42  Patty, Nic, Ryder, Joe, Stuart Check In 11MAR2025

Date: March 11, 2025

42.1 Attendees

  • Nic Jelinski
  • Patty Burns
  • Ryder Anderson
  • Joseph Brennan
  • Stuart Veith

42.2 Meeting Agenda and Key Discussion Points

42.2.1 Project Status Update

  • The team is continuing with data entry in Survey123
  • Nora posted a guide for Survey 123 data entry in the project metadata eBook
  • There will be a more standardized and real-time flow of data entry this year
  • Gen will be the field coordinator, allowing Nora to take a broader view of the project

42.2.2 Progressive Correlation Process

Patty Burns provided an overview of the progressive correlation process:

  1. Initial Steps:
    • Start with a trial legend based on soils in the surrounding area
    • Use the geomorphic-physiographic map that Patty, Joe, and Adam created to identify potential soil types and parent materials
    • Begin with a trial list of potential soils that might be encountered
  2. Analysis Process:
    • Examine pedon data as it becomes available
    • Identify repetitive soil patterns and see if they correlate to existing series
    • Progressively build an official legend as patterns emerge across the AOI
  3. Planned Next Steps:
    • Begin identifying landscape units for mapping on different geomorphic surfaces
    • Decide on the level of detail to map (e.g., how many drainage classes to separate)
    • This will help drive the sampling schema

42.2.3 Geomorphic Surface Classification

  • Discussion about different approaches to mapping urban soils on natural landscapes
  • Many observations can be related to the natural component in the existing map
  • Different approaches for handling:
    • Soils with thin human-transported material (HTM) mantles
    • Buried soils
    • Heavily modified soils requiring new series (anthroportic udorthents)

Ryder shared St. Louis experience: - Using phases for natural soils with thin HTM mantles that still classify as the original soil - Creating new series for soils that classify as anthroportic utorthents - Creating complexes of natural and HTM soils

42.2.4 Data Analysis Strategy

Nic suggested additional analytical approaches: - Use AQP tools (Algorithms for Quantitative Pedology) to analyze morphological similarity - Consider building similarity matrices for quantitative assessment - Potentially consolidate site-level variables for PCA analysis to identify clusters - Focus on diagnostic features rather than horizon-by-horizon analysis

Agreed data points to collect/analyze: - Diagnostic features - Depth of HTM - Family particle size class - Depth of redox features

42.2.5 Landform Classification and Terminology

  • Need for standardized landform terminology for the project
  • Joe will share a document created by NRCS (approximately 8 years ago) that narrows down landscape and landform terminology
  • The team will create an approved landform list to ensure consistency
  • Current entries show inconsistencies (e.g., “outwash plain” populated for both landscape and landform)

42.2.6 Laboratory Analysis Update

  • The team has collected ~1000 samples for lab analysis
  • Most samples are still being prepped
  • All mineral samples (<10% carbon) will have particle size analysis
  • Samples are also being prepared for MIR analysis for carbon data
  • This data will help resolve questions about dual particle size classes and other classification issues

42.2.7 External Data Sources

  • Patty will contact Angela Radke from Minnesota Geological Survey for additional data
  • The team wants all available data, including:
    • Well logs
    • Geotechnical borings
    • Hand augerings
    • MnDOT data
    • Rotary sonic drilling data
  • Jackie Hamilton was mentioned as an alternative contact since Angela is on maternity leave

42.2.8 Next Steps for Correlation

  1. For Joe and Patty:
    • Continue working on the geomorphic surfaces map
    • Define landscape segments within each geomorphic region (possibly by drainage class)
    • Create conceptual models for each landscape
  2. For Ryder:
    • Create a list of diagnostic features to track in NASIS
    • Follow up with Randy Riddle about taxonomy questions (fluvaquentic taxonomy and multiple epipedons)
    • Catch up on comments in the notes section
  3. For Nicolas and Nora:
    • Review Ryder’s diagnostic features list and provide input
    • Begin systematic extraction of diagnostic features from pedon descriptions
    • Consider clustering analysis by geomorphic region
    • Start analytical work on morphological similarity

42.3 Data Entry Issues and Observations

Ryder highlighted several issues noticed during data entry:

  1. Form Inconsistencies:
    • The order of slope shape entries (across vs. up/down) is switched between the 232 description form and Survey 1-2-3
  2. Horizon Designation:
    • Some C horizons with calcium carbonate (k) should probably be B horizons
  3. Particle Size Analysis:
    • Need better field estimates of sand percentages
    • Dual particle size class designations need to be verified with the particle size control section
    • Sand percentages need to be calculated for valid dual particle size classification
  4. Taxonomy Questions:
    • Awaiting feedback from Randy Riddle on fluvaquentic taxonomy
    • Questions about handling multiple epipedons (mollic and anthropic)
  5. Lamellae Identification:
    • Field notes mention “pockets of higher clay” which could indicate lamellae
    • For future field work, teams should dig deeper to confirm lamellae presence

42.4 Action Items

  1. Ryder will:
    • Create and distribute a draft list of diagnostic features to track (before his vacation)
    • Follow up with Randy Riddle on taxonomy questions
    • Address comments in the notes section
  2. Joe will:
    • Share the NRCS document on standardized landscape/landform terminology
    • Work with Patty on Thursday to develop conceptual models for geomorphic surfaces
  3. Patty will:
    • Work with Joe on geomorphic surface models and landscape segments
    • Contact Angela Bradke/Jackie Hamilton for Minnesota Geological Survey data
    • Develop an approved landform list based on their geomorphic map
  4. Nic and Nora will:
    • Meet after spring break to review Ryder’s diagnostic features list
    • Begin work on extracting and analyzing diagnostic features
    • Consider approaches for morphological similarity analysis
  5. For future field work:
    • Put greater emphasis on documenting diagnostic features
    • Improve field estimation of sand percentages
    • Investigate potential lamellae when “pockets of higher clay” are observed
    • Follow standardized landform terminology

42.5 Key Insights and Observations

  • The current soil mapping is surprisingly accurate for the natural components, but needs to be updated to account for urban modifications
  • Many urban soils can be related to the underlying natural soil series with various degrees of modification
  • A systematic approach to correlation will involve:
    1. Identifying major geomorphic surfaces
    2. Defining landscape segments within each surface
    3. Analyzing pedon data to identify patterns
    4. Progressively building a legend as patterns emerge
  • Laboratory data will be crucial for resolving classification questions, particularly for particle size classes
  • Diagnostic features will be more useful for correlation than horizon-by-horizon analysis
  • The project will benefit from a standardized approach to landform terminology