About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions

Soil Science Society of America Journal Abstract - Pedology

Cross-Reference System for Translating Between Genetic Soil Classification of China and Soil Taxonomy


This article in SSSAJ

  1. Vol. 70 No. 1, p. 78-83
    Received: Sept 29, 2004

    * Corresponding author(s): edw103@psu.edu
Request Permissions

  1. X. Z. Shia,
  2. D. S. Yua,
  3. E. D. Warner *b,
  4. W. X. Suna,
  5. G. W. Petersenb,
  6. Z. T. Gonga and
  7. H. Linb
  1. a State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
    b Office for Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA


Soil classification systems are not consistent among countries or organizations thereby hindering the communication and organizational functions they are intended to promote. The development of translations between systems will be critical for overcoming the gap in understanding that has resulted from the lack of a single internationally accepted classification system. This paper describes the application of a process that resulted in the translation of the Genetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC) to Soil Taxonomy (ST). A brief history of soil classification in China is also provided to familiarize readers with GSCC and its origins. Genetic Soil Classification of China is the attribute base for the recently assembled digital form of the 1:1 000 000 soil map of The People's Republic of China. The translation between GSCC and ST was based on profile, chemical, and physical descriptions of 2540 soil series. First, the 2540 soil series were classified to their equivalent soil order, suborder, great group, and subgroup according to ST and GSCC subgroup descriptors. Order names for both classification systems were then linked to corresponding map units in the 1:1 000 000 digital soil map of China using a geographic information system (GIS). Differences in classification criteria and in the number of orders of the two systems (there are more GSCC orders than ST orders) meant that each GSCC order could possibly be assigned to more than one ST order. To resolve the differences, the percent correspondence in area between orders was determined and used as the criterion for assigning GSCC orders to ST orders. Some percentages of correspondence were low so additional processing was used to improve the assignment process. The GSCC suborders were then matched with ST orders. When the area for each order was summarized, the percentage of correspondence increased except for two subgroups in the Ferrasols order.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2006. Soil Science SocietySoil Science Society of America