w. wayne pettapiece, ph.d., p.ag. for alberta soils network january, 2011 1
TRANSCRIPT
W. Wayne Pettapiece, Ph.D., P.Ag.
forAlberta Soils Network
January, 2011
LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA(Concepts – Development – Uses)
1
TERMINOLOGY Land vs Soil , Suitability vs Capability , Agriculture
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEgoing on for a long time
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEMMost recent
USES (AND MISUSES) OF SUITABILITY SYSTEMSAgriculture, planning, environment, assessment
2
LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA
Terms commonly usedSoil Rating / Land RatingSoil Capability / Land CapabilitySoil Suitability / Land SuitabilitySoil Assessment / Land AssessmentSoil Evaluation / Land Evaluation
All have been used for the same meaningAll have been used for different meanings
PurposeAgriculture? Forestry? Engineering?Wheat/Alfalfa? Aspen/Pine? Subgrade/IrrigationEconomics? 3
TERMINOLOGY (1)
What terms should be used ?Soil vs Land
Original was “soil” – context assumed to be agriculture local extent so limited variability in topography and climateContext expanded from rating to capability
name didn’t change eg CLI – Soil Capability
Started to think in terms of systems (ecological) the term “land” seemed more appropriate
RecommendedThat “land “ be the generally used termThat “soil” be only used for specific situations
4
TERMINOLOGY (2)
30’s
60’s
80’s
What terms should be used ?Rating vs Capability vs Suitability
Rating was the original term It was understood (not stated) to be crop productivity All the terms are “ratings”
Capability is a broader concept It includes flexibility of crop options, sustainability
and management (input requirement) components
Suitability has the same concept as capability Used for more specific objectives Larger scale / more detail
5
TERMINOLOGY (3)
30’s
60’s
80’s
What terms should be used ?Rating vs Capability vs SuitabilityRecommended
That “Capability “ be the general term for broad uses e.g. agriculture or forestry or irrigation generally at scales of 1:1m – 1: 250K
That “Suitability” be used for specific crops or defined uses e.g. corn or aspen (or spring seeded small grains) generally at scales of > 1:100K
That “rating” only be used with a descriptive adjective e.g. productivity rating or capability rating or irrigation rating
6
TERMINOLOGY (4)
Pre 1930 (from about 1850)
Objective : agricultural potential
Broad, very subjective
Good – Fair – Poor
Land Surveyors (geodetic), soil surveyors, farm extension
Scale: 1:1M – 1: 250K (Township – section)
7
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (1)
1930 - 1960
Storie soil rating systemObjective : crop productivityMuch more specific (more scientific) Identified / rated specific soil parameters (texture, OM, pH etc)Absolute number (between 1 and 100)
8 classes with 8 = best
Well accepted by technical communityResearchers, soil specialists, soil surveyorsScale: > 1: 100K (1/4 sec - field)
8
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (2)
1960 - 1980
Canada Land Inventory: Soil Capability for Agriculture (CLI) Objective : Agricultural capability (potential)
Multiple land use context Included climate and landscape components Identified and considered specific soil parameters (texture, OM, pH etc) Comparative rating (specified limitations)
7 Classes with 1 = best) Very well accepted by the planning community Soil surveyors , soil specialists Scale: 1:1M – 1: 250K (Township – section) initially
Extended to < 1:100k (1/4 sec) with variable results9
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (3)
1980 – 1995 Canada Land Inventory: Soil capability for Agriculture (CLI)
Modifications , inconsistent use at more detailed scales, lacked specificity
Land Capability Classification for Arable Agriculture (Alberta) Objective : Agricultural capability in a structured defined relationship
Included all factors of the CLI
Incorporated specific criteria ratings like the Storie approach
Modular structure with Climate, Soil and Landscape handled separately
7 Class rating with specified limitations (like the CLI) final rating based on most limiting (of climate, soil or landscape)
Soil surveyors , soil specialists
Scale: not limiting10
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (4)
1995 – present Canada Land Inventory: Soil capability for Agriculture (CLI)
Modifications , inconsistent use at more detailed scales Ratings are dated and the system no longer supported by AAFC
Land Capability Classification for Arable Agriculture (Alberta) – renamed and modified for national application
Land Suitability Rating System (for small grains) (LSRS) Ratings comparable to the CLI but with defined, documented rules Ratings comparable across Canada System can be used as a continuous numerical rating or as Classes System has been modified to accommodate other crops
presently includes: canola, corn, soybeans, grass forages, legume forages
System designed to work with standard NSDB files (SNF, SLF) System has been automated 11
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (5)
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (6)
Pre 1930 1930 – 1960 1960 – 1980
Municipal Assessment- climate framework - economics
Subjective Individual Assessments - general feeling - texture - slope- drainage
Storie Rating System - specific factors - points assigned - specialists
Canada Land Inventory - factors include climate and topography - holistic - general
Irrigability Rating- drainage- sustainability
Agricultural potential Agric. productivity Agric. productivity Agricultural capability
1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec) 1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec)
12
Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (7)
1965 1975 1985 1995 +
Municipal AssessmentLocalModificat’ns
Canada Land Inventory (CLI) - factors include climate and topography - holistic - general
Land Capability Classification - modular structure - Storie type rating of individual factors - climate group - added organic soils
Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) - national climate link - NSDB link - nationally consistent - automated - more crops - more data sources
Irrigability Rating
LocalModificat’ns Reclamation Rating
Agricultural capability Agric. cap. Agric. capability Agricultural suitability
1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec)
Any scale Any scale13
By 1980 – There were problems with the CLI
CLI - used beyond intended objectives / scale somewhat subjective at small scale was being modified for specific uses not specific at larger scales
Different agencies had their own systems hard to compare
In additiondid not deal with organic soils could not compare nationally
Lack of specificity14
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (1)
Basic approach retain 7 class CLI concept
be specific (including crop)
national - Land (climate linked)
generic and flexible
expert system approach (use existing data)
automate
15
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (2)
Basic approach separate climate, soil and landscape
independent controlflexibility
most limiting determines final ratinguse same crop for all conditions
RelationshipsCLIMATE (CROP) FLEXIBILITYSOIL PRODUCTIVITY LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY
16
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (3)
CRITERIA
Known to affect ability of soil to produce crops
known to affect ability of soil to respond to management
stress
Must be measurable (estimatable)
Should be commonly available
17
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (4)
Climate Factors
heat or energy factoreffective growing degree days
moisture factorprecipitation - potential evapotraspiration
modifying factorsexcess spring moisture, excess fall moisture, fall frostexcess heat
18
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (6)
Soil Factors
moisture supplytexture (with climate)water table
nutrient supplyorganic matter contentreaction
rooting conditionssurface conditionssubsurface conditions
19
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (7)
Soil Factors (cont)
chemical conditionssalinitysodicity
drainagewater table (with climate)
20
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (8)
Landscape Factors
erodability slope steepnessslope length (landform)
managementstoninessflooding
21
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (9)
Relationship between limitation concept, suitability class and calculated index
limitation for suitability indexspecified crop class pointsnone to slight 1 80 - 100slight 2 60 - 79moderate 3 45 - 59severe (marginal) 4 30 - 44very severe 5 20 - 29extremely severe 6 10 - 19 unsuitable 7 0 - 9
22
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (5)
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (10)
Factor Rating example – salinity effects on small grains
Salinity (dS/m) Limitation
Point deduction
2 No effect 0
4Slight limitation (Class 1-2)
20
8Moderate limitation (Class 3)
50
12Very sever limitation (Class 5)
70
16 Growth stopped (Class 7) 90
23
Point deductions for surface salinity
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20
electical conductivity (dS/m)P
oin
t d
edu
ctio
n
y = -0.2067x + 10.001x - 18.002
R
2
= 0.9982
System Attributesprovides a standard approach for assessing land for crop
growthpragmatic and explicit
it uses present knowledge and available dataaccommodates defined proxies
documents all inputs and calculationsintegrates but partitionsuses an explicit, modular format adaptable to local conditions
flexible and adaptable
independent of scale24
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (11)
DOESassess ‘fitness for a specific use’assess ‘soil quality’ for a given set of conditionsassess disturbed conditions
DOES NOTmodel plant growth
Not an absolute – assesses the degree of limitationindicate best land useindicate most economical land use
25
LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (12)
Concept issues
Capability/Suitability vs ProductivitySoil component is the main contributor to productivityClimate component generally determines “What crops will grow”
Marginal climates do affect yields If area is restricted and assume appropriate crops
this module not required
Landscape Sustainability = “cost of production”Not a productivity issue
Productivity estimated by a capability method is comparativeBest or “least limited”, Can become bu/ac e.g. if linked to local values 26
USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (1)
Concept issues
Equivalent CapabilityCapability/suitability = holistic, system approach
Must consider all factors to determine a result
Capability assessed after disturbance/reclamation vs capability assessed for undisturbed condition
Unless otherwise specified can assumeSame site - so same climate (climate module not required)Same purpose – same crops / management
Given the aboveMust use same holistic procedures for pre and post conditionsMust decide on “equivalency” (e.g. +- 20%)LSRS or similar system should be used 27
USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (2)
Concept issues
Soil Health
This is a concept – it is an assessment of how well the soil is being sustained in its ecological niche
It must be interpreted and descriptive factors chosenFactors must be measurable, available and sensitive to changeE.g. OM, pH, salinity, structure, depth of topsoilOthers such as biomass are correlatedThe soil component of LSRS addresses these factors
Soil QualityThis is a different concept – must have a use (for something)
Quality over time can be interpreted as health 28
USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (3)
reification
29
LSRS APPLICATIONS (1)
Agricultural PotentialSpring Seeded Small Grains – Ratings for Alberta
results essentially the same as CLIlost Class 1 (total Classes 1-3 = same)added Class 4 climate
Linked to AGRASID (1:100K soil inventory database)Linked to modified Alberta 51-80 climateautomated roll-up (max of 3 component symbol)Available at Alberta Agriculture “Ropin’ the Web”
Go to “maps & multimedia” then “Alberta Soil Information Viewer”
30
LSRS APPLICATIONS (2)
Other Agricultural ConsiderationsOther crops
canola, corn, soybeans, brome forage, alfalfa forageClimate module modified to accommodate different elements AAFC platform can be viewed at (LSRS.landresources.ca/)(grapes, apples presently under development)
Climate change analysis PFRA / Agri-Environmental Services Branch (AAFC)
Land capability ct0 vs land capability ct30 using different climate databases (scenarios)
Biomass potential - PFRA / Agri-Environmental Services Branch (AAFC)
Used to approximate relative soil productivityUnlink climate and landscape modules (not climate data)
Other Agricultural Considerations (cont)
Soil Quality / Sustainability Assessmentdetermine the effect of present management
land capability t0 vs land capability t30
linked to EPIC (Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator)to calculate different soil inputs
Could also be termed Soil Health
31
LSRS APPLICATIONS (3)
32
SQAT CONCEPT
*EPIC EPIC
*LSRS LSRS
*Crop rotations*Management
*Soils*Climate
30yr simulation
SQ - SQ = SQ(0) (30)
trends
Soils
3 years 6 months
Inputs Models Analysis
Schematic of the Assessment Process
SQUAT RESULTS (1)
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
593 596 598 680 681 727 728 730 746 743 781 793 806 821 828
Ecodistrict
30 y
ear
pre
dic
ted
ch
an
ge
(%
)
Figure 1. Predicted percent change in land suitability ratings for the pilot areas.
34
SQUAT RESULTS (2)
828
D
C
B
A Aspen Parkland(Black soils)
Boreal Transition(Dark Grey and Grey soils)
Mixed Grassland(Brown soils)
Moist Mixed Grassland, Fescue Grassland(Dark Brown and Black soils)
Ecodistrict number
-0.5 to +0.5%
+0.5 to +2%
> +2%
Predicted Change
< -2%
-0.5 to -2%
PeaceRiver
Calgary
D
D
C
B
A
727
728
828
793
821
806781
746
743
730
680
598
593596
681
Lethbridge
Edmonton
Figure 4. Areal distribution of land suitability trends in Alberta
Forestry Considerations
Woodlot AssessmentModified soil and landscape factorsdifferent climatic framework Alberta Municipal Affairs
35
LSRS APPLICATIONS (4)
Reclamation Considerations
Pipeline Reclamation Assessment“Equivalent Capability”Level 2 soils component Nova, A. Env., CAPP
36
LSRS APPLICATIONS (5)
We covered
Some key terms Soil, land, capability, suitability, rating Equivalent capability, soil health, soil quality Capability/suitability vs productivity
The history of land assessments in Alberta (1850 – 2010) Emphasis on Storie, CLI, LSRS
Development of the Land Suitability Rating System Identified what it does and doesn’t do
Some uses of capabiity/suitability approaches Examples using the LSRS platform
37
SUMMARY
I would like to thank all the people who have contributed to the development and applications of soil/land ratings in Canada– for agriculture and other uses. They have provided a wealth of history, expertise and ideas.– Pioneering is not easy and often fraught with mistakes
(omissison more than commission)– Provincial and national working groups– Gerry Tychon – programming, geographical linkages
Thanks to the organizers of the Alberta Soils Network – For the opportunity to share my thoughts with you– For their initiative and diligence re things soils 38
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ARDA. 1965. Canada Land Inventory. Capability for Agriculture. The Canada Land Inventory Report No. 2, Dept of Forestry and Rural Development, Ottawa. 16 p.
Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. 1987. Land capability classification for arable agriculture in Alberta (1987). Edited by W.W. Pettapiece. Alberta Agriculture. 103 pp. 5 maps.
Agronomic Interpretations Working Group. 1995. Land suitability rating system for agricultural crops: 1. Spring- seeded small grains. Edited by W.W. Pettapiece. Tech. Bull. No. 1995-6E. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa. 90p, 2 maps.
Pettapiece, W.W., K.L. Haugen-Kozyra and L.D. Watson. 1998. Soil quality analysis and trends at a regional scale. Technical Bulletin No. 1998-1E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB. 30 pp. 1 diskette
NGTL External Advisory Board. 1999. Alberta Pipeline Reclamation Assessment Manual. Edited by A. Fedkenheuer
and W. Pettapiece. A report submitted to TransCanada Transmission Ltd. Calgary AB. 100p
Pettapiece, W.W., K. Glover and J. Ball. 2002. Land Assessment for Woodlot Production. Pages 121-126 In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop, February,2002. Available from Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.
Tychon, G. G. (Spatial Data Systems Consulting) and W. W. Pettapiece (Pettapiece Pedology). 2003, 2004. Land Suitability Rating System - interactive programs to accommodate Alberta (AGRASID) data bases and Area Specific ratings. Can be obtained from Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Computer programs (LSRS 2.1, LSRS 2.2) with documentation.
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
40
THANKSand
Keep Digging