40  Patty, Nora, Ryder, Kasia, Nic, Joe Check In 25FEB2025

Date: February 25, 2025

40.1 Attendees

  • Nora B Pearson
  • Patty Burns
  • Ryder Anderson
  • Kasia Ulanowski
  • Nic Jelinski
  • Joseph Brennan

40.2 Agenda Items and Discussion

40.2.1 1. Data Entry and Quality Control

40.2.1.1 Pedon Entries Progress

  • Approximately 7 people working on data entry
  • 5-6 are undergrads who can enter 1-2 per week
  • Ava will join with more capacity after completing lab work
  • Nora and Ryder discussed the quality control spreadsheet Ryder provided
  • The team is making good progress on classifying soils

40.2.1.2 Classification Challenges

  • Classifying Human Transported Materials (HTM) is particularly challenging
  • Team is developing a taxonomy cheat sheet distilling soil classification keys
  • Nora and Ava working on a cheat sheet to help other undergrads

40.2.1.3 Structure in Soil Horizons

  • Discussion about recording structure in C horizons
  • Nic emphasized the importance of describing morphology first before determining horizonation
  • The team should record structures even in C horizons but note whether they are pedogenic or geogenic/anthropogenic
  • Ryder clarified that while structure should be observed and recorded (especially in text notes), in NASIS there are some restrictions on recording structure in C horizons
  • For the next field season, Patty suggested adding a dedicated spot on field sheets to note geogenic structure

40.2.1.4 Survey123 and NASIS Data Entry

  • Clarified that for classification in Survey123, the entire soil name should be entered (e.g., “Fine-loamy mixed superactive mesic typic hapludalf”)
  • For series names, the team can make educated guesses, put “unknown,” or use the OSD query tool shared by Ryder
  • Kasia will switch from Survey123 to NASIS entry after training

40.2.1.5 Root Limiting Layers

  • Discussed what constitutes a root limiting layer (compacted layers, HTM with platy structure, densic layers, fragipans)
  • In future field work, team should pay more attention to where roots stop and document this better

40.2.2 2. Soil Taxonomy Questions

40.2.2.1 Super Active vs. Active Classification

  • Team confirmed that most soils in the region are superactive, which is a safe default
  • Joseph noted that some northeastern Minnesota soils are coming out as active in recent data

40.2.2.2 Anthraquic Conditions

  • Clarified that anthraquic conditions in taxonomy are specifically for agricultural areas (like rice paddies)
  • Even if soils have anthropogenically-created water tables, they don’t qualify as anthraquic
  • The team should still record redox features and note water tables in descriptions

40.2.2.3 Saptohumic Classification

  • Discussion about the 1% carbon requirement for Thapto-humic fluvaquents
  • Ryder indicated this is likely met in dark A horizons with 10YR 2/1 colors
  • Kasia raised a question about Thapto-humic endoaquolls in HTM situations
  • Team discussed whether fluvial system requirements apply to various soil classifications

40.2.2.4 Anthropogenic Landforms

  • Ryder noted that Randy requires anthropogenic landform designation for all HTM soils
  • The available anthropogenic landform options are limited and don’t always fit urban situations well

40.2.3 3. Specific Soil Profile Discussion

40.2.3.1 Weathered Shale Profile

  • Kasia presented a challenging profile with a Bw/Bt horizon designation
  • The disagreement centered on whether to classify a weathered shale inclusion as a Bt horizon
  • Stuart had recommended changing this to represent the material as shale fragments within Bw horizons
  • Both Ryder and Patty agreed with Stuart’s assessment
  • Calling it an argillic horizon (Bt) would lead to an Argiudoll classification which isn’t representative of the profile
  • The team agreed this should be classified as Bw with weathered shale fragments noted

40.2.3.2 River Terrace Profile

  • Discussed a second profile closer to the river with similar shale material
  • Ryder noted that in cases where shale has weathered to residuum, Bt horizons can legitimately form
  • Team agreed the second profile’s Bt and Bt/C horizons were appropriate classifications

40.2.4 4. Additional Resources and Collaboration

40.2.4.1 Geomorphic Regions Resource

  • Patty uploaded a spreadsheet to Box with geomorphic regions and potential soil series
  • Not a comprehensive list but provides guidance on what soils might be found
  • Will work with Joe to share the physiographic/geomorphic regions layer with the group

40.2.4.2 Well Logs and Additional Data

  • Discussion about obtaining well logs from Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS)
  • Angela is on maternity leave until May; Patty will contact Bill Grimm
  • Joe recommended contacting Jackie Hamilton who works with spatial datasets

40.2.4.3 Master Gardener Network for Sampling Access

  • Nic met Rachel Kimpton, who runs the Master Gardener volunteer program in Hennepin County
  • She offered to help connect the team with ~500 Minneapolis volunteers for sampling access
  • This is especially valuable for Hennepin County, which is a more complex area where two glacial lobes cross

40.2.5 5. Next Steps and Action Items

40.2.5.1 Immediate Tasks

  • Nora will send Nic the one-pager/flyer for Master Gardener outreach
  • Patty will email Bill Grimm about well logs and geological data
  • Ryder will consult with Randy about fluvoquentic classification questions
  • Kasia will update the problematic pet-on entries based on today’s discussion
  • Team will continue data entry work

40.2.5.2 Field Season Preparation

  • Update field description sheets to better document anthropogenic/geogenic structure
  • Improve documentation of root limiting layers in the field
  • Develop better awareness of geomorphic regions during field work

40.2.5.3 Next Meeting

  • Scheduled for March 11, 2025
  • Note: This date falls during Nora’s spring break; Patty will discuss rescheduling options

40.3 Summary of Decisions

  1. Structure Recording: Record all observed structure in the field, but note whether it’s pedogenic or geogenic/anthropogenic. In NASIS, some structure may need to be recorded in text notes rather than dedicated fields for C horizons.

  2. Classification Defaults:

    • Use superactive for most soils in the region unless lab data indicates otherwise
    • Use Udic moisture regime as the default, with aquic conditions noted where appropriate (based on Joe’s guidance)

  3. Problematic Profile: The weathered shale inclusion should be classified as a Bw horizon with shale fragments, not as a Bt/argillic horizon.

  4. Data Entry:

    • Enter full classification names in Survey123
    • For series names, make educated guesses or use “unknown” when necessary
    • Document changes made to field designations with detailed notes

  5. Field Methods: For the next field season, improve documentation of:

    • Structure type (pedogenic vs. geogenic)
    • Root limiting layers
    • Geomorphic position

40.4 Appendix: Resources Mentioned

  1. Quality control spreadsheet (Ryder)
  2. OSD query tool for looking up Official Soil Series descriptions
  3. Taxonomy cheat sheet (in development by Nora and Ava)
  4. Geomorphic regions and potential soil series spreadsheet (Patty)
  5. Master Gardener outreach flyer (Nora)

The meeting concluded with participants expressing satisfaction with progress and emphasizing continued collaboration and communication on challenging soil classification issues.