Depth-related subqualifiers (submitted by John Hollis, Allan Lilly and Bob Jones, UK)

[StephanMantelISRIC]

The introduction of the Epic, Endic, & Dorsic qualifiers is very confusing. It appears to only be used where the profile has a diagnostic layer, part of which is cemented to an extent that qualifies it for a Petric or, in the case of Podzols, Orsteinic, qualifier, but the upper part of the diagnostic layer does not qualify as Petric or Orsteinic. Please correct us if this is an interpretation is wrong, but, if correct, it seems to be a particularly complicated and probably unnecessary distinction to make. Surely what matters is the presence of the Petric or Orsteinic layer and the depth at which it occurs, which can be indicated by using the depth sub-qualifiers outlined on page 28. To add a supplementary qualifier indicating that the upper part of the diagnostic horizon is not cemented seems superfluous and over-complicated. The key issue is the depth at which the cemented layer stops rooting and this can already be indicated using pre-existing sub-qualifiers as specified above.

Submitted by John Hollis, Allan Lilly and Bob Jones (UK)

[StephanMantelISRIC]

Comment Cezary Kabala:
We really tried to simplify some solutions, but the request of some people and societies to introduce the ‘consequent’ or ‘systematic’ solutions always resulted in their complication (the best case: epic, endic, dorsic). And one more: traditions. This is the crucial problem when we try to change methods/criteria for base saturation and respective horizons/properties.

[StephanMantelISRIC]

Response John Hollis, Allan Lilly and Bob Jones, UK:
With respect to our other three specific concerns (points 2, 3 & 4 in our letter), could you give us some idea as to why the Epic, Endic and Dorsic qualifiers were introduced rather than simply applying depth qualifiers to the Petric or Orsteinic qualifiers? Similarly, could you tell us the reason behind the small changes made to the Abrupt Textural Difference and the Fragic horizon diagnostics?

[StephanMantelISRIC]

Response Cezary Kabala:
The Dorsic qualifier has been introduced to indicate specifically deeply starting diagnostic horizons. In most RSGs, the diagnostic horizon must start at the surface or no deeper than 100 cm (like argic in Luvisols). But for Podzols and Cryosols we allow diagnostic horizons starting at max. 200 cm and for Ferralsols - at max. 150 cm. We discussed harmonization of the depth to 100 cm in all RSGs, but this concept has been rejected by the majority of colleagues. Thus, the Dorsic qualifier has been suggested to highlight the specifically deep occurrence of diagnostic horizons in these RSGs. Please note that the 'standard' subqualifiers cannot be applied, because only Bathy- is applicable in this case and Bathy must be connected with the name of qualifier (which one?). This is why a new (separate) qualifier was invented. Of course we may resign, if many people will question it.

Epic and Endic have been introduced as new qualifiers because (1) some colleagues indicated an imbalance: we apply subqualifiers to indicate the depth of less important diagnostics, while we do not indicate the depth of occurrence of principal diagnostic horizons, and (2) we cannot apply 'standard' subqualifiers, because they must be connected with respective qualifier. Whereas, e.g. in Podzols we don't have qualifier "spodic" to combine it with "epi" to produce "Epispodic"... Of course, we can add such "Epispodic/Endospodic" or similar qualifiers to all RSGs (as we have a "Nudiargic" in Luvisols), but it will drastically enlarge the general number of qualifiers. This is why "Epic" and "Endic" were added as supplementary qualifiers. Personally, I am not sure if these qualifiers are necessary at all, but majority of colleagues has agreed with this proposal. As above: people started to apply for new qualifiers and we will wait for the feedback. But note please, that Epic and Endic are applicable to all subsurface diagnostic horizons (like argic, natric, spodic, etc), EXCLUDING the petrified ones. This is because a separate qualifier Petric has been introduced to indicate the presence of Petrocalcic in Calcisols, Petrogypsic in Gypsisols, Petroduric in Durisols, and Petroplinthic in Plinthosols to differentiate between the use of these four horizons in respective RSGs, where these qualifiers are substantial (like Petrocalcic in Calcisols), from their presence as horizons of secondary importance for respective RSG (like Petrocalcic in Chernozems). So, Petric is a separate universal qualifier and the general rules of depth indication (Epi-, Endo-) apply to it.