Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T21:23:36.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progressive and Regressive Pedogenesis and Complex Soil Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jonathan D. Phillips
Jonathan D. Phillips*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 27858-4353
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The simultaneous operation of regressive and progressive pedogenetic pathways raises the possibility that soil evolution may exhibit patterns far richer and more complex than increasing development over time. This possibility is explored via a numerical model incorporating the relative rates of progressive and regressive pedogenesis and feedbacks between these rates and the degree of soil development. This model may exhibit deterministic chaos and sensitive dependence on initial conditions with realistic parameter values. Variations in profile development in a region of the North Carolina Coastal Plain where soil-forming factors are relatively constant is consistent with deterministic chaos. Chaotic soil evolution suggests that soil development may reflect the interplay between progressive and regressive soil-forming processes in addition to—or instead of—the age of a surface or deposit. The former may produce a state of development which is unique to a particular time, sensitively dependent on the (unknown) initial conditions, and not simply related to age. Soils and their genetic signatures as indicators of relative ages and Quaternary environments may need to be reinterpreted in this light.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 169 - 176
Copyright
University of Washington

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bilzi, A. F., and Ciolkosz, E. J. (1977a). A field morphology rating scale for evaluating pedological development. Soil Science 124, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilzi, A. F., and Ciolkosz, E. i. (1977b). Time as a factor in the genesis of four soils developed in recent alluvium in Pennsylvania. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41, 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkeland, P. W. (1984). “Soils and Geomorphology.” Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Birkeland, P. W. (1990). Soil-geomorphic research—A selective overview. Geomorphology 3, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkeland, P. W. Berry, M. E., and Swanson, D. K. (1991). Use of soil catena field data for estimating relative ages of moraines. Geology 19, 281–283.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bockheim, J. G. (1980). Solution and use of chronofunctions in studying soil development. Geoderma 24, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, S. M. (1981). Rock-weathering rates as functions of time. Quaternary Research 15, 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culling, W. E. H. (1987). Equifinality: Modern approaches to dynamical systems and their potential for geographical thought. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers NS12, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, R. B. Gamble, E. E., and Wheeler, W. H. (1971). Stability of Coastal Plain surfaces. Southeastern Geology 13, 61–75.Google Scholar
Daniels, R. B. Gamble, E. E., and Wheeler, W. H. (1978). Age of soil landscapes in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42, 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, R. B. Kleiss, J. J. Buol, S. W. Byrd, H. J., and Phillips, J. A. (1984). “Soil Systems in North Carolina.” N.C. Agricultural Research Service Bulletin 467, Raleigh.Google Scholar
Eisner, J. B., and Tsonis, A. A. (1992). Nonlinear predictions, chaos, and noise. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73, 49–60.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, J. W. (1982). A quantitative index of soil development from field descriptions: Examples from a chronosequence in Central California. Geoderma 28, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, J. W. (1990). Soil development on stable landforms and implications for landscape studies. Geomorphology 3, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, J. W., and Taylor, E. M. (1983). A quantitative comparison of soil development in four climatic regimes. Quaternary Research 20, 342–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, F. D. (1961). A classification of pedoturbations and some other processes and factors of soil formation in relation to isotropism and anisotropism. Soil Science 91, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, F. D. (1976). “Soils of Wisconsin.” Wisconsin Univ. Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Holliday, V. T. (1988). Genesis of late Holocene soils at the Lubbock Lake archaeological site, Texas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78, 594–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenny, H. (1980). “The Soil Resource: Origin and Behavior.” Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. L. Keller, E. A., and Rockwell, T. K. (1990). Dynamic pedogenesis: New views on some key soil concepts, and a model for interpreting Quaternary soils. Quaternary Research 33, 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. L., and Watson-Stegner, D. (1987). Evolution model of pedogenesis. Soil Science 143, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, K. (1990). Weathering as an indicator of the age of Quaternary deposits in Tasmania. Australian Geographer 21, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malanson, G. P. Butler, D. B., and Walsh, S. J. (1990). Chaos theory in physical geography. Physical Geography 11, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malanson, G. P. Butler, D. B., and Georgakakous, K. P. (1992). Non-equilibrium geomorphic processes and deterministic chaos. Geomorphology 5, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markewich, H. W. Pavich, M. J. Mausbach, M. J. Stuckey, B. N. Johnson, R. G., and Gonzalez, V. (1986). Soil development and its relation to the ages of morphostratigraphic units in Horry County, South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1589-B, 69 pp.Google Scholar
Markewich, H. W. Pavich, M. J. Mausbach, M. J. Johnson, R. G., and Gonzalez, V. (1987). Age relations between soils and geology in the Coastal Plain of Maryland and Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1589-D, 39 pp.Google Scholar
Markewich, H. W. Pavich, M. J., and Buell, G. R. (1990). Contrasting soils and landscapes of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, eastern United States. Geomorphology 3, 417–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, J. D. (1990). Relative ages of wetland and upland surfaces as indicated by pedogenic development. Physical Geography 11, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, J. D. (1992a). Qualitative chaos in geomorphic systems, with an example of wetland response to sea level rise. Journal of Geology 100, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, J. D. (1992b). Nonlinear dynamical systems in geomorphology: Revolution or evolution? Geomorphology 5, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Entekhabi, D. Lee, J.-S., and Bras, R. L. (1991). Nonlinear dynamics of soil moisture at climate scales. 2. Chaotic analysis. Water Resources Research 27, 1907–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, L.-H. Hansen, P. Goertz, C. K., and Smith, R. A. (1991). Chaotic appearance of the AE index. Geophysical Research Letters 18, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slingerland, R. L. (1989). Predictability and chaos in quantitative dynamic stratigraphy. In “Quantitative Dynamic Stratigraphy” (Cross, T. A., Ed.), pp. 45–53. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Torrent, J., and Nettleton, W. D. (1979). A simple textural index for assessing chemical weathering in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, S. (1990). “Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos.” Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, B. P. Seyried, M. S., and Matison, T. H. (1991). Searching for chaotic dynamics of snowmelt runoff. Water Resources Research 27, 1005–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar