5 Y 6/2 sbk/gr W
7.5 YR 5/6
Cgl 46-80 2.5 Y 60 2 We VFI D 15 ﬁne gravel
sbk W
Cg2 80+ 2.5 Y 6/2 2 We VF I --- 15 ﬁne gravel
sbk
Etraye 1
Crater Oi 0-4 10 YR 2/1 --- --— AS none
Bottom A1 4-13 10 YR 3/1 2 f/vf r F 1 CS 20 med gravel
A2 13-29 10 YR 3/1 2 f/ﬂr Fl CW 30 med gravel
A/Cr 30+ 10 YR 7/8 1 f/vf gr F l --- 70 cobbles
20 med gravel
Crater Side A 0-12 10 YR 2/1 2 f/m gr 60 med gravel
Crl 12-29 10 YR 3/1 1 f sbk 60 meggravel
Cr2 29-51 10 YR 3/1 1 vf/f 60 med gravel
sbk
R 51+ 10 YR 7/8 --- --- --- Solid Bedrock
Undisturbed Al 0-19 10 YR 3/1 3 m/c gr VFI Cl 25 coarse gravel
A2 19-36 10 YR 4/3 2 m gr VFI GI 60 coarse gravel
Crl 36-53 10 YR 6/6 2 m sbk F1 G 60 coarse gravel
W
Cr2 53-64 10 YR 6/6 2 m sbk Fl G 80 coarse gravel
W
R 64+ 10 YR 7/8 --- --- --- Solid Bedrock
Etraye 2
Crater A 0-28 10 YR 3/1 2 mgr FR GI 30 coarse gavel
Bottom Cr 28-43 10 YR 6/6 2 m sbk VFI GI 60 coarse gravel
R 43+ 10 YR 7/8 --- --- m «-
Crater Side A 0-11 10 YR 3/1 2 f/m L FR G1 30 coarse gravel
Cr 1 1-53 10 YR 6/6 2 m sbk VFl G1 60 coarse gavel
R 53+ 10 YR 7/8 --- --- --- ---

 

186

 

Appendix B: (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undisturbed Al 0-18 10 YR 3/1 3 f gr FR GS 10 coarse gravel
10 cobbles
A2 18-39 10 YR 5/6 3 f/m VFI GI 40 gravel
gﬁbk 20 cobbles
Crl 39-71 10 YR 5/6 2 m/c VF 1 GI 40 gravel
sbk 20 cobbles
Cr2 71+ 10 YR 5/6 2 m/c VF l --— 60 cobbles
sbk 20 gravel
Etraye 3
Crater Oi 0-5 7.5 YR 3/0 --- --- CS none
Bottom
A 5-22 2.5 Y 2/0 1 f gr VFI A 20 coarse gravel
W
Cr 22+ 10 YR 5/6 1 m/c VF l --- 60 cobbles
sbk
Crater Side A 0-11 10 YR 3/1 3 m/c gr VFI Cl 30 coarse gravel
Cr] 1 1-45 10 YR 5/6 2 m/c VFI A1 50 coarse gravel
sbk
Cr2 43+ 10 YR 5/6 2 m/c VFI --- 60 cobbles
sbk 20 coarggravel
Undisturbed A 0-6 10 YR 3/2 3 m g SR CS 20 med gravel
ABw 6-31 10 YR 4/4 3 m/c SR CW 30 med gravel
gr/sbk
Crl 31-52 10 YR 5/6 2 m/c VFI G 60 cobbles
sbk W 20 coarse gavel
Cr2 52-67 10 YR 5/6 1 m sbk VFl G 60 cobbles
W 20 coamigravel
Cr3 67+ 10 YR 5/6 1 f sbk FI --- 60 cobbles

30 coarse gavel ‘

 

187

 

9::on
<Gw:

Eim

u=am
5332

Eocom

N OPPON 30¢

528m

— ZEN aux

“ism 2am Eaton—
oﬂaou 0.9.80 Eo> Em _Ewm 5&5 6::

$5868 98 £8 “8 8% :23on ”U

 

188

Eozom

N ___—_P. 9.. ﬂan

Eozom

EFF amen

Eocom

m «SN .3:
u

 

189

Eozom

___—PP. on. ﬂcm

 

190

 

191

Appendix D: Chemical data for soils and sediments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site and Depth pH Organic Weatherinwdexes
Pedon Carbon (ti+zr)l (“4."),
(LO-'1 (ca+mg+k) (ca+mg+k+mn+na+p)
(cm) 1%:
Red Zone 1
Crater 10 7.10 26.8 No Data No Data
Bottom 20 7.86 6.8 0.69 0.69
30 8.23 1.8 0.34 0.34
50 8.68 0.4 0.08 0.08
Crater Side 10 7.98 5.5 0.58 0.57
20 8.08 2.5 0.44 0.43
30 8.53 1.4 0.48 0.48
50 8.65 0.6 0.10 0.10
Undisturbed 10 7.45 7.4 21.15 18.97
20 7.87 4.8 24.90 22.06
30 7.93 4.5 12.09 11.43
50 8.02 2.8 1.73 1.71
Red Zone 2
Crater 10 7.58 8.6 2.03 2.01
Bottom 20 7.83 3.7 1.66 1.65
30 8.09 1.8 0.81 0.81
50 8.46 0.5 0.14 0.14
Crater Side 10 7.86 6.3 1.09 1.08
20 7.97 2.1 0.51 0.51
30 8.27 1.3 0.31 0.31
50 8.63 0.6 0.18 0.18
Undisturbed 10 7.86 6.4 3.69 3.64
20 7.87 4.9 2.21 2.19
30 7.94 3.8 2.58 2.56
50 8.25 1.8 1.02 1.02
Red Zone 3
Crater 10 7.28 26.7 No Data No Data
Bottom 20 7.84 8.6 1.03 1.03
30 8.03 5.3 0.83 0.83
50 8.25 1.5 1.13 1.13
Crater Side 10 7.45 13.2 No Data No Data
20 7.76 6.5 2.58 2.56
30 7.97 2.7 1.50 1.50
50 8.54 0.7 0.18 0.18
Undisturbed 10 7.22 6.0 24.08 21.78
20 7.71 4.2 14.81 14.01
30 7.73 3.2 2.71 2.69
50 8.20 1.1 0.66 0.66
Bois de Thill 1
Crater 10 5.58 16.6 10.69 10.22
Bottom 20 5.87 12.2 11.94 11.48
30 6.82 2.6 14.23 13.72
50 7.23 2.2 14.46 14.07

 

 

 

192

 

Appendix D (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crater Side 10 6.02 10.40 12.98 12.51
20 6.41 3.30 14.43 14.07
30 6.99 2.30 5.18 5.10
50 7.85 2.20 14.53 14.28

Undisturbed 10 5.55 5.9 16.88 15.72
20 6.26 4.0 18.76 17.52
30 5.54 3.7 17.60 16.50
50 6.77 2.5 13.80 13.40

Bois de Thill 2

Crater Bottom 10 5.61 11.4 14.06 13.50
20 6.69 4.3 16.68 16.22
30 7.05 3.3 16.46 16.00
50 7.96 1.9 3.06 3.04

Crater Side 10 5.11 6.4 16.33 15.75
20 5.92 4.7 16.92 16.39
30 6.99 3.9 17.95 17.30
50 7.47 2.9 12.71 12.51

Undisturbed 10 4.34 7.8 23.31 22.28
20 4.70 6.1 21.87 20.94
30 5.97 3.8 18.91 18.21
50 6.75 2.6 17.68 17.19

Bois de Thill 3

Crater Bottom 10 7.09 8.1 13.22 12.61
20 7.22 7.8 14.97 14.15
30 7.20 4.4 14.83 13.73
50 7.62 3.5 3.13 3.06

Crater Side 10 7.43 5.9 10.91 10.58
20 7.43 2.5 3.00 2.97
30 7.50 2.0 10.10 9.97
50 7.62 2.1 13.90 13.66

Undisturbed 10 5.97 5.9 21.82 20.46
20 6.27 3.5 22.75 21.77
30 6.49 2.9 20.22 19.43
50 8.09 0.9 0.68 0.67

Etraye 1

Crater Bottom 10 7.38 15.2 3.05 2.98
20 7.48 11.6 2.72 2.65
30 7.58 8.4 1.88 1.85
50 7.65 3.3 1.11 1.10

Crater Side 10 7.54 18.6 1.96 1.93
20 7.74 3.9 0.79 0.79
30 7.97 2.0 0.57 0.57
50 8.00 1.3 0.52 0.51

Undisturbed 10 7.37 6.4 17.96 16.47
20 7.44 5.5 19.57 18.04
30 7.67 4.6 16.35 15.33
50 7.91 2.1 0.87 0.87

Etraye 2

Crater Bottom 10 7.33 15.6 5.11 4.92
20 7.43 12.0 5.28 5.10
30 7.55 4.2 4.30 4.22
50 7.81 2.9 1.14 1.13

 

 

 

 

 

 

193

 

Appendix D (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crater Side 10 7.41 7.8 17.73 16.52
20 7.50 7.0 14.40 13.57
30 7.58 5.5 7.90 7.59
50 7.71 5.1 4.53 4.39

Undisturbed 10 7.29 10.2 10.03 9.51
20 7.52 5.5 15.94 15.01
30 7.61 4.6 16.18 15.33
50 7.72 4.1 11.98 11.46

Etraye 3

Crater Bottom 10 6.88 31.0
20 7.24 20.3 3.13 3.06
30 7.74 3.2 5.20 5.14
50 7.74 2.7 3.58 3.56

Crater Side 10 7.53 7.6 6.53 6.37
20 7.85 2.9 2.02 2.00
30 7.83 2.7 2.13 2.11
50 7.96 2.9 3.33 3.28

Undisturbed 10 7.41 9.2 12.97 12.33
20 7.50 4.2 18.94 18.05
30 7.75 3.7 20.96 19.85
50 7.97 2.3 1.53 1.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 SN 3‘ 88.8 .88 88.8 88.88 8.8 8.8 88 8.8 B8 8.8 88
82 88 R 888 8.8 88.8 83.8 :8 3.8 888 88.8 88.8 8.88 88
E «F. 8 :8 8.8 88.8 8.8 8.8 88.8 8mm 88 88 F888 88. .888
-1 -1 t- .1 l. l. I. l. I. l. .1 .1 .1 o _ 8880
825 8...:
R? 88 «8 88.8 8.8 88.8 8:8 88 8.8 N: 88.8 88 8:8 88
85 v2 88 :8 F: 88.8 8.8 38 88.8 88.8 8: 88 E8 88
~88 SF 8 9.8 88.8 88.8 3.88 8.8 88.8 «8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 88
888 88 N8 38 8: 88.8 8.9 88 :8 N88 38 88 8.8 8_ 88.888:
3 888 9 888 38 88.8 88.8 88.8 58 888 888 88.8 8.8 88
NR 88 mm 38 88 88.8 5.? 88 88 Re 888 3.8 8.9 8...
E 88 8 88.8 888 88.8 8.8 88.8 888 8: 888 E8 8.: 8m
88 888 S 28 Q8 88.8 88.8 :8 88.8 88 8.8 8.8 888 8. 828.25
88 88 9 N88 88 88.8 5.8 R8 88 88.8 A: B8 8.8 88
8F mom 8 B8 8.8 88.8 8.5 88 88.8 28 88.8 88 8.88 88
88 888 8 88.8 8.8 88.8 SR 888 888 R8 88 888 8.8 88 .8888
88 x: 8 .98 888 88.8 88.2.. 8.8 888 $88 8.8 88 8.8 8. 8:5
«2.88 8:
88 SN 8 88.8 88.? 8.8 8.88 8.8 88.8 8.8 8.» 8.8 5.88 88
tv 88 v: 88 Se 88 5.8 8: 88.8 88.8 8.2 8.8 $8 88
88v 8» «8 8.8 v3 .88 83 888 B8 8.8 5.: 88 8:8 88
Ev 8» 8 88 N: 88.8 8: 2.8 88 N: 88.8? 8.8 88.8 8_ 88.38::
«N «R 8 .88 2.8 88.8 5.8 88 888 88.8 88.8 888 858 88
«9 8m 3 888 88.8 88.8 8.8 88 88.8 N: 58 888 8.2 88
88? 88 mm 88.8 :8 88.8 8.8 E8 «88 8.8 8.8 8.8 2.3 88
5 RN R 888 8.8 88.8 8.5 B8 8.8 8.8 8.8 R8 :8? 8_ 8288.28
8 8mm 8 88.8 88.8 88.8 5.8 88 88 58 88 38 Ed 88
8 88 88 88 «8.8 88.8 8.8 58 No.8 8: 8+8 8 F .8 v8. 3 8m
89 Sm «8 888 8.8 88.8 88.8 58 .88 :8 8.8 «m8 8.: 88 8588
l- 1.. l- :1. in l: l: .1. ll 1.. .1: I 1.. o _ hon—EU
.25 8:
9:88 8.88 888
£000.—
ﬁ .8 88 88.. on: 82 80 on: 82 83. mom? 8:. 8.8 5%: 8.3 3.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88:88:88 .858 8:8 .88 888 “EX Hm xmucomﬁx

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VON V0 00 V0.0 00F oo.o 00.F NV.F Vo.o 0N0 VN. FF F0. 0 00.00 00
00 00 00 no.0 NFF oo.o 00F F00 No.0 0V. 0 FV.0 V0.0 0NFO om
00N N0 V0 90 0F oo.o VF.F F0. 0 No.0 V0. N 0N0 00. 0 00.00 0N
00N N0 F0 NF. 0 F0. F 00.0 0o.F Vo. F No.0 N0 0 0V0 00.0 3.00 o_ 820 888.5
NFN oFF FF 0o. 0 00. F 00.0 00.0F 0F. F 00. 0 00V 00.0 0V.o VV.00 on
000 00 00 0o. 0 FF. F 00.0 No.F S. F 00. o 0N.oF 00.0 00.0 05.50 om
V00 F0 V0 00. o FNF 00.0 0F.F Vo. F No. 0 0N0 00. 0 N00 FN.00 on 8980
VON 00 0F 0F. 0 o0.F 00.0 00F 00. 0 No.0 00.0 V0. 0 00.0 0F.o0 2 888.6
N ___...P. 00 830
NFN V0 00 00.0 Vo.N oo.o 0o.F N0.F 00.0 N00 FV. FF N0.o 0N. FF om
VVm 00 09 00.0 F0.F 00.0 50.0 0N.F 3.0 00.0 0V.oF 00.0 No.FF om
000 F0 00 00.0 00F 90 00.0 SF 000 FNV 00.0 00.0 00.00 cm
V00 00 N0 0F. 0 0s. F 00.0 VF.F 0F.F 00. 0 00V 5N0 00.0 0V.00 0_ 88386::
FON 00 N0 V0.0 00. F 000 F0. 0 00... V0.0 N0.0 F0.oF N0. 0 00.N.F on
FON 00F 0F 00 o 00. F No.0 V0. 5 0V.F no. 0 00.0 05.0 V0.0 N0.N0 om
NON 00 00 00.0 00F 50 No. F 00F 00.0 00.0 0N.oF 00. o N0.00 oN
00N 00 F0 30 50F 50 00F 0N.F No. 0 VF. 0 00.0 00. o oF.N0 o_ 820 888.5
o0N F0 00 00.0 00F 00.0 00. o 0V.F V0. 0 0o. 0 000—. F0. 0 00. F5 on
VFN 00 F0 00.0 SF 000 00. o FVF 00. o 0N. N F0.oF 00.0 00.05 on
VON N0 V0 NF.0 00F 00.0 05. F 0N.F No.0 0F.V 00.0 00.0 05.00 oN 8380
NON F0 FF 0 F .0 0V. F 00.0 0o.N 00. F No.0 00.0 NPR 0V.o 00. F0 0_ .880
F ___...P. at £00
0VF 00N V0 000 N00 000 0V.oV VV.o 00. o 00F 00. 0 0N.o 00.FN om
000 VFF VF 90 0F. F No.0 00.0N 05.0 00. o 0V.V V0.0 F00 00.0V om
VOV N0 00F 00.0 V0. F NF.0 00.0 5.0 00. o FN.0 00. NF 00.0 0V.N0 oN
000 00 00 00.0 0. F 0N.o N0.F 00.0 00. 0 00V 5.: 00.0 VV.00 2 03.5868:
NV o0N 0F No.0 FN.o 00.0 0F. F0 F0.o F0. 0 No.F 00F 00.0 050 on
NVN 0NN V0 000 00.0 00.0 VF.0N 00.0 V0. 0 00.0 NF.0 0V.o FV.V0 om
00N onF F0 F F.o 0F.F 00.0 N0.0F F00 00.0 0.0 NON N0.o 00.0V oN
l l i .l I. l l 8_ 83m 8280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.880 ”m— 858500ch

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F0 nF0 00 0F.0 nN.F oo.o 0F.00 V0.0 no.0 0N.0 No.0 00.0 F0.oN 00
03 nn 0VF FN.o NV.N 00.0 00F No.F 0F.0 00.0 00.NF V0.0 0n.00 om
oNV 00 NVF 0N.0 00.N 00.0 0N.F 00.0 0F.0 FV.0 FV.NF 00.0 0o.N0 0N
oFV 00 NOF 0N.0 o0.N oo.o V0.F F0.o 0F.0 N0.n F0. FF 00.0 00.00 0_ 080.5868:
0 Vn0 00 :0 SF 00.0 3.9. 00.0 no.0 V0.V VN.0 FN.o V0.0F 8
Nn 000 00 :0 00.0 00.0 V0.00 00.0 00.0 00V VF.0 0N.0 00.3 cm
00 V00 N0 0F.0 00... 00.0 n0.V0 00.0 00.0 nF.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0F om
FOF 0NN n0 0N.0 00... 00.0 F0. FN 00.0 0F.0 F00 0F.0 VV.0 00.00 S 820 8880
FNF 000 00 0N.0 00. F 00.0 V0.0N F00 no.0 nn.0 0N.0 V0.0 n0.VN 00
NOF 0NN V0 0N.0 00F oo.o nN.oN 00.0 00.0 :0 VF.0 FV.0 0N.0N 00
00.. 0nF 00 N00 00F oo.o NN.0F 00.0 :0 n00 00.0 0V.o 00. F0 0N 8280
oFN NnF 02 N00 n0.F 00.0 NN.VF 00.0 :0 on.0 0F.0 0V.o oF.V0 o_ 8880
_ 998.50
00F 00F V0 00.0 V0.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 no.0 V0.N VF.V VN.o n0.0N om
NoV 00 n0 00.0 0n. F 00.0 00.0 n0.o 00.0 0N.0 00.0 on.0 00.0n om
0VV V0 V0 00.0 Nn. F 00.0 V0.0 00.0 no.0 0V.V 00.0 Nn.o 00.Vn 0N
NNV N0 V0 0F.0 N0.F Fo.o oo.F 00.0 00.0 00V 00.n 00.0 V0.on 0. 080.5868:
VON 00 V0 00.0 00F 00.0 0N.F 00F 00.0 0n.V 00.0F F00 0.9. 00
00N Vn N0 00.0 00F 00.0 00.N 00F 00.0 0F.V 00.9 00.0 N0. Fn om
NNN VFF Fn 0F.0 N0.F 00.0 oN.VF Fo.F no.0 n00 n0.n 0V.o Vn.00 0N
000 on 00 to 00F 00.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 00V n00 N00 nN.n0 2 820 8880
FON 00F Vn 0N.0 NV. F 00.0 00.0F n00 no.0 F00 No.0 0V.0 00.00 8
F00 00 00 VN.0 00F 00.0 o0.F F0.F NF.0 NF.0 F00 00.0 00.00 8
NNO V0 Fn 0N.0 0V.F 00.0 00F F00 No.0 00V Fn.0 F00 00.00 cm 88880
0 F0 00 00 FN.o n0. F 00.0 nN.N V0.0 No.0 00V nn.0 00.0 0V.00 0. .2880
0 =2; 00 £00
90 00 0FF 00.0 00F 00.0 00.0 NNF 00.0 FV.0 No.FF Fn.0 N0.0n om
0V0 00 oFF 00.0 00.F 00.0 00.0 0o.F no.0 V0.0 NN.0F Fn.0 00.0n om
Fn0 F0 FoF :0 o0.F 00.0 00.0 00.0 V0.0 NV.V NN.0 on.0 NV.0n 0N
0n0 F0 VoF NF.0 N0.F 00.0 00.0 n0.o 00.0 n0.V 0F.0 Nn.o 00.0n 0_ 00058803

 

 

9.88 mm 80000032.

197

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al, M. S., and M. U. Beg. 1998. The Long-Term Environmental Effects of
the Gulf War. Vol. 24; 1-2, Environment International. New York-
Oxford, International: Pergamon.

Albertson, P. E. 2001. Sustainability of military lands: historic erosion
trends at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. In The Environmental
Legacy of Military Operations, eds. J. Ehlen and R. S. Harmon,
151-161. Boulder, Co: Geological Society of America.

Amundson, R. and H. Jenny (1991). "The place of humans in the state factor
theory of ecosystems and their soils." Soil Science 151(1): 99-109.

Amundson, R., and H. Jenny. 1997. Thinking of biology: On a state
factor model of ecosystems. Bioscience 47 (8):536-543.

Anonymous. 1915. Forests in the war zone. American Forestry 21:909-
9 10.

Bagnold, R. A. 1990. Sand, “find, and War; Memoirs of a Desert Explorer.
Tucson, AZ, United States: Univ. Ariz. Press.

Bailey, J. B. A. 2004. Field Artillery and Firepower. [Rev. and expanded]
ed. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press.

Balek, C. L. 2002. Buried artifacts in stable upland sites and the role of
bioturbation: A review. Geoarcheology 17:41-51.

Bazzaz, F. A. 1983. Characteristics of populations in relation to
disturbance in natural and man-modiﬁed ecosystems. In
Disturbance and Ecosystems: Components of Response, eds. H. A.
Mooney and M. Godron, 292. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Beavers, A. H., J. B. Fehrenbacher, P. R. Johnson, and e. al. 1963. CaO-
ZrO2 molar ratios as an index of weathering. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings 27:408-412.

Beyer, L., P. Kahle, H. Kretschmer, and Q. L. Wu. 2001. Soil organic
matter composition of man-impacted urban sites in North
Germany. Journal Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 164:359-364.

Bidwell, O. W. and F. D. Hole (1965). "Man as a factor of soil formation."
Soil Science 99: 65-72.

199

Birkeland, P. W. 1999. Soils and Geomorphology. 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Bradbury, R., 1967. The Illustrated man. Bantam Books, New York, 186
PP-

Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil. 2002. The nature and Properties of Soils.
13th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, M. 1999. Verdun 1916. Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd.

Brunsden, D. 2001. A critical assessment of the sensitivity concept in
geomorphology. Catena 42:99-123.

Brunsden, D., and J. B. Thornes. 1979. Landscape sensitivity and
change. Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers 4
(4):463-484.

Busacca, A. J ., and M. J. Singer. 1989. Pedogenesis of a chronosequence
in the Sacramento Valley, California, U.S.A., Elemental chemistry
of silt fractions. Geoderma 44:43-75.

Clausewitz, C. v., and A. Rapoport. 1968. On War. Baltimore: Penguin
Books.

Clermont-Ferrard. 1919. Michelin Guide to Verdun. Easingwold, York:
G.H. Smith 85 Son.

Cowley, R. 2004. The unreal city: the trenches of World War I. In
Readings in American Military History, ed. J. M. Morris, 187 -l98.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Creemens, D. L., and D. L. Mokma. 1986. Argillic horizon expression and
classiﬁcation in the soils of two Michigan hydrosequences. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 50: 1002- 1007 .

Dan, J ., and D. H. Yaalon. 1968. Pedomorphic forms and pedomorphic
surfaces. Soil Science 9:577-584.

Davies, B. E. 1974. Loss-on-ignitioin as an estimate of soil organic
matter. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 38:150-151.

200

Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle—size analysis. In
Methods of Soil Analysis, ed. C. A. Black, 545-567. Madison, WI:
American Society of Agronomy.

Demorlaine, J. 1919. Strategic importance of forests in the war. American
Forestry 25: 1040-1043.

Dixit, S. P. 1978. Measurement of of the mobility of soil colloids. Journal
of Soil Science 29:557-566.

Doyle, P., and M. R. Bennett. 1999. Military geography; the inﬂuence of
terrain in the outcome of the Gallipoli Campaign, 1915. The
Geographical Journal 165 Part 1:12-36.

 

. 2002. Terrain in military history: an introduction. In Fields of
Battle: Terrain in Military History, eds. P. Doyle and M. R. Bennett,
1-7. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dorronsoro, C. and P. Alonso (1994). ”Chronosequence in Almar River
ﬂuvial—terrace soil." Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:
910-925.

Duchaufour, P. 1982. Pedology: Pedogenesis and Classiﬁcation. London;
Boston: Allen and Unwin.

El-Baz, F. 1992. The war for oil; effects on land, air and sea. Geotimes 37
(5):12-15.

El-Baz, F., N. Beaumont, J. Simonson, and A. Murad. 1993. Assessment
of war-related environmental damage to the desert surface of
Kuwait. In Geological Society of America, 1993 Annual Meeting, ed.
Anonymous, 119. Boulder, CO, United States: Geological Society of
America (GSA).

El, B. F. 1992. Effects of the Gulf War on the environmental geology of
the region. In 29th International Geological Congress; Abstracts, ed.
Anonymous, 82: International Geological Congress.

 

. 1994. Geologic effects of the Gulf War. In Proceedings of the Tenth
Thematic Conference on Geologic Remote Sensing; Exploration,
Environment, and Engineering, ed. Anonymous, 1.1-1.2. Ann Arbor,
MI, United States: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan.

E1, B. F., A. D. A1, and S. A. A1. 1994. Remote sensing of the geologic
effects of the Gulf War on the desert surface of Kuwait. In

201

Proceedings of the Tenth Thematic Conference on Geologic Remote
Sensing; Exploration, Environment, and Engineering, ed.
Anonymous, Ii.517-Ii.527. Ann Arbor, MI, United States:
Environmental Research Institute of Michigan.

El, B. F., and S. A. A1. 1996. Geologic impacts of the Gulf War on the
desert surface of Kuwait. In 30th International Geological Congress;
Cbstracts., ed. Anonymous, 403: International Geological
Congress.

Evans, L. J ., and W. A. Adams. 1975. Quantitative pedological studies on
soils derived from Silurian mudstones. IV. Uniformity of the parent
material and evaluation of internal standards. Journal of Soil
Science 26:319-326.

Flamm, B. R., and J. H. Cravens. 1971. The effects of war damage on the
forest resources of South Vietnam. Journal of Forestry 69 (11):784-
789.

Gates, P. W. 1965. Agriculture and the Civil War. [1st ed, The Impact of
the Civil War. New York: Knopf.

Gatto, L. W., J. J. Halvorson, and D. K. McCool. 2001. Freeze-thaw-
induced geomorphic and soil changes in vehicle ruts and natural
rills. In The Environmental Legacy of Military Operations, eds. J.
Ehlen and R. S. Harmon, 163-175. Boulder, Co: Geological Society
of America.

Gile, L. H., J. W. Hawley, and R. B. Grossman. 1981. Soils and
Geomorphology in the Basin and Range Area of Southern New
Mexico - Guide-book to the Desert Project. Edited by N. M. B. o. M.
a. M. Resources.

Golledge, R. G. 2002. The nature of geographic knowledge. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 92 (1):1-14.

Graves, H. S. 1918. Effect of the war on forests of France. American
Forestry (now American Forests) 24:7 09-7 17.

Grieve, I. C. 2000. Effects of human disturbance and cryoturbation on
soil iron and organic matter distributions and on carbon storage at
high elevations in the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland. Geoderrna
95 (1-2):1-14.

. 2001. Human impacts on soil properties and their implications
for the sensitivity of soil systems in Scotland. Catena 42:361-374.

 

202

Gudmundsson, B. I. 1993. On Artillery. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Guth, P. L. 1998. Military geology in war and peace: an introduction. In
Military Geology in War and Peace, eds. R. Underwood James, Jr.
and P. L. Guth, 1-4. Boulder, Co: Geological Society of America
(GSA).

Hammes, T. 2004. The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 215t Century.
St. Paul: Zenith Press.

Hogg, I. V. 1985. The Illustrated History of Ammunition. Secaucus, NJ:
Chartwell Books.

 

. 1987. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Artillery. Secaucus, NJ:
Chartwell Books.

Hole, F. D. (1978). "An approach to landscape analysis with emphasis on
soils." Geoderma 21: 1-13.

Holstein, C. 2002. Fort Douaumont: Verdun. Edited by N. Cave,
Battleground Europe. South Yorkshire: Pen 85 Sword Books / Leo
Cooper.

Home, A. 1993. The Price of Glory. London: Penguin Books.

Howard, J. L., D. F. Amos, and W. L. Daniels. 1993. Alluvial Soil
Chronosequence In The Inner Coastal-Plain, Central Virginia.
Quaternary Research 39 (2):201-213.

Huggett, R. J. 1976. Conceptual models in pedogenesis - A discussion.
Geoderma 16:261-262.

Hupy, J. P. 2005. Verdun, France: Examining the Effects of Warfare on
the Natural Landscape. In Military Geography From Peace to War,
eds. E. Palka and F. Galgano, 447-474. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

Husain, T. 1998. Terrestrial and Atmospheric Environment During and
After the Gulf War. Environment International 24: 189-196.

Indorante, S. J ., and I. J. Jansen. 1984. Perceiving and defining soils on
disturbed land. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48: 1334-
1337.

Jacks, G. V. (1962). "Man: the fertility maker." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 17: 147-148.

203

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jenny, H. (1980). The Soil Resource, Origin, and Behavior, McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York.

Johnson, D. L., and D. Watson-Stegner. 1987 . Evolution model of
pedogenesis. Soil Science 143 (5):349-366.

Johnson, D. L., J. E. J. Domier, and D. N. Johnson. 2005. Reﬂections on
the nature of soil and Its biomantle. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 95 (1):11-31.

Johnson, D. L., D. Watson-Stegner, D. N. Johnson, and R. Schaetzl.
1987. Proisotropic and proanistropic processes of pedoturbation.
Soil Science 143 (4):278-292.

Johnson, D. W. 1921. Battleﬁelds of the World War: Western and
Southern Fronts. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keegan, J. 1976. The Face of Battle. New York: Penguin Books.
. 1993. A History of Warfare. New York: Vintage Books.

 

 

. 1998. The First World War. lst ed. New York: Vintage Books.

Kernan, H. S. 1945. War's toll of French forests. American Forests
51:442.

Kiersch, G. A., and J. R. Underwood. 1998. Geology and military
operations, 1800—1960: an overview. In Military Geology in War and
Peace, eds. J. R. Underwood and L. Guth Peter, 5-27. Boulder, Co:
Geological Society of America (GSA).

King, W. C. 2001. Forward. In The Environmental Legacy of Military
Operations, eds. J. Ehlen and R. S. Harmon, ix-x. Boulder, Co:

Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology.

Lebedeva, II, and V. D. Tonkonogov. 1995. Soil-cover structure and
anthropogenic pedogenesis. Eurasian Soil Science 27 (1):83-89.

Lewallen, J. 1971. Ecology of Devastation: Indochina. Baltimore: Penguin
Books.

204

Livingston, D. 1992. The geographical tradition. In The Geographical
Tradition: Episodes in the history of a Contested Enterprise, 347 -
358. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Lumsden, M. 1975. Incendiary Weapons, SIPRI monographs. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.

Marsh, G. P. 1965[1864]. Introduction. In Man and Nature or, Physical
Geography as Modiﬁed by Human Action. Cambridge: Belknap
Press of Harvard University.

Martin, W. 2001. Verdun 1916: 'They Shall Not Pass'. Edited by L.
Johson. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Mayor, A. 2003. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs:
Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. lst ed.
Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth.

McPherson, T. S., and V. R. Timmer. 2002. Amelioration of degraded
soils under red pine plantations on the Oak Ridges Moraine,
Ontario. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 82 (3):375-388.

McIntyre, S. and R. Hobbs (1999). "A framework for conceptualizing
human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and
research models." Conservation Biology 13(6): 1282-1292.

Miles, J ., R. P. Cummins, D. D. French, S. Gardner, J. L. Orr, and M. C.
Shewry. 2001. Landscape sensitivity: an ecological view. Catena 42
(2-4):125-141.

Montagne, M. 2003. Carte Pedologique De La Foret Domaniale De
Verdun, ed. ONF, 17: Ofﬁce National des Forets.

Mosier, J ., 2001. The Myth of the Great War. Perennial, New York, 400
PP

Mueser, H., and H. P. Blume. 2001. Characteristics and classiﬁcation of
anthropogenic soils in the Osnabruck area, Germany. Journal
Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 164:351-358.

Murad, E. 1978. Yytrium and zirconium as geochemical guide elements
in soil and stream sediment sequences. Journal of Soil Science
29:2 19-223.

Nichols, K. K., and P. R. Bierman. 2001. Fifty-four years of ephemeral
channel response to two years of intense World War 11 military

205

activity, Camp Iron Mountain, Mojave Desert, California. In The
Environmental Legacy of Military Operations, eds. J. Ehlen and R.
S. Harmon, 123-136. Boulder, Co: Geological Society of America.

O’Sullivan, P. 1991. Terrain and Tactics, Contributions in Military Studies,
no. 1 15. New York: Greenwood Press.

O'Sullivan, P. E., and J. W. Miller. 1983. The Geography of Warfare.
London: Croom Helm.

Orians, G. H., and E. W. Pfeiffer. 1970. Ecological effects of the war in
Vietnam. Science 168 (3931):544-554.

Ousby, I. 2002. The Road to Verdun: World War ['3 Most Momentous Battle
and the Folly of Nationalism. New York: Doubleday.

Palka, E. 2000. The Wartime Context. In The Scope of Military Geography:
Across the Spectrum from Wartime to Peace, eds. E. Palka and F.
Galgano, 1-8. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

Palka, E. 2000. World War II in the Aleutian Islands: Physical Geographic
Challenges in the Battle for Attu. In The Scope of Military
Geography: Across the Spectrum from Wartime to Peace, eds. E.
Palka and F. Galgano, 9-30. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

Parsons, R. B., C. A. Balster, and A. O. Ness. 1970. Soil development and
geomorphic surfaces, Williamette Valley, Oregon. Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings 34:485-491.

Partington, J. R. 1960. A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder.
Cambridge, [Eng]: W. Heffer.

Peltier, L. C., and G. E. Pearcy. 1966. Military Geography. Princeton,
N.J.: Van Nostrand.

Pfeiffer, E. W. 1969. Ecological effects of the Vietnam War. Science
Journal 5 (2):33-38.

Prose, D. V., and S. K. Metzger. 1985. Recovery of Soils and Vegetation in
World War II Military Base Camps, Mojave Desert, Open-File Report -
U. S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA, United States: U. S. Geological
Survey.

Ridsdale, P. S. 1916. Shot, shell and soldiers devastate forests. American
Forestry (now American Forests) 22:333-340.

206

 

. 1919. French forests for our army. American Forestry (now
American Forests) 25:962-972.

Roberts, J. A., W. L. Daniels, J. C. Bell, and J. A. Burger. 1988. Early
stages of mine soil genesis as affected by topsoiling and organic
amendments. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52:730-738.

Runge, E. C. 1973. Soil development sequences and energy models. Soil
Science 115 (3):183-193.

Santos, M. C. D., R. J. St. Arnaud, and D. W. Anderson. 1986.
Quantitative evaluation of pedogenic changes in Boralfs (Gray
Luvisols) of East Central Saskatchewan. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 50: 1013- 1019.

Sauer, C. O. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. In Land and Life: A
Selection from the Writings of Carl Sauer, ed. J. Leighly, 315-350:
University of California Press.

 

. 1956. The Agency of Man on the Earth. In Man's Role in Changing
the Face of the Earth, ed. W. L. Thomas Jr., 49-69: University of
Chicago Press.

Schaetzl, R. J. 1990. Effects of treethrow microtopography on the
characteristics and genesis of Spodosols, Michigan, U.S.A. Catena
17:1 1 1-126.

Schaetzl, R. J ., S. F. Burns, et a1. (1990). "Tree uprooting - review of
types and patterns of soil disturbance." Physical Geography 11: 277-291.

Schaetzl, R., and S. Anderson. 2005. Soils Genesis and Geomorphology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schaetzl, R. J ., L. R. Barrett, and J. A. Winkler. 1994. Choosing models
for soil chronofunctions and ﬁtting them to data. European Journal
of Soil Science 45:219-232.

Schleuss, U., Q. L. Wu, and H. P. Blume. 1998. Variability of soils in
urban and periurban areas in Northern Germany. Catena 33 (3-
4):255-270.

Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, EC, and Broderson, W.D.
(editors), 2002. Field book for Describing and Sampling Soils,
Version 2. 0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil
Survey Center, Lincoln, NE

207

Simonson, D. 1959. Outline of a generalized theory of soil genesis. Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings 23: 152-156.

Singh, L. P., B. Parkash, and A. K. Singhvi. 1988. Evolution of the lower
Gangetic Plain landforms and soils in West Bengal, India. Catena
33:75- 104.

Staff, S. S. D. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Handbook No. 18.
Washington, DC: US Govt Printing Ofﬁce.

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. Second Edition. NRCS—USDA
Agric. Handb. 436, U.S. Gov. Print. Ofﬁce, Washington, DC.

Sunzi, and J. Minford. 2002. The Art of War. New York: Viking.

Thomas, M. F. 2001. Landscape sensitivity in time and space - an
introduction. Catena 42 (2-4):83-98.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Staff.
1975. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classiﬁcation for
Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Handb.
436. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Washington, DC. 754 pp., illus.

Usher, M. B. 2001. Landscape sensitivity: from theory to practice. Catena
42:37 5-383.

Wali, M. K. 1999. Ecological succession and the rehabilitation of
disturbed terrestrial ecosystems. Plant and Soil 213 (1-2):195-220.

Webster, D. 1994. 'The soldiers moved on. The war moved on. The bombs
stayed.‘ Smithsonian 24:26-37.

. 1996. Aftermath: The Remnants of War. New York: Pantheon
Books.

 

Westing, A. H. 1971. Forestry and the war in South Vietnam. Journal of
Forestry 69 (11):777-783.

. 1972. The Super Bomb. American Report, Sept 8, 1972.

 

 

. 197 6. Ecological Consequences of the Second Indochina War.
Stockholm: Almqvist 85 Wiksell International.

. 1977. Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment. London:
Taylor 8:. Francis.

 

208

 

. 1980. Warfare in a Fragile World: Military Impact on the Human
Environment. London: Taylor 85 Francis.

 

. 1990. Environmental hazards of war in an industrializing world.
In Environmental Hazards of War: Releasing Dangerous Forces in
an Industrialized World, ed. A. H. Westing, 96. London: SAGE
Publications.

 

. 1994. Constraints on environmental disruption during the Gulf
War. In War and its Consequences: Lessons from the Persian Gulf
Conﬂict, eds. J. O'Loughlin, T. Mayer and E. Greenberg, 77-83.

 

. 1996. Unexploded Sub-munitions (Bomblets) and the
Environment. Environmental Awareness 19 (l):5-13.

Westing, A. H., and E. W. Pfeiffer. 1972. The cratering of Indochina.
Scientific American 226 (5):20-29.

Westing, A. H., and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
1984. Environmental Warfare: a Technical, Legal, and Policy
Appraisal. London; Philadelphia: Taylor 85 Francis.

Whisonant, R. C. 1998. Linking geology and social studies; Civil War
battles for southwestern Virginia's lead and salt. Journal of
Geoscience Education 46 (4):321-330.

Whitford, W. G., and F. R. Kay. 1999. Biopedturbation by mammals in
deserts: a review. Journal of Arid Environments 41 (2):203-230.

Winters, H. A., G. E. Galloway, Jr., W. J. Reynolds, and D. W. Rhyne.
1998. Battling the Elements; Weather and Terrain in the Conduct of
War. Baltimore, MD, United States: Johns Hopkins University
Press.

Yaalon, D. H. and B. Yaron (1966). "Framework for man-made soil
changes - an outline of metapedogenesis." Soil Science 102(4): 27 2-27 7 .

209

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIlolIIIIIIIIIII