{ammmwa'w at: THE taigw SSQiL
{fix/$39K; :mm W’smm V; THE Magma
50 E L? EN memm cm: NW M am E SAN

Thesis EM‘ {{m 0-0qu 0:? M‘ 3.
MECHMH STATE WIVERSETY
Rama Mammary
£967

  

"" LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

ummm i H immunmnmmmmmm *

3 293 01067 8302

      

SSSSSS _

 

 

T403139 8 7933
‘ L: ‘ 37‘} v

 

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TO THE MINERAL SOILS IN INGHAM COUNTY MICHIGAN

by Ramez Mahjoory

Relationship of the new classification system to the
mineral soils with two or more profile descriptions available
in Ingham County was investigated using the official series
descriptions, and the most recent field and laboratory data,
as follows:

First, the proposed placements of the established soil
series into the new soil classification system were tested
according to the seventh approximation, plus its October I966
supplement and the official descriptions of these series.
Some changes in the family names of the Bronson, Celina,
Hillsdale and Lapeer series resulted.

Second, the most recent profile descriptions of twenty-
five mineral soils with the aid of the laboratory data avail-
able for those series in Ingham County were placed into the
new system.

Third, the official description of each soil series was
compared with the field descriptions of the profiles of the

same series in Ingham County. The possible deviations from

Ramez Mahjoory

the modal profile description and the cited range of properties
in the official series description were described. Any
inclusions of other series or variants in the description

of these series were noted.

Fourth, the suitability of the names of the mapping
units were examined according to the guidelines in the
January II, I966 memo on the application of the new soil
classification system.

Finally, the resulting suggestions for each soil series
and mapping unit were checked against the revised descriptive_
legend for the county. The general suitability of the new
soil classification was discussed in the light of these data
and comparisons as follows:

(I) Ten mineral series not in the legend have been
described in Ingham County; two, Matherton and Wasepi, in
the legend have not been found. These mineral soils are
from seven different families in the New Soil Classification
System. They probably represent about one-quarter of the
'gémber of mineral series and about one-sixth of the area
of the county.

(2) The names of the mapping units agree with 56% of

the profile descriptions from the County but the other 4h%

Ramez Mahjoory

are mapping inclusions. If the names of the mapping units
are adjusted as indicated herein, they would then agree
with over 90% of the profile descriptions.

(3) There is a place in the New Soil Classification
System for over 96% of the mineral profiles described to
date.

(A) Thus the application ofjgastem to date in Ingham
County leaves much room for improvement by more adequate
characterization and naming of the mapping units. However,

not many of these inadequacies are inherent in the classi-

fication system.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TO THE MINERAL SOILS IN INGHAM COUNTY MICHIGAN

By

Ramez Mahjoory

A THESIS

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

Department of Soil Science

1967

To my wife, Shirin,

for her sacrifice and encouragement

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. E. P. Whiteside,
the author's major professor, for his guidance, support
and willingness to discuss any point at all times. His
interest, patience and advice have been very much
appreciated.

The author wishes to thank Dr. R. L. Cook who kindly
facilitated his acceptance in the Department of Soil Science.
He is also thankful to Professor I. F. Schneider for

his helpful suggestions.

This author would like to thank Mr. Robert Johnson,

Mr. Glenn Bedell of the Soil Conservation Service of the
U.S.D.A. and the members of the Soil Survey Party in
Ingham County for their cooperation in giving valuable
information that made this study possible.

Many thanks are extended to the fellow graduate students
in the Soil Science Department, particularly to Mr. Dan Amos,

who contributed valuable field information through soil

mapping experiences. Their c00peration is greatly appreciated.

III.
IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .
LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . .
A. Some Definitions
8. Differentiating Among Soils.
C. Diagnostic Horizons.
(a) Diagnostic surface horizons.
(I) A mollic epipedon.
(2) An ochric epipedon
(b) Diagnostic subsurface horizons
(I) An argillic horizon.
(2) A cambic horizon .
(3) An albic horizon .
(c) Higher categories.
(I) Alfisols
(2) Mollisols.
(3) Entisols
(h) lnceptisols.
(5) Histosols.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .
METHODS OF STUDY .
A. “Placement of Soils Series in the New

Soil Classification System, Based on
Official Series Description

PAGE

\OCDCIDCDCDVVVVQGJTWN

I4

PAGE

B. Comparing Field and Laboratory Studies
in Ingham County with the Official
Series Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . I7

C. Discussion of Results and Suggestions
on Miami Series (as an example) . . . . l9

V. PLACEMENT OF MINERAL SOILS IN THE NEW SYSTEM
COMPARISONS WITH AVAILABLE DATA IN INGHAM
COUNTY AND RESULTING SUGGESTIONS. . . . . . . . 28

A. Boyer Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

(a) Classification at the family level
and above. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

(b) Proposed Changes in the description
of the Boyer series for this
survey area. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

(c) Changes needed in the description
and naming of the Boyer mapping
units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3l

(d) Comparisons with the current, April

I967, descriptive legend . 3l
B. Brady Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C Bronson Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D Brookston Series. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
E. Celina Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F Colwood Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
G Conover Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
H Corunna Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . Al
I. Fox Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
J. Gilford Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . #4
K. Granby Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6

PAGE

Hillsdale Series. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Kibbie Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . SO
Lapeer Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . SI
Matherton Series. . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Metamora Series . . . . . . . . . . . . Sh
Metea Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Miami Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Oshtemo Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Owosso Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O
Perrin Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Sebewa Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Sisson Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

XZ<C—IWWIO‘UOZZI—

Spinks Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Y. Wasepi Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 72
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

TABLE
IA

lB

IC

ID

IE

IF

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of observed properties
A or A] horizons of the Miami
dgscribed .

Summary of observed pr0perties
horizons of the Miami profiles

Summary of observed prOperties
horizons of the Miami profiles

Summary of observed properties
Upper 82 horizons of the Miami
described .

Summary of observed prOperties
Lower Bz horizons of the Miami
described .

Summary of observed properties

of the
profiles

of the A2

described.

of the B]

described.

of the
profiles

of the
profiles

of the

C horizons of the Miami profiles

described .

New mineral soils recognized according
to this study of the Ingham County soil

survey up to April I, I967.

Summary and applicability of the new

system in Ingham County .

Mapping units

PAGE

22

23

24

25

26

27

75

77
8I

I. INTRODUCTION

On the basis of soil morphology and genesis, two divisions

of soils,

minerals and organic, are represented in Ingham

County, Michigan.

The
in a new
I960 and

The

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

mineral soil series have recently been re-grouped
soil classification system (Soil Survey Staff,

I966 supplement).

purposes of this particular investigation are:

To examine the changes needed in the series definitions,
according to recent field studies, to bring the
ranges permitted within each series into conformity
with limits of the taxa in the higher categories

of the new classification;

To determine, what prOportion of the existing field
descriptions of each series are representative of
that series;

To test whether all deviations from the official
series descriptions are provided for in the new
claséification system.

Emphasis will also be placed on what portion of

the series in Ingham County need further investi-
gation to be certain of their placement in the new

classification system.

In placement of the series in the new soil classification

system special consideration will be given to the orders of

 

 

Alfisols, Mollisols, lnceptisols and Entisols, since they

 

include most of the mineral soils in Ingham County.

ll. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Some Definitions

Egdgfl - According to the 7th approximation (Soil Survey
Staff, I960), a pedon is a three dimensional body of soil
with lateral dimensions large enough to study its shape,
the properties of the horizons, their relationships to each
other and their relationships to the roots of the common
grain plants. It is the smallest volume that can be called
a soil. The pedons are what are being classified in natural
soil classifications.

A soil or the soil individual, as used herein, consists
of one or many contiguous pedons and other similar pedons
which are the predominant component of the areas delineated
on detailed soil maps and identified by a soil name. These
individuals are phases of types of the series. They are
necessary units in order to make the most precise statements
about a soil's management or behavior. Therefore, contrary
to the 7th approximation, a natural soil system cannot
logically exclude this lower category from the system.

Epipedon - The horizons that forms at the soil surface

are called epipedons.

Soil series - Is a group of phases of types, or soil

 

individuals, similar in differentiating characteristics at
the series categorical level in the classification system.
It is relatively uniform in the range of all soil properties
diagnostic for series and deveIOped from a particular type

of parent material.

B. Differentiating Among Soils

The usefulness of the soil series (Soil Survey Manual
of U.S.D.A.) is as a means for summarizing most of the
significant subsurface profile prOperties of soils and
communicating that information to indiViduals familiar with
their characteristics.

The short descriptive designations that accompany the
series names, complete the identification of the major
component of the mapping units commonly used in medium
intensity or detailed soil surveys of the United States.

Each soil series is identified by the name of a geo-
graphic feature in the area where the soil was first
described. Thus, the Hillsdale series was first recognized
in Hillsdale County, Michigan.

Soil series are differentiated mainly on the basis of

significant morphological variations of the soil profile below

the plow layer (usually about l8 cm or 7 inches) such as the
kind, thickness, and arrangement of the horizons and their
structure, color, texture, reaction, consistence, content of
humus, mineralogical compositions, salt content and other
properties.

A significant difference in one or more of these prOper-
ties in one or more subsurface horizons may be the basis
for recognizing a different series. Some variations in each
of the prOperties of the individual soil horizons must be
allowed, however in each series.

From the point of view of applied soil science, the
mappable difference of importance to the growth of the native
or cr0p plants should be recognized. For example, significant
differences in depth of leaching of calcium carbonate in two
profiles should be considered as a possible separation of two
soils. However, the separations made in mapping should also
be those that can be made consistently with the time and
facilities available. The resulting map units should be
described as to their component soils pertinent to the
objectives of the survey.

Generally, those profile prOperties which have signi-
ficance in soil genesis, in the growth of crOp plants, in

soil management and in soil engineering are to be considered

in the separation of soil series. The prOperties or ranges
in properties not selected as series differences, but
significant to these objectives, are considered in their
subdiviSions into phases or types.

The mineralogical composition of soil materials is
perhaps their most important characteristics, but in
addition, such features as porosity, permeability, texture
and degree of assortment must be considered in the
differentiation of soil series. Differences in natural
drainage, mineralogy and other qualities are often associated _
with variations in subsurface textures and so texture is
commonly important in series separations. However, tradi-
tionally differences in surface texture are recognized as
type differences within the series. Short descriptive
terms indicating the ranges in prOperties of the phases or
types within the soil series are added to the series name

to form the names of the individual kinds of soils.

C. Diagnostic Horizons
(a) Diagnostic surface horizons.
Two diagnostic epidedons are recognized in Ingham
County soils, according to the 7th approximation (Soil

Survey Staff, I960), and are defined as follows:

(I) A mollic epipedon is a soft, usually moist,
dark colored (value less than 3.5), surface,
mineral layer which contains more than 50%
base saturation and at least one percent
organic matter.

The thickness of this horizon should be more
than l8 centimeters (7 inches) and more than
1/3 the thickness of the solum or more than

25 centimeters (IO inches) where the thickness

of the solum exceeds 75 centimeters (30 inches).

(2) An ochric epipedon is too light in color,
too low in organic carbon, too acid or too
thin to be a mollic epipedon.

(b) Diagnostic subsurface horizons.

The most important diagnostic subsurface horizons,

common in Ingham County soils are defined as:

(I) An argillic horizon - is an illuvial B horizon
with coatings of clay on the peds and pore
surfaces. The ratio of clay content in the
illuvial compared to the overlying eluvial
horizon is I.2 or larger. This clay increase
must occur within l2 inches vertically or less.
Exchangeable sodium is less than IS% in this

diagnostic horizon.

(2)

(3)

A cambic horizon is mildly weathered, and
contains little original rock structure. It
shows evidence of leaching, gleying or soil
structure formation. Cambic horizons may
contain more clay than the parent material,
without having clay skins, because of
weathering in place or by removal of more

soluble coarser materials.

An albic horizon is the light colored

(albus = white) horizon from which clay and/or
free iron oxides have been removed. An albic
horizon usually lies above an illuvial horizon
or a fragipan or an equally impervious horizon

or layer.

(c) High categories

According to Guy D. Smith (I965) and the 7th

orders

below.

Approximation (Soil Survey Staff, I960) there are ten
in the new system. Some of them apply to the

classification of Ingham County soils as indicated

(l) Alfisols: The concept of Alfisols is centered

on a group of soils that are usually moist,

have ochric epipedons, and have argillic horizons

(2)

with medium or high base status. Water movement
through the solum has been adequate to remove
free carbonates from the fine earth in the
epipedon and from most of the argillic horizon,
but inadequate to remove a substantial part of
the exchangeable bases held by the soil.

Total analyses show accumulations of sesqui-
oxides in the B horizons, but this is largely
the results of accumulations of layer lattice
clays. Free iron is low in the albic horizon
relative to the clay fraction, but it seems to
be equally low in the argillic horizons.

Exchange capacities are unaffected by heat
or they increase instead of decreasing on
heating.

Aqualfs, Boralfs, Udalfs, and Ustalfs are
listed as suborders of Alfisols. Only the
Aqualfs and Udalfs are represented in Ingham
County.

Mollisols: These are soils in which decomposition

 

and accumulation of relatively large amounts of
organic matter have taken place in the presence

of calcium, producing Ca-rich forms of humus.

(3)

ID

This requires decomposition in the soil, not
93 the soil. They have high base saturation
with calcium and a mollic epipedon.

Mollisols are found where moisture is adequate
for relatively large annual additions of organic
matter. There are a few soils that have more
than 4% organic matter and more than h0% calcium
carbonate throughout the epipedon, which have
been grouped as Mollisols.

Albolls, Aquolls, Borolls, Rendolls, Udolls,
Ustolls and Xerolls are the suborders listed
for the order of Mollisols. Only the Aquolls

and Udolls are represented in Ingham County.

Entisols: These are mineral soils that lack

diagnostic horizons other than an ochric
epipedon or an albic horizon. They may be
found in any climate, on very recent surfaces,
either on steep sl0pes or on flood plains.

The Entisols include most of the alluvial
soils or the very sandy upland soils in Ingham

County, Michigan.

(h)

(5)

ll

Four suborders have been listed as: Arents,

Fluvents, Orthents and Psamments.

lnceptisols: Are soils without spodic, argillic,

 

or oxic horizons, unless in a lower sequum. We
may say they are primarily eluvial soils.
lnceptisols also lack a calcic, salic or
gypsic horizon within lOO cms. (40 inches) of
the surface.
Andepts, Aquepts, Plaggepts, Tropepts, Ochrepts,
and Umbrepts, are the suborders of lnceptisols.
Only a few Aquepts are represented in Ingham

County.

Histosols: The Histosols include the soils

 

previously called bog soils, or organic soils,
and some half-bog soils. While a number of these
occur in Ingham County their description and the
prOperties prOposed for their classification are
not yet adequate for testing their classification

in the new system.

llI. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

A soil survey of medium intensity is currently in
progress in Ingham County, Michigan. In this survey the
mapping units are generally phases of types of soil series.
In the field work being done c00peratively by the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture examinations of the soils generally take place
to a depth of forty to sixty-six inches which is considered
adequate for most farmlands.

The mapping of the areas was done using aerial photo-
graphs of about l:l2,000 scale as base maps. Delineations
are made according to differences in the landscape, such
as changes in t0pography or variation in surface color and
other diagnostic surface features. Test holes were dug
(about I hole for 5 acres) to define the boundaries between
the mapping units that are based on subsurface soil profile
characteristics. A number of descriptions of typical profiles
were made in the field for each soil series. Topography or
sIOpe of the land and other features were also observed and
recorded in the field notes at the points where those profile

descriptions were made. Texture, structure, consistence,

I2

l3

color, and thickness of each horizon also were noted
accurately for each soil profile. The acidity of the material
in each horizon was measured by means of field pH kit and
recorded.

The location of natural land features such as streams,
lakes, ponds, and marshes; and of man made features such as
levees, churches, cemeteries, gravel pits, roads and homes
were also marked on the field sheets to assist in relating
the soil boundaries to the landscapes. Since the maps will
be published on an aerial photo background and woodlots,
field boundaries and surface colors of the areas also help
in delineating the areas of the different soils and relating
these differences to ownership units such as farms, or

management units such as fields.

IV. METHODS OF STUDY

A. Placement of Soil Series in New Classification, based
on Official Series Descriptions.

The placement of the established soil series identified
in Ingham County into the new soil classification system was
first tested. This was done according to the latest infor-
rnation available, the 7th Approximation (Soil Survey Staff,
I960) and its October, I966 supplement.

The established soil series descriptions were used to
place each of them into the new classification system,
including the range in characteristics cited. Cases of
deviations from a class in the higher categories are noted and
discussed in the sections of comparison and suggestions for
each series in alphabetical order.

In order to illustrate the method of procedure, one of

the soil series ”Miami” is cited here as an example.

Miami Series:
According to the official series description of Miami,
I/I7/58, it belongs in the following taxa of the new

<2lassification system for the reasons cited.

IA

l5

Order: Alfisols

Because:

a. The Ap horizon is an ochric epipedon;

b. The Bt horizon is an argillic horizon, l6 inches
thick;

c. The Miami soils are usually moist in some part
of the soil between 25 cm and l.m (IO and 40
inches);

d. Base saturation (by sum of cations) is 35% or

more at a depth of I.25 ;m (50 inches) below

the top of the argillic horizon.

Suborder: Udalf

Because:

a .

The Miami soils are not saturated with water
at any season;
The Miami soils are usually moist, not dry in

most years for more than three months.

Great Group: flapludalfs

a 0

There is no irregular upper boundary of the
argillic horizon in the Miami series;
There is no fragipan or natric or argic

horizon present.

I6

Subgroup: Typic Hapludalfs

a. Miami series lack a lithic contact within 20”
of the surface;
b. Have an argillic horizon that is free of mottles
with chromas of 2 or less in the upper 25 cm
(IO inches);
c. There is an Ap horizon with a moist value of
more than 3;
d. Chroma of the argillic horizon is less than 6;
e. Miami soils do not have over 35% clay in all

horizons between IO and #0 inches.

Family: fine-loamy, mixed, mesic
Because:
a. The argillic horizon contains more than l8%

clay but less than 35% clay;

b. There is no special kind of minerals dominant
in the Miami profile between the Ap horizon and
the top of the C horizon;

c. The range of mean annual temperature at 50
centimeters depth (20 inches) is between
8.3-l50C (47 and 59oF.).

In summary, the Miami series is thus in the fine loamy,

ml'><ed, mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs.

l7

B. Comparing Field and Laboratory Studies in Ingham County

with the Official Series Descriptions

The official description of each series was next compared
with the field descriptions of the profiles of the same series
in Ingham County to find out the possible deviations in these
soils from the modal profile description and the cited range
of properties in the official series description cited above.

Seventeen field descriptions and twenty field notes on
the Miami series had been prepared in the course of the Ingham
County survey thru the I966 field season. This series is
again taken as an example of the procedure followed in this
study. In addition to the field descriptions, laboratory
analyses of two profiles of Miami were available from
Ingham County. All this available information was studied

as follows:

The properties cited in the official description are
shown at the tOp of Table l, and various sets of
prOperties of the horizons at sites described in

the field are shown below it in Table l.

Considering the modal properties (line 0 of Table I) and the
range in characteristics of the Miami series (silt loam,

sandy loam, loam surface texture; clay loam textural B;

l8

slightly acid reaction of sola; IOYR 5/3, 5/4-7.5YR A/h
color of sola; none to l8 inches depth of loess capping;
and 20-h2 inches of depth to the calcareous material); the
deviations of various profile descriptions from these

standards are noted below.

Profiles Nos. A, 6, and 9 have an A] horizon which is less
than l5 cm (6 inches) thick but their moist color
value is lower than 3.5;

Profiles Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, II, and l2 have an Ap horizon
with a moist value of 3.

In addition:

Profile No. 2
(a) The depth of leaching (64”) is greater than the

range of this characteristic in the official
series description.
(b) It also lacks a B] horizon.

Profile No. 6

(a) The texture of the Bth and BZZt horizons are
finer (clay).
(b) The depth of leaching is 54 inches.

l9

Profile No. 9
(a) This profile has a coarser surface texture (l.s)
(b) It lacks a B] horizon
(c) The color of the 822t horizon is reddish (5YR 4/4)
(d) The thickness of solum is 50 inches.

Profile No. l2
Thickness of the solum is 45 inches.

Profile No. l3
The depth of leaching is 50 inches.

Profile No. IS
(a) Depth of leaching in this profile is 46 inches.
(b) The color of th horizon is reddish brown (5YR 4/4)

(c) This profile lacks the B] and A2 horizons.

C. Discussion of Results and Suggestions on Miami Series
The following conclusions and proposed changes in the
classification and description of the Miami series, or its
mapping units, in Ingham County are based on the above data.
(a) Changes in classification at the family level
and above:
I. Recognize another series in the fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs for

the 35% of the soil descriptions which have

20

moist Ap color values of 3 or less. This is
probably the same soil as the Octagon series in
Indiana, Table 2.

Recognize the profiles with clay to fine clay
loam 82 horizons as members of the Morley
series in the fine, illitic, family of Typic

Hapludalfs.

(b) Changes in the description of the Miami series in

Ingham County:

I.

Extend the depth of leaching from 42 inches
(described officially) to 50 inches according
to 30% of the Miami profiles described in
Ingham County.

Mention the absence of the B] horizon from the
modal description as observed in 30% of the
Miami profiles studied.

Mention the occasional reddish color of the

B horizon and the loamy sand surface textures.

(c) Changes needed in the name and/or description of

the mapping units:

l.

Mention the new series in the fine-loamy
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs in
the name and description of the Miami mapping

units.

2l

2. Mention the fine-textured Bth and 822t (clay
to fine clay loam) Morley series inclusions
in the range of characteristics of mapping units.

3. The mapping unit Miami Ioams, O-2% sl0pes should
apparently be Miami-Octagon Ioams, O-2% sIOpes
and Miami Ioams, 2-6% slopes should be Miami-
Octagon Ioams, 2-6% sIOpes.

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive

legend:

l. Series description:
The above mentioned characteristics are not shown,
but, the absence of the B] horizon is mentioned
in the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

2. Mapping unit description:

The moist Ap color value of 3 have been mentioned

in the descriptive legend. In addition, small

areas of Celina, Metea, Spinks on the lesser

sIOpes and Conover, Brookston in the depressions,
have been mentioned as included soils of Miami units

in Ingham County survey area.

22

 

 

m.o LE to z. s m\: m>o_ :m-o Q< k_
_o>mcm >n
nmtm>ou m_ mumctsm was m.o LE to u. s.m M\: m>o_ :__-o aa a.
mmcoum sac 0.0 LE to 2N s s\: m>o_ :k-o Q< m.
mmcoum 2mL m.o LE to 2N s N\: m>o_ :m-o a< a.
0.0 LE to s. s.m :\o
.N\: m>o_ :m-o a4 m.
m.m LL tu-nsm z_ s N\N
. .N\m m>o_ :o_-o aq N.
Lo_oo xc_a
£u_2 ___o ._mu c_
macaw .m ;m_nnmt mEOm o.k Lu Lu 4. s N\m m>o_ :m-o a< __
m.m LE to s_ s.m N\s m>o_ :w-o q< o.
_Em_z c_ co_ms_uc_ 0.x Bu.> to u_ m.s N\m m>m.k :m-o _< -m
0.x LE to a. s.m M\m m>o_ :k-o Q< m
o.o LE to a. s.m _\: m>o_ :m-o a< k
0.0 I A N\N m>O— :wno —< O
o.k LE to 2N s m\m m>o_ :m-o a< m
m.o LE to EN 3 N\N m>o_ ::-o _< :
o.k La La a. s m\m m>o_ :o_-o a< m
o.k to to L_ s M\m m>o_ :o_-o a< N
o.o LE to a .s.m M\: m>o_ :o_-o a< _
a_u< .z .
0a .m LE to u N s N\: m>o_ :m-o a4 0
A.0Ev A.c_v .oz
memEom .omom .mcoo .Lum .xoh Lo_oU spawn c0N_LOI o__mocm

 

A0 oc_4 co czozm m_ co_ua_commo mo_com _m_o_mmo oghv omb_comoo
mo__moca _Em_z ogu mo mco~_cox _< Lo a< ogu mo mo_ucoaocd oo>combo mo >LmE83m .<_ o_omh

23

N md'mxom

 

 

0.0 00 L0 gm 4 M\0 0>0_ m_-0 N<
mm_0000 __0Em 200 0.0 00 x0 0 s_ s m\0 m>0_ 0_-0 N<
0.0 L0 .> 000 0 _ s .m.u :\0
.N\k 0>0_ m_-0_ N< _
m.“ L... v3 mu: ._ Q0
.M\m 0>0_ :_-0 Na __
0.: 00 x0 0 2N 3.0.0 :\0 m>m.k N_-0 N< 0_
0.0 00 > L0 u>_ 0.3 :\s m>0_ ~_-m N< 0
0.x Lu x0 .00< .4.0 N\:
.M\N 0>0_ 0_-k N< 0
0.0 La L0 a. .4.0 M\0
.M\m m>0_ 0_-0 ~< k
0.0 tu.> 0.0.0.2.s.m.0 s\m m>0_ 0_-0 N< 0
0.x 00 L0 0. .0 M\m m>0_ 0_-m Na 0
0.0 00 L0 EN 5 s\m 0>0_ k-¢ N< :
0.0 00 x0 .000
000 2N s s\m 0>0_ :_-0_ N< m
0.0 t0 L0 0. s s\m 0>0_ m_-0_ N< N
0.0 00 x0 .000
0:0 2N s s\0 0>0_ s_-0_ N< _
0_0<
.L00 00 00 0. s to M\m m>0_ .N_-0 N< 0
00 .z _0 z_ s._m ka 0>00
“.050 x.0_0 .oz
memEmm .omom .cho .Lum .xoh Lo_oo Luaoo coN_LOI o__moLm

 

Ao oc_4 :0 :305m m_ co_ua_comoo mo_cmm _m_o_mmo ospv oob_comoo
mm__mocm _Em_z ogu mo coN_LOI N< ogu mo mo_ucodocm oo>comoo mo >LmEE3m .m. o_bm»

24

 

 

 

0.0 0. 0002N 0 0\0 0>0. 0.-0 .0 N.
- - - - - - - 0.
- - - - - - - 0.
- - - - - - .- 0.
0.0 0. 0004. 0 0N0 0>0. 0N-0. 0 0.
0.0 0. 000:. 0 0\0
.0\0 0>0. 0.-0. .0 N.
0.N 0. 000:. 0.0 :\0 0>0.N 0N-0. .0 ..
0.0 00 ~0.002. .0.0 0\: 0>0. 0.-N. .0 0.
0.0 . >um_a op
0>.000z .0.0 0\0 0>0. 0.-N. .0 0
N.N 0. 00
.00.: 0 0\0 0>0. 0.-0. .0 0
0.0 .0 x0
00.0.> 0 0\: 0>0. NN-0. .0 N
0.0 0. 00.2.2 0 0\: 0>0. 0N-0. .0 0
0.N .0.> x0
0.2N 0.0 N\0 0>0. NN-0. .0 0
0.0 0. 00.2N 0.0 0\0 0>0. 0-N .0 0
0.0 0. x0 E...N 0 0\0 0>0. 0.-0. .0 0
- - - - - - - N
00 <
N.0 0. 000.2.N 0.0 0\0 0>0. 0.-:. .0 .
0.00 0 .0 00.0 00 ..0 :\0 0>0. :0.-N. N0 0
0mc_umoolb 00 Eli Cu cu u 00 Zlco E4._m
..oe. ..0.. .oz
memEom .omom .mcoo .Lum .xop 00—00 :uooo cON_LOI o__moLm
Ao mc_4 co czozm ma cohua_comoo 0o_Lom _m_o_mmo oshv omn_cumoo
0o__moLm .Em.z mg“ 00 coN_LOI .Q osu mo mo_ucoaoLm oo>cmmoo mo >LmEE3m .o. o_omh

5
2

 

 

 

N.
- - 0 .. 0.
0.0 .0.> 0002N 0.0 0N0 020 0N-N. N0 0.
- - - - - - - 0.
0.0 .0 0000. 0.0 0N: 0>0. 00-0N 0.N0 0.
N.0 .0.> 000 00 0.0 .0N:
0N: 020.N NN-0. 0.N0 N.
0.N .0 00.0.2N 0.0 0N0 0>0.N 00-0N N0 ..
0.0 .0 00.0.2N 0.0 JNJ 020.N NN-0. 0.N0 0.
0.0 - 00.0.2N 0.0 0N: 0>0.N 0N-0. 0.N0 0
00 03
00.00 20.0 0.N .0 .00 2 0.0 .JN: 020. 00-0. 0.N0 0
00
N .0 00.2.2 0.0 00 0 JNN 020.N 00-NN 0.N0 N
0N
00000 000.00 0E00 0.N .0 00.20 0 .0N: 020. 00-:N 0.N0 0
00
0.N .0 .0 2.N 0.0 0N: 020. 0.N0 0
0.0 .0 00.2.N 0.0 0N0 0>0. N0-0 0.N0 0
00
0.0 .0 E.0.N .0.0 0N0 020. 0N-0. 0.N0 0
00.00
N.0 00 .2.0.N .0.0 0N: 0>0. 00-0. 0.N0 N
.0
0.N .0 00.2N .0.0 0N0 020. 00-0. 0.N0 .
.03 006.0 .
0.0<.000 00.0.00 0.0..0 0N0 .0N0 JN-N. 0.N0 0
000.0000 20.0 00 0.2 .0- 00 00 2 00 0.0 0N0 020.
A.OEV A.C_v .OZ
memEmm .Ummm . mCOU .Lum .th LO—OU Luamo CON _ LOI ®_ _mOi_n_
Ao oc_4 :0 :305m 0. co_ua_000oo mo_0om _m_o_mmo oskv omn_0omoo
0o__0000 .Em_z ogu mo cow_0OI mm ms“ 00 0o_u0o000m oo>0omno >0mEE3m .o_ m_nmp

26

 

 

 

0.0 .0.> 2 0 0N0 0>0. 00-0. 00 N.
0.0 .0 000 2N 0.0 0N0 020. 00-.. 00 m.
.
0.0 .0 000 2N 0.0 0N0 0>0. 0N-0. 00 0.
0N0 020. .
00.0000 0000 0.N .0 000 2N 0.0 0N0 020. 00-00 - 0.
00.00 20.0 0.N-N.0 .0 000 2N 0.0 0N: 0>0. mJ-NN 00 N.
0.N .0 000 2N 0.0 0N0 0>0. 00-00 00 ..
0.0 .0 000 2N 0.0 0N: 020. 0N-NN 0NN0 0.
V8.90
0.0 - 0002N 0.0 0N0 020 00-0N 0NN0 0
- - - - - - - m
0 .0 00 00
000 2.N 0.0 0N0 020. N0-00 0NN0 N
- - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - 0
0.0 .0 00
000.0N 0.0 0N0 020. 00-0N 0NN0 0
0.0 .0 0 0002N 0.0 0N0 020. 00-00 0NN0 N
0.N .0 0 000 0.0 0N: 0>0. 00-00 0NN0 .
.000000 .0 0 000 0.0 0N0 0>0. 0N-0N HNN0 0
000.0000 00 0000.0 00 0 0N0 0>00N
A.OEV A.c_v .oz
memEmm .Ummm .mCOU .Lum .X®._. LO—OU Luamo CON_LOI m—_wO-_n_
A0 $.54 CO CZOLM m_. CO_uQ_-.Ummo —m_U_uTvO QLHV Umn_LUm®Q
mo_.mo0m-_Em_z ocu mo 0cow_00I Nm 06300.o;0 mo 06.0000000 oo>0omno >0mEEJm .m. o_bmb

 

 

.0.00 .0 0002. 0 0N0 0>0. .00 0 N.
.0.00 00 0002N 0 0N0 020. +00 0 0.
.0.00 00 0000. 0 0N0 0>0. 000-00 0 0.
.0.00 .0 0002N 0 0N0 0>0. +00.-0N 0 0.
.0.00 .0 0000. 0 0N0 0>0. .00-00 0 0.
.0.00 .0 0>.0000 0 0N0 020. +00 0 N.

0O.00 00.0 00.2 .0.00 .0 0000. 0 0N0
000000000 00.0000 00000 -0N0 020. +00 0 ..
000030 00 0000000 0000 .0.00 .0 0002. 0 0N0 020. +00-0N 0 0.
.0.00 - 0>.0000 .0 0N0 020. +00 0 0
0.0 00 0>.0000 0.0 0N0 0>0. +00 0 0

xn.mm

0.0 .0 000.2.2 0.0 0N0 020. +N0 0 N
7, 0.0 .0 00.0.0 0.0 0N0 0>0. +00 0 0
o. 0.0 .0 0.0.2N 0 0N0 0>0. +00 0 0
0.0 .0 0>.0000 0 0N0 0>0. +N0 0 0

0.0 00 .00 0 0N0
.0N0 0>0. +00 0 0
0 .0 0>.0000 0 0N0 020. +00 0 N
0 .0 03000E 0 0N0 020. .00 0 .

mmLmOU
0o .0.0 0N0 0>0.
0000 00.0 000.2 .0..0 0NN +0N 0 0
-000.00 .0 00 0>.0002 0 0N0 020.
, ..00. ..0.0 .oz
000mEom .omom .mcoo .0um .xop 00.00 Luaoo cON_0OI o__mo00

 

.0 00.0 00 02000 0. 00.00.00000 .0.0.000 000. 000.00000

0o__0000 .Em_z oz“ 00 coN.0OI u ogu mo 0o.00odo00 oo>0omoo >0mEEnm

.0. 0.0.0.

V. PLACEMENT OF MINERAL SOILS IN THE NEW SYSTEM, COMPARISONS

WITH AVAILABLE DATA IN INGHAM COUNTY AND RESULTING
‘ ' ‘ SUGGESTIONS

In order to classify the mineral soils in Ingham County
according to the new soil classification system, the following
steps were followed. First, the current proposed placements
of all series were tested. This revealed a few changes in the
tentative placements. Secondly, the field descriptions and
the profiles on which laboratory data were available for
each of those series were placed in the new system. Thirdly,
the field descriptions and notes from Ingham County were
compared to the official series description. Fourth, assuming
that the descriptions and notes were representative of the
mapping units, the suitability of the names of the mapping units
were examined according to the guidelines in the January ll,
I966 memo on the application of the new soil classification
system. Finally, these suggestions were checked against the
revised descriptive legend for the county.

The resulting suggestions for each soil series are given
below in alphabetical order. However, it was found there are
no estimates of the pr0portions of the various soils in each

mapping unit in the descriptive legend.

28

29

It should be born in mind that the correlations of the
mapping units for this area have not yet been completed and
the descriptive legend is now in the process of being
compiled. Where changes are suggested on the basis of the
currently available information these will need to be
checked in the field to see if the profile descriptions
now available are truly representative of the soil units
as mapped in Ingham County. Failure to describe grey
mottles if present in the profile, for example, may greatly
alter the following suggestions. The small number of
profile descriptions and notes on these soils is insufficient
to be adequately representative of the composition of the
units and this has no doubt been corrected in part by the
personal experiences of the surveyors in the recently
revised descriptive legend. Further checking and observations
as the survey progresses may result in deviations from these

suggestions.

A. Boyer Series

Seven profile descriptions, eight field notes and one
profile analysis were available from the Boyer series. The
following conclusions and prOposed changes are based on the
«above mentioned data.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(l)

(2)

3O

70% of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs into which the Boyer series has

been placed.

The remaining 30% are inclusions of the Fox and
Casco series which will be mentioned under

descriptions of the mapping units of Boyer.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Boyer

series for this survey area are:

(l) A B] horizon was not noted in 2/3 of the studied‘

(2)

(3)

profiles. However, further field studies are
needed to clarify this observation. The B]
horizon may not always be detected in auger
borings on which most of the descriptions are
based.

No difference was noted between the sandy clay
loam 821t and BZZt horizons, so only a BZt horizon
is needed, as shown by 60% of the Boyer series
descriptions.

A moderately coarse texture layer between the
82t and the IlC should be mentioned as a B3

horizon according to 40% of the Boyer descriptions.

3]

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of

(d)

the Boyer mapping units:

(I) IS% of the profile descriptions are in the

(2)

fine-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs
represented by the Fox series.

l5% of the profile descriptions are in the
fine—loamy, over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic, shallow, family of the Typic

Hapludalfs represented by the Casco series.

Comparisons with the current, April I967,

descriptive legend:

(l) Series description: The above mentioned

(2)

characteristics of the Boyer have been shown
in its description in Ingham County, but, the
surface color mentioned is darker than usual
for this series.

Mapping unit description: The Fox is mentioned
as an inclusion in the mapping unit but the
Casco is not. However, the one Casco profile
description is in the FI mapping unit that is
described as being shallower than the Boyer
described on gentler slopes. This raises the
question of whether the Fl units should be

Casco instead of Boyer.

32

B. Brady Series

Three profile descriptions and three field notes were
available from the Brady series. The following conclusions
and suggestions are based on the above data:

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) None of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Aquollic Hapludalfs
into which the official Brady series descrip-
tion has been placed.

(2) 33% of the soil descriptions fit into the
Coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs represented by the Boyer series.

(3) 33% of the soil description fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic
Hapludalfs. The Constantine series has been
proposed for a soil in this family in Michigan.

(A) 33% of the soil descriptions fit into an
imperfectly drained variant of Spinks which is
in the sandy, mixed, mesic family of Aquic
Hapludalfs.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Brady
series for this area:
Since no Brady profiles have yet been described
in these units, it seems their names should be

changed.

33

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of
the mapping units:
The mapping unit Brady loamy sand, 2-6% sl0pes,
gapparently is Spinks loamy sand imperfectly
drained variant, 2-6% slopes; and the Brady
sandy Ioams, O-2% sIOpes should apparently
be Boyer-Constantine sandy Ioams, O-2% slopes.
They are each represented in about equal
proportions in the profile descriptions from
these mapping units.
(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:
(l) Series description
No Brady profiles have yet been studied in
Ingham County according to this investigation.
(2) Mapping unit description:
No mapping units descriptions are shown yet

in the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

C. Bronson Series

Three profile descriptions and one field note were

available from the Bronson series.

3h

The following conclusions and suggestions are based on

those field studies.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I)

(2)

(3)

None of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquic
Hapludalfs into which the Bronson series has

been placed.

35% of the soil descriptions fit into the coarse-
loamy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs.
The Constantine series has been prOposed for a
soil in that family, as mentioned under the

Brady series.

65% of the soil descriptions are the well drained
Spinks series which is in the sandy, mixed,

mesic family of Psammentic Hapludalfs.

(b) Changes in the description of the Bronson series in

this area:

No Bronson profiles have yet been described in

these units.

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Bronson sandy loam mapping units:

35

The name of these mapping units on B SIOpes
should apparently be Spinks-Constantine sandy
loams. They are represented by 65% and 35%,
respectively, of the profile descriptions from
the mapping units to date.

(d) Bronson does not yet appear in the descriptive

legend for Ingham County.

D. Brookston Series
Six profile descriptions, seven field notes and one
profile analysis were available from the Brookston series.
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on
those data.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 50% of the profile descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Argiaquolls which includes the Brookston series.
(2) The remaining 50% of the soil descriptions fit
into the poorly drained Pewawo series which is
in the fine, illitic, non-calcareous, mesic
family of Typic Argiaquolls.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Brookston

series for this area:

36

The occurrence of thin (A to ID inches) gravel,
gravelly loam, sandy or loamy sand strata within
l8 inches of the surface, according to field
notes, should be mentioned in the range of
characteristics of the Brookston series in
Ingham County.
(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of the

mapping units of Brookston:
Because of the fine textured (CL to C) BZZt
horizon as indicated by 50% of the profile
description, the inclusion of the Pewamo series
should be mentioned in the name and the descrip-
tions of the mapping units of the Brookston
series. The name of this mapping unit would
thus be Brookston—Pewamo loams.

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive

legend:

(l) Series description:
The above mentioned characteristics have been
shown in the descriptive legend for Ingham
County.

(2) Mapping unit description:

37

The Pewamo is not mentioned as an inclusion
in the mapping unit. But small areas of
Conover and some small areas of Colwood are
mentioned in the descriptive legend of

Ingham County.

E. Celina Series
Four profile descriptions and ten field notes were
available for the Celina series. The following conclusions
and proposed changes are based on those data.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 50% of the soil descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquic
Hapludalfs which includes the Celina series.
(2) The remaining 50% are inclusions of Conover
series which will be discussed under
descriptions of the mapping units of Celina.
(b) Proposed changes in the descriptions of the Celina
series for this area:
(I) There is no BZ3t horizon present according to
I00% of the Celina profile descriptions.
(2) The minimum depth of mottlings from the surface
should be mentioned as I3” instead of l6”

according to the soil profile descriptions.

38

(3) The presence of loamy sand or sand lenses within
the upper l8” of the profile, according to
occasional field notes, should be mentioned.

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Celina loam mapping units:

(l) 50% of the profile descriptions are in the
fine-loamy mixed, mesic family of Aquollic
Hapludalfs, represented by the Conover series.

(2) The name of these mapping units on B slopes
should therefore be Celina-Conover loams.

(d) Comparison with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(l) Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics are not
shown in the descriptive legend of Ingham
County.

(2) Mapping unit description:

The inclusion of Conover is mentioned in the

descriptive legend.

F. Colwood Series
Two profile descriptions and three field notes were
available from the Colwood series. The following conclusions

and suggestions are based on those data.

40

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) I00% of the profile descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquollic
Hapludalfs which include the Conover series.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Conover
series in Ingham County:

(I) The occurrence of (9 to l2 inches) sandy loam
to loamy sand layers within l8 inches of the
surface, should be mentioned in the range of
characteristics of this series according to
40% of the soil profile descriptions.

(c) Comparison with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(l) Soil description:

The above mentioned characteristics of the
Conover has been shown in the descriptive
legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:

No mapping unit inclusions have been indicated
in this study. But, small inclusions of Celina,
Kibbie, Locke, Brookston, and Miami have been

mentioned in the descriptive legend.

42

I. Fox Series

The following conclusions and suggestions are based on

six profile descriptions and seven field notes from the Fox

series in

Ingham County.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(b)

(l) 66% of the soil descriptions fit into the fine-

(2)

loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal, mixed,
mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs which include
the Fox series.

The remaining 34% are inclusions of Boyer and
Oshtemo series which will be mentioned under

descriptions of the mapping units of Fox.

PrOposed changes in the description of the Fox

series in this survey area:

(I) Mention the coarse textured A2 horizon (SL to LS)

(2)

(3)

as indicated by 75% of the Fox descriptions.
Omit the B] horizon as indicated by 50% of the
soil descriptions, unless this has been missed
in auger descriptions.

Combine the 82] and BZZt horizons into one B2t

horizon as indicated by 50% of the soil descrip-

tions.

A3

(A) Mention the existence of a transitional B3
horizon (6 to ID inches) between the BZt and
IIC horizons, according to 75% of the soil
descriptions.

(c) Changes needed in the description of the Fox mapping
units.

(I) In addition to 66% of Fox, l7% of the profile
descriptions are in the coarse-loamy, mixed,
mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs, represented
by the Boyer series.

(2) The remaining l7% of the soil descriptions are
in the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of
Typic Hapludalfs, represented by the Oshtemo
series.

(3) No changes are prOposed inthe names of these
mapping units.

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(I) Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics of the Fox
have been shown in the descriptive legend of

Ingham County.

an

(2) Mapping unit description:

The Boyer and Oshtemo soils, described as
mapping unit inclusions in this study,have

been mentioned also in the descriptive legend.

J. Gilford Series

Eight profile descriptions and three field notes were

available from the Gilford series. The following conclusions

and prOposed changes are based on those data.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) h0% of the soil descriptions fit into the coarse-

(2)

loamy, mixed, mesic, non-calcareous family of
Typic Haplaquolls which include the Gilford
series.

The remaining 60% of the profile descriptions
are inclusions of the Sebewa, Wasepi and “poorly
drained Spinks” series which will be mentioned
under descriptions of the mapping units of

Gilford.

(b) PrOposed changes in the description of the Gilford

series for this survey area are:

(l)

Mention the common absence of an A2 horizon,

as indicated by 60% of the soil descriptions.

(d)

(3)

45

Combine Blg and BZIg horizons as 829 horizon
as indicated by 60% of the soil descriptions.
Consider the existence of a 839 transitional

horizon, with LS and SL texture, as indicated

by 60% of the profile descriptions.

Changes needed in the descriptions and names of the

Gilford mapping units.

(l) 25% of the soil descriptions are in the fine-
loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal, mixed,
mesic, family of Typic Argiaquolls represented
by the Sebewa series.

(2) 25% of the profile descriptions are in the coarse-
Ioamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquollic Hapludalfs
represented by the Wasepi series.

(3) l0% of the soil descriptions include the poorly
drained variant of the Spink series.

(A) In view of the large proportions of other series
in these mapping units, Gilford-Wasepi sandy
Ioams seems a more apprOpriate name for these
mapping units.

Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive

legend:

(1)

Series description:

40

The above mentioned characteristics of the
Gilford have been mentioned in the descriptive
legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:
There are no definite prOportions of mapping
inclusions in the descriptive legend. But, it
is mentioned that small areas of organic soils
occur in low spots and that loamy sand, sandy

loam and loam surface textures are included.

K. Granby Series
Five profile descriptions, one profile analysis, and one
field note were available from the Granby series. The
following conclusions and suggestions are based on those
data.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 80% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the sandy, mixed, non-acid, mesic, family of
Typic Haplaquolls into which the Granby series
has been placed.
(2) The remaining 20% are inclusions of the

Maumee series which is in the same family.

47

(b) Changes in the description of the Granby series in

(C)

Ingham County:

(I)

(2)

(3)

(A)

The thickness of Ap plus A12 horizons should
be extended from 8 to l5 inches to ID to

l8 inches according to 75% of the descriptions
of Granby.

The occurrence of a stratified Bg horizon

(LS and S) according to 50% of the descriptions
should be mentioned in the range of character-
istics of the Granby series in Ingham County.
Extend the depth of leaching from 30 inches

to 50 inches according to 75% of the Granby
profile descriptions.

There is muck, about 8 inches thick, on the
surface of the Granby series in scattered

areas according to 25% of the descriptions.

Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Granby mapping units:

(I) No change in the name of the mapping unit is

proposed.

(2) The 20% inclusion of the Maumee series should

be mentioned in the description of the mapping

unit.

48

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descrip-

tive legend:

(1)

(2)

Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics of the
Granby have been mentioned in its description
in Ingham County.

Mapping unit description:

Small areas of Berrien, Tedrow and some
inclusions of organic soils (Tawas, Carlisle)
have been mentioned as mapping inclusions in

the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

L. Hillsdale Series

The following conclusions and suggestions are based on

the three profile descriptions, four field notes and four

profile analyses from the Hillsdale series in Ingham County.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I)

(2)

35% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs which include the Hillsdale series.
The remaining 65% are inclusions of fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs which
will be discussed under descriptions of the

mapping units of Hillsdale.

#9

(b) PrOposed changes in the description of the Hillsdale
series in this survey area:
(I) No difference was noted between the BZIt and
BZZt horizons, so only a BZt horizon is
needed as shown by l00% of the Hillsdale
profile description.
(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of the
Hillsdale sandy loam mapping units:
(l) 65% of the profile descriptions are in the fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs,
No soil has yet been recognized in this family
in this survey area.
Apparently a new soil series, X], should be
recognized under the above mentioned family
category. This is probably the same soil as
the Nippersink series (BWR 2-22-56) in Illinois.
(2) The name of these mapping units should therefore
probably be Nippersink-Hillsdale sandy Ioams.
(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend: I
(1) Series description:
The above mentioned characteristics of the
Hillsdale series have been shown in its

description in Ingham County.

50

(2) Mapping unit description:
No mapping unit descriptions are shown yet

in the descriptive legend for Ingham County.

M. Kibbie Series

Three profile descriptions and six field notes were
available for the Kibbie series. The following conclusions
and suggestions are based on those data.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) 33% of the soil descriptions fit into the fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquollic Hapludalfs
which include the Kibbie series.

(2) 33% of the soil descriptions fit into the fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs.
A new soil series, X2, should be recognized.
This is probably the same soil as the Argyle
series in Illinois.

(3) 33% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the fine—loamy, mixed, mesic Aquic Hapludalfs
represented by the Celina series.

(b) PrOposed changes in the description of the Kibbie
series for this area:
Since only one of the profile descriptions fits
the family into which the Kibbie series has been
placed, no change is prOposed in the description

of this series.

SI

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming

of the Kibbie mapping unit:

(I) The mapping unit Kibbie loamy fine sands,

0-2% sl0pes, should probably be Argyle loamy
fine sand, 0-2% sl0pes, and the Kibbie Ioams,
2-6% sl0pes should apparently be Kibbie-Celina
loams, 2-6%,sl0pes.

(2) These three soils are represented in equal
proportions in the profile descriptions from
these mapping units.

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(l) Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics of the
Kibbie have not been shown in the descriptive
legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:

There are no mapping unit descriptions shown

in the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

N. Lapeer Series
Two profile descriptions, two field notes, and one profile
analysis were available for the Lapeer series (Mokma I966).

The following suggestions and conclusions are based on those data:

52

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) l00% of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs which includes the Lapeer series.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Lapeer
series in Ingham County:

(I) The occurrence of some gravels and pebbles in
the B] and 82] horizons should be mentioned
in the range of characteristics of this series
in this area.

(c) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(l) The above mentioned characteristics of the Lapeer
have not been shown in the descriptive legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:

There are no mapping unit descriptions yet in

the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

0. Matherton Series
Four profile descriptions and four field notes were
available for the Matherton series. The following conclusions

and pr0posed changes are based on those data.

53

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) None of the profile descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Ochraqualfs
into which the official Matherton series
description has been placed.

(2) 50% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the fine-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Hapludalfs
represented by the Dresden series.

(3) 25% of the soil descriptions fit into the fine-
loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal, mixed,
mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs represented
by the lonia series.

(A) 25% of the soil descriptions probably fit into
an imperfectly drained variant of Dresden which
is in the fine-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic family of Aquollic Hapludalfs. This
soil, X3, has not yet been recognized in Michigan.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Matherton

series in Ingham County:
Since no Matherton profiles have yet been
described in these units, it seems their names

should be changed.

54

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of
the mapping units:
The mapping unit, Matherton sandy Ioams,
0-2% slopes, should apparently be Dresden
sandy loam, 0-2% sl0pes. The Matherton
Ioams, 0-2% slopes should be Ionia-X3 Ioams,
0-2% slopes.
(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:
(I) Series description:
There were no Matherton series description
according to this study to be compared with
the descriptive legend.
(2) Mapping unit description:
No mapping unit descriptions have been shown

yet in the descriptive legend of Ingham County.

P. Metamora Series
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on
four profile descriptions and seven field notes from the

Metamora series in Ingham County.

55

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I)

(2)

50% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquollic
Hapludalfs which include the Metamora series.
The remaining 50% of the soil descriptions are
inclusions of the Celina series which will be
discussed under descriptions of the mapping

units of Metamora.

(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Metamora

series for this area:

(I)

(2)

(3)

The depth to the 'IBZZtg horizon varies from
24 to 42 inches instead of l8 to 42 inches,
according l00% of the soil descriptions of
Metamora.

The texture of the IIC horizon is silty clay
loam instead of clay loam according to lOO%

of the soil profile descriptions. This change
in texture of IIC horizon should be mentioned
in the range of characteristics of the Metamora
series for this area.

The depth of leaching is more than 42 inches

according to two field notes.

56

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Metamora sandy loam mapping units:

(l) 50% of the profile descriptions are in the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquic
Hapludalfs, represented by the Celina series.

(2) The name of these mapping units on A slopes
should therefore be, Metamora-Celina sandy Ioams.

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:

(l) Series description:

The first two characteristics of the Metamora
series mentioned above have not been shown in
the descriptive legend. But the depth of

leaching is indicated as more than 42 inches.

(2) Mapping unit description:

The inclusions of Celina have not been mentioned,
but inclusions of Conover and some Brookston

have been indicated in the descriptive legend.

0. Metea Series
Four profile descriptions and ten field notes were
available from the Metea series. The following conclusions

and suggestions are based on those data.

57

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

(I) 25% of the profile descriptions fit into the
sandy over fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of
Arenic Hapludalfs which includes the Metea
series.

(2) 25% of the profile descriptions fit into the
sandy over fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of
Arenic Aquollic Hapludalfs which is not listed
under the new classification system. This soil,
X4, has not yet been recognized as a separate
series in Michigan.

(3) 50% of the profile descriptions fit into the
sandy over fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of
Arenic Mollic Hapludalfs. This soil, X5, has
not yet been recognized as a separate series
in Michigan.

(b) PrOposed changes in the description of the Metea
series in Ingham County:

(I) The range of thickness of the upper story is
24 to 34 inches according to IOO% of the soil
profile descriptions. This should be mentioned
in the range of characteristics of the Metea

series for this area.

58

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of

(d)

the mapping units of Metea:
(l) The name of these mapping units should be
”XS-Xu-Metea” loamy sands. They are present
in proportions of 50, 25, and 25%, respectively.
(2) 25% of the profile descriptions, ”X4”, are in
the sandy over fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family
of Arenic Aquollic Hapludalfs which has not
yet been recognized in this area.
(3) Recognize new soil ”X5” according to 50% of
the soil profile descriptions. This new soil
should meet the requirements for a sandy over
fine loamy, mixed mesic family of Arenic
Mollic Hapludalfs.
Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:
The ah3ve mentioned range in thickness of the upper
story of the Metea has been mentioned in the
descriptive legend. But the inclusion and
descriptions of the new soils have not been indicated.
However, the inclusion of small scattered areas of
Spinks and Ottawa soils have been mentioned in the

descriptive legend.

59

R. Miami Series

The Miami series has been discussed in Section IV
(Methods of Study).

It should be re-emphasized, 35% of the profile descrip-
tions are in the fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic
Hapludalfs. No soil has yet been recognized in this family
in this survey area. The Octagon series, X6, in Illinois

should probably be recognized here under the above

mentioned family category. It is listed as “X6” in this
study.
S. Oshtemo Series

Four profile descriptions and five field notes were
available from the Oshtemo series. The following conclusions
and suggestions are based on those data.

(a) Classification at the family level and above:

l00% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs which include the Oshtemo series.
(b) Proposed changes in the description of the Oshtemo
series for this survey area:
(I) The depth to the C horizon ranges from 56 to
66 inches according to lOO% of the soil profile

descriptions.

6O

(2) The color of the 82] horizon is IOYR 5/4-5/6
instead of SYR 3/4 according to 75% of the
profile descriptions. This should be mentioned
in the range of characteristics of the Oshtemo
series in this area.

(c) Comparisons with the current, April I967,
descriptive legend:

(l) Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics of the
Oshtemo have been shown in the descriptive
legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:

Small areas of Brady, Spinks and Boyer soils
have been mentioned as mapping unit inclusions

in the descriptive legend.

T. Owosso Series
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on
eight profile descriptions and fourteen field notes from the
Owosso series.
(a) Claséification at the family level and above.
(I) 50% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic

Hapludalfs that include the Owosso series.

6l

(2) 25% of the soil descriptions are in the fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs
represented by the Miami series.

(3) The remaining 25% of the soil profile descrip-
tions fit into the fine-loamy, mixed, mesic
family of Aquollic Hapludalfs represented by
the Metamora series.

(b) Changes in the description of the Owosso series in

Ingham County:

(I) The depth of the llBt horizon ranges from 23
to 43 inches according to IOO% of the Owosso
profile descriptions.

(2) The depth of leaching starts from 42 inches or
more instead of 30 inches according to 75%
of the soil profile descriptions.

(c) Changes needed in the description and naming of
the mapping units:

(l) 50% of the soil profile descriptions are
inclusions of Miami and Metamora series in about
equal prOportions which should be mentioned in
the name and the descriptions of the mapping

units of the Owosso series.

(d)

62

(2) The name of this mapping unit should therefore
be Owosso-Metamora-Miami sandy Ioams.
Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive
legend:
(l) Series description:
The above mentioned characteristics of the
Owosso have not been shown in the descriptive
legend.
(2) Mapping unit description:
There are no mapping unit descriptions yet
shown in the descriptive legend of Ingham

County.

U. Perrin Series

Two profile descriptions, one profile analysis and four

field notes were available from the Perrin Series. The

following conclusions and suggestions are based on those data.

(a)

(b)

Classification at the fanily level and above:
l00% of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs which include the Perrin series.
PrOposed changes in the description of the Perrin

series:

63

The depth to bright colored mottling ranges from
ID to 30 inches according to the soil profile
descriptions. However, this range has been noted
as l6-30 inches in the official series description.
(c) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descrip-
tive legend:
The depth to mottling have been mentioned as 20
to 24 inches. This should be in agreement with
the above mentioned series description for this
area. Small spots of Wasepi and Boyer have been
indicated as mapping unit inclusions in the

descriptive legend of Ingham County.

V. Sebewa Series
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on
eight profile descriptions and three field notes from the
Sebewa series.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 75% of the soil profile descriptions fit into
the fine-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal,
mixed, mesic non-calcareous family of Typic

Argiaquolls which include the Sebewa series.

(b)

(C)

64

(2) The remaining 25% are inclusions of Brookston
series which will be discussed under descriptions
of the mapping units of Sebewa.

Pr0posed changes in the descriptions of the Sebewa

series in Ingham County:

(I) Occurrence of an A2 horizon should be mentioned,
according to 33% of the Sebewa soil profile
descriptions, but this may be a Blg.

(2) The Blg horizon is absent according to 50% of
the Sebewa soil profile descriptions.

(3) The BZIt and 822t horizons could be combined
as only one BZtg horizon as indicated by 66%
of the Sebewa profile descriptions.

Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Sebewa mapping units:

(1) 25% of the profile descriptions are in the fine-
loamy mixed, mesic family of Typic Argiaquolls,
represented by the Brookston series. This
should be mentioned in the description of the
mapping units.

(2) No change is proposed in the names of these

mapping units.

65

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive

legend:

(I) Series description:
Only the absence of a Blg horizon have been
indicated in the descriptive legend.

(2) Mapping unit description:
The Brookston is mentioned as an inclusion in
the mapping unit. In addition, the Carlisle,
Matherton, and Conover series are also

indicated as mapping unit inclusions.

W. Sisson Series
Two profile descriptions, one profile analysis and nine
field notes were available from the Sisson series. The
following conclusions and suggestions are based on those
data.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
l00% of the profile descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic Hapludalfs
which include the Sisson series.
(b) Pr0posed changes in the description of the Sisson

series:

66

Extend the depth of leaching from 42 to 52 inches
according to 50% of the soil profile descriptions.
(c) Comparisons with the current, April I967,
descriptive legend:
(l) Series description:
The above mentioned depth of leaching is not
the same as in the descriptive legend. There
it has been mentioned as 24 to 42 inches from
the surface. A correction is apparently needed.
(2) Mapping unit description:
There are no mapping unit descriptions yet

shown in the descriptive legend.

X. Spinks Series
Nine profile descriptions, two profile analyses and
sixteen field notes were available from the Spinks series.
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on those
data.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 33% of the profile descriptions fit into the
sandy, mixed, mesic family of Mollic Psammentic
Hapludalfs which is not listed under the new
classification system. This soil “X7“ has

not yet been recognized as a separate series

(b)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

67

in Michigan. This soil is probably the same
as the Stroh series (OCR, 6/29/55) in Indiana.
22% of the profile descriptions fit into the
sandy, mixed, mesic family of Psammentic
Hapludalfs which include the Spinks series.
22% of the soil profile descriptions fit

into an imperfectly drained variant of Spinks
which is in the sandy, mixed, mesic family of
Aquic Hapludalfs.

ll% of the soil descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Typic
Hapludalfs represented by the Oshtemo series.
ll% of the profile descriptions fit into the
fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, family of the Typic

Hapludalfs represented by the Sisson series.

Proposed changes in the description of the Spinks

series for this survey area:

(I) Omit the BZt horizon as indicated by lOO% of

the Spinks descriptions. But, mention thin
discontinuous layers of brown sandy loam. These

layers are l/8 to l inch thick.

(C)

(d)

(2)

68

The C] horizon is not calcareous to a depth
of 66 inches from the surface, according 50%

of the soil descriptions.

Changes needed in the descriptions and names of the

Spinks mapping units:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

22% of the soil profile descriptions fit into

an imperfectly drained variant of Spinks.

33% of the profile descriptions are in the sandy,
mixed, mesic family of Mollic Psammentic
Hapludalfs.

The mapping unit Spinks loamy sands, 2-6% sl0pes
should therefore be Stroh-Spinks loamy sands,
2-6% slopes and Spinks sandy Ioams, 0-2%

sl0pes should be Spinks imperfectly drained
variant, sandy Ioams, 0-2% sl0pes.

The inclusions of Sisson and Oshtemo series
should also be mentioned in the descriptions

of the mapping units.

Comparisons with the current, April I967, descriptive

legend:

(l) Series description:

The above mentioned characteristics of Spinks

have been mentioned in its description.

69

(2) Mapping unit description:
The above mentioned imperfectly drained Spinks
variant has been indicated in the mapping unit,
but the other mapping inclusions have not been
mentioned.
The inclusions of some Oakville, Berrien,
Metea, Metamora and scattered areas of Hillsdale
or Lapeer have been shown in the descriptive
legend of Ingham County. Apparently this is a

complex mapping unit that may need further study.

Y. Wasepi Series
The following conclusions and suggestions are based on
two profile descriptions and three field notes from the
Wasepi Series in Ingham County.
(a) Classification at the family level and above:
(I) 50% of the profile descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquollic
Hapludalfs into which the official Wasepi
series description has been placed, but they
are representative of the Brady instead of the

Wasepi series.

(b)

(C)

70

(2) 50% of the soil descriptions fit into the
coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of Aquic
Hapludalfs represented by the Bronson series.

Proposed changes in the description of the Wasepi

series in Ingham County:

(I) Since no Wasepi profiles have yet been described
in these units, because of the depth to
calcareous material which is more than 40
inches, the name of these units should be
changed.

Changes needed in the description and naming of the

Wasepi mapping units:

(I) The mapping unit Wasepi sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
should apparently be, Brady sandy loam, O-2%
slopes and the Wasepi sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
should be Bronson sandy Ioams, 2-6% slopes, or

(2) The mapping units should be named Brady-Bronson
sandy Ioams. They are apparently represented
in about equal proportions in these mapping

units.

7l

(d) Comparisons with the current, April I967,
descriptive legend:
(l) Series description: There was no Wasepi series
description in the descriptive legend.
(2) Mapping unit description:
No mapping unit descriptions have been shown
yet in the descriptive legend of Ingham

County.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The relationship of the new soil classification system

to the mineral soils in Ingham County was investigated as

follows:

(I) The established series with two or more profile

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

descriptions available in Ingham County were
classified according to the October I966 supplement
and the 7th approximation.

All the profile descriptions of these mineral soils
from Ingham County/gagged into the new classification
system.

Then,comparisons of field and laboratory data in
Ingham County with the official series descriptions
were made.

Changes needed in the modal descriptions of the
series for Ingham County were noted and any new

soil series or variants were also noted.

The mapping unit descriptions, and the naming of the
mapping units were also reviewed and these were

then checked with the current descriptive legend

for the County.

72

73

The results of these studies are summarzied as follows:

I. Changes in the prOposed placement of the established
series in Ingham County:

(a) The Bronson series was changed from coarse loamy,
mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs t__-
coarse loamy, mixed, mesic, Aquic Hapludalfs

(b) The Celina series was changed from fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs t__-
fine loamy, mixed, mesic, Aquic Hapludalfs

(c) The Hillsdale series was changed from fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs £_ -
coarse loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs.

(d) The Lapeer series was changed from fine-loamy,
mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs t -

coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs.

2. Soils found that had not previously been correlated in
Michigan:
Seven new mineral soils have been identified in
Ingham County during this study. These soils, X] through
X7 (in Table 2) should be recognized and their signifi-
cance should be evaluated in the future survey activities
of the National Cooperative Soil Survey in the Tri-County

Area (Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties).

74

3. From the NCR-3 Regional Publication 76 and studies of the
most recent placements of Indiana and Illinois soil
series into the new soil classification system, four
soil series similar to four of the above mentioned

seven mineral soils have been recognized and listed

in Table 2.

4. Mapping inclusions:
As shown in Table 3, l25 profile descriptions
were available for the 25 series studied in Ingham
County. Fifty-five of these, or 44 percent of the studied
soils, have been indicated as mapping unit inclusions in
Ingham County survey area. Where the amount of a mapping
inclusion in a series was non-contrasting in pr0perties
and exceeded 25%, or where the amount of a mapping
inclusion was contrasting in prOperties and exceeded
lO% of the mapping unit, names of these units were
changed to indicate their variable nature. The proposed
names leave only 9% of the profiles as mapping inclusions.
The present names of those units and their prOposed
names are shown in Table 4.
5. Applicability of the new system in Ingham County:
According to this study, only four profiles out of one

hundred and twenty-five studied soils did not fit into

 

000000.00: 0...0z
00cmL« mo >—wEMm
o_moE .on_E .>Emo_
oc_m 0m>o >ocmm

00.000.000 0...000<
o.co0< mo >_.Emm
o.moE .Umx_E .>Emo_
oc_m Lo>o >ocmm

mmuoz

 

V

00.000.00: 0...000<
mo >__Emm o_moE
.box_E ..muo_oxm

>bcmm Lo >Ucm0
Lo>o >Emo_ oc_0

EOHLocumz

 

.___

o_>m0<

00.000.00: 0...0z
mo >__Emm o_moE
nox_E .>Emo_ mc_0

0.00.0

 

N

.___

0c_m0oaa_z

00.000.00: 0...02
mo >__Emw o_moE
omx_E .>Emo_.oc.0

.x

o_mvm___I

 

mco_Hm.LUmob
o__mo0a
00 .oz

mumum

mo_0om

 

 

 

0co_um_o0000 o_n_0000

 

m__00 3o: 00
mo___Emm Lo >__Em0

www.cmouo0

on U_:o;0
umcu m__00 3oz

.ou Emnmc_
c. boaamE
mm m__0m

 

.Oz

 

 

>uc300

Emsmc_ exp 00 >Uzum 0.50 00 mc_o0ooom www.cmoom0 m__00 .mcmc_E 3oz

000. ..

 

 

__LQ< op a: .>o>0:m __0m

.0 0.00C

 

76

 

00.000.00:
o_ucmEEmmm
0...0z 00 >..000

 

 

 

 

N .oc_ LOLum o.mmE .oox_E .>Ucmm mx mxc_am m
00.000.00: 0...02
mo >_.Emm o_moE
o .Uc_ commuoo box_E .>Emo_ oc_0 ox .Em.z o
mco_um.comWU oumum mo.0om boN_cmoooL .ou Emsmc_
m__mOLQ m__Om 3m: 00 on b_:o;m c. UmaamE
mo .02 mco_um_o0000 m_n_0000 0m___Emm Lo >__Em0 umzu 0__Om 302 mm m__0m .oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ucoo .N obnmp

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. u l N mcc3000 m
- - u N 0m>ocoo N
u. u u N 0003—00 0
u N Lo>ocoo J mc__oo m
- m 0Em3o0 o cou0xoO0m J
1.0 000.00.
oc_ucmu0cou _ - _ oc_ucmumcoQ m comcoLm m
ucm_0m>
voc_mLU
>_uommcan_
. _ -00c_am
mc_ucmH0coo _ u _ mc_u
-cmpmcoo
. _ 00>0m m >UmLm N
x00
oommu _ i _ oo0mo N 0o>0m _
bcomo_ .ommb 0o._.Emm .0006 00.000 ..00 .o0mb
>ucsoo Emsmc_ mo boc_moo 00 mo .02 0o.0o0 _.00
c. 00: 0F_om .ozi uoz .oz . _muOH UoEmz .oz
00.00Emm __00 zmz .0mc. mc_aamzl
>ucaoo Emcmc_ c. Emum>0 Bo: mg“ 00 >u___nmo__aam new >0mEE3m .m 0.00»

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I I N Mr: —®U J MLOEMHQZ @—
0x . .0. . 0x
I I _ m.co_
cmbmoLQ N I N cmbmoLQ J :0u0mzumz m.
I I I I I N LooQM0 :.
0.>00< . .0. . 0x 0 0.00.0 0.
00.00000.z .0. N .x 0 0.000...I 0.
_ omEsz m >ncmLu __
m 030000 m 6000.0m o.
N Lm>om 0 x00 m
ocumo_ .omoo 00...Emm .o0oo 00.000 ..00 .omoo
>uczoo Emzmc_ mo Umc.mmb mo mo .0: 0o.Lm0 ..00
c. 00: 00.00 .oz uozI .oz .mHOF UmEmz .oz

 

 

 

 

0o.__Emm .000 3oz

 

..oan m:_mmmz

 

 

 

 

.ucoo «w o_nmp

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I I I I N c000.m MN
I. I N coumeOLm w mZonom NN
I I I I N c.00o0 .N
I I N m00Emumz

I I N .Em_z w 000030 ON
I I I I I : OEoucmo m—
commuoo 0 .0. 0 mx N. .Em.z m—

0.. N .0. N 0.. .0
0x . .0. . . 0x 0000: N.

venue. .omon 0o___Emm .o0oo 0o_0m0 __0m .0006

>uczoo Emsmc_ mo ooc_mmo 00 mo .0: 0m_0o0 ..00

c. no: 0__0m .oz 002 .oz .muOP omEmz .oz

 

0m___Emm ..00 zmz

 

.oc. wc.mmmz

 

 

 

 

.ucoo .m m_nmp

8O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.00:.001 o.u:mEEmmm o.__02 mo >_.Emm 0.0mE .bmx.E .>ocm0 Am.
00_mb:_amz o.__oz mo >_.Emm 0.0mE .on.E .>Emo_ mc.m Am.
00_mt:_amI o.__oz o.co0< mo >_.Emm 0.0mE .on.E .>Emo_ 00.0 0m>o >bcm0 Am.
00.03:.00: o.__o:u< o.co0< mo >_.Emm 0.0mE .on.E .>Emo_ we.» 0m>o >bcmm AU.
00.000.000
o.__o:U< mo >_.Em0 o.0oE .box.E ..mum_o00 >bcm0 0o >bcmm 0m>o .>Emo_qmc.m No.
00.000.000 0...0z 00 >..000 0.000 .00x.0 ..0000-00.0 .0.
00_mn:_am1 o.__oz mo >_.Emm 0.0oE .pmx.E .>Emo.Imc.m .0.
00.000 0. _N .Emm N mm mN_ .muOF

I I I _ 000000m
- - - . N0000 N .0000; 00

I I I _ 0000.0

I I I _ OEouzmo

0 000.00.00

>_uoomLan.
00000 0 .0. 0 Nx 0 000.00 00

bcomm_ .o0mb 0m._.Emm .o0mb 0m.000 ..Om .ommb
>00300 Emcmc_ mo nmc.mon 00 mo .0: 00.000 0_.00
0. no: 0..00 .oz uoz .02 I. .0000 UmezI .oz
mowbrEmm.b.00 302 .oc. mc.oomz

 

in

 

 

 

 

.0000 .m m_nmh

Table h.

8]

Mapping Units

 

No.

Present Name

Pr0posed Name

 

l0

ll

l2

l3

lh

Boyer sandy loam, over
250 slopes

Brady loamy sand, 2-6%
sl0pes

Brady sandy loams,
0-2% sl0pes

Bronson sandy Ioams,
2-6% slopes

Brookston loams, O-2%
sl0pes

Celina loams, 2-6%
SIOpes

Gilford sandy loams,
O-2% SIOpes

Hillsdale sandy Ioams,
2-6% sl0pes

Kibbie loamy fine
sand, 0-2% SIOpes

Kibbie Ioams, 2-6%
slopes

Matherton loams, 0-2%
SIOpes

Matherton sandy Ioams,
0-2% sl0pes

Metamora sandy loams,
0-2% slopes

Metea loamy sands,
0-2% slopes

Casco sandy loam, over 25%
slopes

Spinks loamy sand, imper-
fectly drained variant,
2-6% SIOpe

Boyer-Constantine sandy
loams, 0-2% slopes

Spinks-Constantine sandy
loams 2-6% slopes

Brookston-Pewamo loams,
0-2% sl0pes

Celina-Conover Ioams,
2-6% lepes

Gilford-Wasepi sandy
loams, 0-2% SIOpes

Nippersink-Hillsdale sandy
Ioams, 2-6% SIOpes

Argyle loamy fine sand
0-2% slopes

Kibbie-Celina loams, 2-6%
slopes

lonia-X3 loams, 0-2%
slopes

Dresden sandy Ioams, 0-2%
sl0pes

Metamora-Celina sandy loams
O-2% sl0pes

"X5-Xu-Metea“ loamy sands
O-2% SIOpes

 

Table 4, cont.

82

 

 

No. Present Name Proposed Name

l5 Miami loams, 0-2% Miami-Octagon loams, 0-2%
slopes SIOpes

l6 Miami loams, 2-6% Miami-Dotagon loams, 2-6%
slopes slopes

l7 Owosso sandy loams, Owosso-Metamora-Miami sandy
2-6% sl0pes loams, 2-6% sl0pes

l8 Spinks loamy sands, Stroh-Spinks loamy sands,
2-6% slopes 2-6% slopes

l9 Spinks sandy loams, Spinks imperfectly drained
O-2% sl0pes variant sandy loams,

O-2% sl0pes _

20 Wasepi sandy loams, Brady sandy loams, 0-2%
0-2% SIOpes slopes

2l Wasepi sandy loams, Bronson sandy loams,

2-6% sl0pes

2-6% sl0pes

 

83

the new system in this survey area. That portion will

cover less than four percent of the total number of

soil profiles studied.

As a result:

(a)

(b)

(C)

Over 96% of the Ingham County soils studied fit

into the new soil classification system. Thus, the
new classification certainly appears to be

applicable to nearly all of the soils in this

survey area.

Ten series described (as shown in Table 3) have

not yet been identified in the County.) This means
that from thirty-five soils described (all series
studied) in Ingham County, about 28% of those
composing the mapping units have not yet been
recognized in this survey area.

The above mentioned ten series are defined by means
of twenty-one soil profiles (sixteen percent of

the total profiles) not yet recognized by series in
Ingham County. If the profile descriptions are
representative of the pr0portional areas of the soils
this means that about one-sflukh of the soils are

not being classified in the survey to date. However,
this is due largely to the mode of application

of the system and is not inherentzbf/the system.

 

8h

(d) Three, out of ten series (unknown in Ingham County)
did not fit into the new classification as shown
on Table 3. This covers only 8.5% of the total
number of series and 3.2% of the area (if the
descriptions are representative of the areal
proportions present).

(e) Problems dealing with new system:
According to this study the composition of the mapping
units is the greatest difficulty in applying the new
system in this survey area. The separations below
the series level, soil types and phases, in the new
system are among the most significant separations
in detailed soil mapping.

The effects of soil moisture and temperature

as distinguishing criteria in separation of soils
do not seem to be quantitative, because measurement
of those factors are under the influence of seasonal

and short term or cyclical fluctuations.

6. Utility of this study:
It is hOped that this work will be utilized in applying
the new classification system to Ingham County and that it

will stimulate further work on related problems.

85

Perhaps one of the important uses of this study will be
to emphasize the needs for using the new system. An active
research program is needed in the field and in the laboratory
to insure the more precise and complete applicability and
usefulness of the new soil classification system. This

applies to this survey area and to other areas.

 

VII. BlBLlOGRAPHY

Cline, Arvard J., and Donald D. Johnson l963 Threads of
genesis in the seventh approximation. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc., 27:220-222.

Cline, Marlin G. 1949 Basic principles of soil classi-
fication. Soil Science, Vol. 67, p. 8i.

Cline, Marlin G. l963 Logic of the new system of soil
classification. Soil Sci. 96:l7-22.

Cline, M. G. 1963 The new soil classification system.
Cornell University Agron. Mimeo. No. 62-6.

Flach, Klaus W. l963 Soil investigations and the seventh
approximation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27:226-228.

Heller, J. L. 1963 The nomanclature of soils or “What is
in a name?” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., Vol. 27,
pp. 2l6-220.

Johnson, W. M. I963 The pedon and the polypedon, Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc., Vol. 27, pp. 2l2-215.

Johnson, W. M. l963 Relationship of the new comprehensive
soil classification system to soil mapping. Soil
Sci. 96:31-34.

Johnson, W. M. l96l Transect methods for determination of
the composition of soil mapping units. Soil Survey
Field Letter, U.S. Dept. of Agri., Soil Cons. Serv.
June 196]: 9-ll.

Kellogg, Charles E. l963 Why a new system of classification?
Soil Sci., Vol. 96, No. l, pp. 1-5.

Larson, E. Joseph I964 New soil classification. Soil Cons.
30:99-l02.

Leahey, A. I963 The Canadian system of soil classification
and the seventh approximation. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 27:224-225.

86

 

87

Mokma , D. L. l966 Correlation of soil properties, perco-
lation tests, and soil surveys in design of spetic
tank disposal fields in Eaton, Genesee, Ingham and
Macomb counties (M.S. Thesis), pp. l9-26.

Orvedal, A. C., and E. Austin Morris 1963 Some geographic
aspects of the seventh approximation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 27:228-23l.

Riecken, F. F. l963 Some aspects of soil classification in
farming. Soil Sci. 96:39-61.

Simonson, R. W. and D. R. Gardner I960 Concept and functions
of the pedon. Trans. Intern. Con r. Soil Sci., 7th
Congr., Madison, Wisconsin, Vol. , pp. l27-l3l.

Simonson, R. W. 1963 Soil correlation and the new
classification system. Soil Sci. 96:23-30.

Smith, Guy D. I965 Pedologie. Lectures on soil classification

Smith, G. D. l963 Objectives and basic assumptions of the
new soil classification system. Soil Sci. 9626-18.

Soil Survey of Ingham County, Michigan l94l U.S. Dept.
Agr. in c00peration with the Mich. Agr. Expt. Station.

Soils of the North Central Region of the United States I960
North Central Regional Publication No. 76, Bul. 544,
Agr. Expt. Sta. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

Soil Survey Staff l95l Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Dept. of
Agr. Handbook No. l8.

Soil Survey Staff 1960 Soil classification, a comprehensive
system: 7th approximation. Soil Conservation Service,
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.

Soil Survey Staff l966 Supplement to soil classification
system. Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A. (7th
approximation), Washington, D.C.

Tavernier, Rene I963 The 7th approximation: its application
in Western EurOpe. Soil Sci. 96:35-39.

88

Westin, Fred C. 1963 The use of the seventh approximation
in new areas. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:222-223.

White, E. M. l966 Validity of the transect method for
estimating compositions of soil-map areas. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 39:129-l30.

Whiteside, E. P., I. F. Schneider and R. L. Cook l963
Soils of Michigan. Special Bul. 402 Agricultural
Expt. Station, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan.

Zavaleta, Amaro I967 Genesis morphology and classification
of Michigan alfisols and Peruvian entisols (M.S. Thesis)
pp. 60-62.

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

llllll ll! lllllll llll lllll llllllllll II

312 3010678302