Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Evolution of High-Quality Economic Development Levels: Regional Differences and Distribution in West China
Previous Article in Journal
Enthralling Prefigurative Urban and Regional Planning Forward
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/land12111974
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Revised Proposed Classifications for Typical Anthropogenic Soils in China

by
Shiheng Hao
1,
Kening Wu
1,*,
Ling Li
2,
Xiaoliang Li
1,
Hongbin Wei
3,
Xiangyuan Wu
1 and
Bingrui Liu
1
1
School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
2
College of Resources and Environment, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
3
Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100035, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(11), 1974; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111974
Submission received: 3 September 2023 / Revised: 14 October 2023 / Accepted: 24 October 2023 / Published: 26 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Soil-Sediment-Water Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As global industrialization and its associated anthropogenic activities rapidly increase, so too does the areal extent of human-altered soils. The soil classification framework must incorporate the classification schemes of these disturbed soils in order to remediate land. Soil Taxonomy (ST) and the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) are the most widely used soil classification systems in the world. In this study, 15 typical anthropogenic soil profiles with engineering and technical characteristics from China were selected for a classification study. The aim of this study was to clarify the classifications of these soil profiles in the ST, WRB, Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CST), and Geogenetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC), and make references accordingly. The results showed that the WRB can classify these soils as Technosols in the first level. ST can classify most of these soils as subgroups within the different great groups under Entisols, as well as the Human-Altered and Human-Transported Material classes within the soil family differentiae. For Chinese soil classification schemes, there is a large loophole in the CST regarding the classification of anthropogenic soils. Many anthropogenic soils cannot reflect these soils’ artificial and technical naming characteristics. For the CST, revised proposals based on the WRB and ST were proposed. Based on the artificial disturbance of soil layers, a manufactured layer was added to the diagnostic basis. The Artificalic Anthrosols suborder was added, and it can be divided into the Transporti-Artificalic Anthrosols and Alteri-Artificalic Anthrosols groups. The subgroups were defined by their levels of contamination, imperviousness, and artifact content. The “T” layer symbol was added to soil profile descriptions to reflect a specific layer about technology, such as A, E, B, and C, to reflect the main genetic horizons. This revised classification system is proposed for inclusion in the revised CST to account for the very large and expanding extent of disturbed soils in China and to remain current with other global soil taxonomy systems.

1. Introduction

While providing a home for humans, soil is also influenced by humans. From rural farming to urbanization and industrialization, human activities can imprint changes in soil utilization patterns and mark the progress of social times. Soil morphological characteristics may be altered by engineering activities such as human disturbance and transport [1]. In recent decades, anthropogenic soils have become so ubiquitous that, for some authors, they should be taken as the “golden spike”, signaling the start of the Anthropocene [2,3,4].
Forty years after the second national soil survey, the Chinese government launched the third National Soil Survey [5]. The third national soil census will be fully rolled out in 2023–2024 based on the completion of the census preparation and pilot work from 2022. Since the second national soil survey, China has experienced nearly 40 years of development, and many soils have undergone changes in their properties due to urbanization, industrialization, and human engineering activities, resulting in some soils with engineering and technical characteristics. Based on this, the “Tentative Soil Classification System for the 3rd National Soil Survey” issued by the Chinese Soil Census Office in January 2023 added an artificial engineering soil suborder and related categories under the Anthrosol order.
At present, China is facing three difficulties in the classification of anthropogenic soils (Figure 1). The first relates to classification standards, and the international classification mainstream is soil taxonomy. However, the Chinese Soil Taxonomy lacks the schemes and locations of anthropogenic engineering soils [6]. Second, China has a large population, and food guarantees have always received enough attention. Therefore, compared to agricultural soils, the attention paid to anthropogenic soils is not enough. The degree of scientific research is also shallow. Third, with the process of urbanization in China, there are more types of anthropogenic soils, and the urbanized areas have increased.
Due to the recent issuance, empirical case studies and attribution studies on the new engineering soil classification scheme are lacking. In addition, this soil census used two parallel classification systems, the Geogenetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC) and the Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CST) [6]. The CST also lacks a comprehensive classification framework for engineered soils. Therefore, for the Chinese soil classification scheme, it is not enough to add engineered soil types to the Geogenetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC); relevant taxonomic units need to be added to the CST to ensure the investigation and type determination of engineered soils during the full-scale implementation of the three censuses, as well as to lay the foundation for improving the use of such soils.
There are two suborders—Stagnic Anthrosols and Orthic Anthrosols—under the Anthrosols order in the current Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CST). The CST focuses on human activities associated with soil that are related to agricultural production and can reflect human farming and utilization. In addition to farming and other agricultural uses, there are also non-agricultural uses involving human technology activities that change soil, making the characteristics of such soils different from those of natural soils.
Anthropogenic soils are also given great importance internationally. The World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) has established the first level (reference soil groups) of the Anthrosol order of soils under long-term centralized cultivation and utilization. It has also determined that the first level of Technosols contains a large amount of artifacts [7,8]. The United States Key to Soil Taxonomy (ST) does not establish a soil order that reflects the impacts of human activities, such as Anthrosols or Technosols. However, there are corresponding soil subgroups and soil families for this category of soils [9].
Some international organizations and scholars have attached great importance to the classification of anthropogenic engineering soils. The Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic, Mining, and Military Areas international conference is held once every two years [10,11]. The International Commission for Anthropogenic Soils (ICOMANTH) was established in 1995 in the United States to deepen the study of anthropogenic soils. International scholars have studied the properties, classifications, management, functions, and cartographies of anthropogenic soils [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].Some scholars have explored the investigation and taxonomy schemes of such soils, exploring the rationality of their national taxonomy schemes based on the results of engineering soil classifications, and they have provided suggestions for improvement [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Capra et al. summarized numerous suggestions for classifying human-altered and human-transported soil studies [33,34]. John et al. suggested that ST should create a special soil compendium for human-altered and human-transported soils, and they proposed revisions [35]. Some scholars have studied the characteristics of urban soils and provided suggestions for the classifications in the CST [36,37,38].
Therefore, with the current CST, it is not enough to establish two soil suborders, namely Stagnic Anthrosols and Orthic Anthrosols, related to agricultural utilization under the Anthrosol order, and it is not enough to summarize the impact characteristics of all human activities on soil. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate and study these soils that have been modified by non-agricultural uses and are characterized by human activities, as well as to establish the appropriate classification levels and units, drawing on the experience of the WRB and ST.
This paper investigates the application of a new classification scheme for engineering soils in the “Tentative Soil Classification System for the 3rd National Soil Survey” to test 15 soil profiles, and it proposes a classification scheme for these soils in the Chinese Soil Taxonomy, revising and improving the diagnostic horizons and diagnostic characteristics and adding relevant taxonomy units so that a classification search in China can be more accurate and reasonable. It will also provide information and reference for the survey and naming of soil types in the third National Soil Survey, and it will facilitate the collection of information, the rational use, scientific management, and conservation and reclamation of such soil resources.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Soil Profiles

This study selected 15 test profiles from Beijing, Hebei, Henan, and Guangdong, as shown in Figure 2. Pedon 1 was located next to a landfill site, and there were a large number of bricks, domestic garbage, and other intrusions in the lower part of the soil. The surface of pedon 2 was asphalt pavement. The upper part of the soil in pedon 3 was excavated, and the remaining soil was covered with cement. The surface of pedon 4 was asphalt pavement, the subhorizon was filled with engineering materials while the middle layer of the soil was an abandoned road. Pedon 5 was affected by the artificial landscaping of the rockery, and the overlying soil was transported to compact the upper layer of the original soil. Pedon 6 showed the migration and accumulation of soil which contained a large amount of intrusions such as construction and domestic garbage. Pedon 7 transported exogenous soil for river banks. Pedon 8 was located next to a sewage discharge outlet of a sewage treatment plant, and it had a large amount of garbage and other intrusions in the soil. There was a small amount of bricks and other intrusions in the lower part of the soil in pedon 9. There was an abandoned concrete road in the soil of pedon 10. There was a large amount of gravel, bricks, tiles, plastic, wood, etc., in the soil of pedon 11. In pedon 12, there was a large amount of coal gangue filling and reclamation in the lower part of the soil, while in pedon 13, there was a medium amount of fly ash filling and reclamation. Pedons 14 and 15 were both located in the iron copper metal mining area of the Dabaoshan Mine in Guangdong Shaoguan, where heavy metal pollution has occurred.

2.2. Classification Method: Tentative Soil Classification System for the Third National Soil Survey

A new suborder of anthropogenic engineered soils was added to the Anthrosols order of the Genetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC), with a new engineered soil class under it. It is defined as “soils in which the material composition and morphological characteristics of the soil have been significantly altered by anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, mining, construction, housing and transport”. There is an artificial fill layer or anthroturbic layer within the first 1 m of the soil.
The engineered soil groups continued to be divided into filled soil subgroups and disturbed soil subgroups. The filled soil suborder is defined as having an artificial fill layer within the first 1 m of the soil. This is typically manifested by the presence of organic and inorganic artifacts such as slag, fly ash, gangue, building rubble, asphalt, cement, bricks, geotextiles/films, plastics, rubber, broken porcelain tiles, glass products, fabrics, leather, dredged silt, etc., and it is filled and mixed within the soil’s surface to a depth of 100 cm, with a content of ≥20% (by volume) and a thickness of ≥20cm, or it forms a layer of artifact fill. The filled soil subgroup is divided into a mineral-filled soil genus and an urban-filled soil genus based on the fill material. The soil species are classified as shallow (above 50 cm), deep (underneath 50 cm), thick (≥30 cm), and thin (<30 cm) depending on the location and thickness of the fill occurrence. A conceptual diagram of the filled soil profiles is shown in Figure 3.
The Disturbed Soil subgroup contains an anthroturbic layer within the first 1 m of the soil. This is typically evidenced by the presence of scraping and abrasion marks from excavation, disturbance, compaction, etc., up to a thickness of ≥50 cm within the soil’s surface to a depth of 100 cm. The disturbed soils subgroup is divided into the situ-disturbed soil genus and the exogenously disturbed soil genus based on the source of the disturbed materials. The soil species are classified as shallow (above 50 cm), deep (underneath 50 cm), orderly (slightly obvious soil layers), and mixed (inconspicuous soil layers). A conceptual diagram of the disturbed soil profiles is shown in Figure 4, where a tangram is used to represent the many possibilities of the ‘mixed’ scenario described above.

3. Results

In this study, the attributions of the tentative soil classification system for the third National Soil Survey were validated and applied to 15 soil profiles according to the Genetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC) described above. In addition to the Genetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC), soil taxonomies were used to attribute these 15 soil profiles, including the WRB, ST, and CST. The diagnostic horizons and diagnostic characteristics of the test soil profiles were identified on the basis of the morphological characteristics and physicochemical properties of the test soil profiles. The positions of the test profiles in the different taxonomy retrieval systems were determined by following the retrieval tables of the soil taxa at each category of the WRB, ST, and CST retrieval systems, corresponding to the top–down retrieval rules. As only heavy metal data were collected for two profiles from Shaoguan Dabaoshan, Guangdong Province, it was not possible to identify the taxonomic units of these two profiles in detail, and so the attributions of these two profiles are not listed in this section and only some qualifiers are listed. The experimental methods refer to “Soil survey laboratory methods” and “ Soil and agrochemistry analysis” [39,40].

3.1. Attributions of the Tentative Soil Classification System for the Third National Soil Survey

The results of the soil type (soil species) determination for the test soil profiles are shown in Table 1. Twelve of the fifteen test profiles were assigned to the new anthropogenic engineered soil classification scheme. Three profiles were not classified, and of them, profile nine contained less than 20% urban fill, which did not meet the threshold specified in the new scheme. The Cd contents of profiles 14 and 15 ranged from 1.8 to 6.1 mg/kg, the Pb contents ranged from 1672.5 to 7378.4 mg/kg, the Ni contents ranged from 6.1 to 7.2 mg/kg, the As contents ranged from 1223.3 to 2834.0 mg/kg, the Cu contents ranged from 300.8 to 922.5 mg/kg, and the Zn contents ranged from 239.1 to 779.0 mg/kg. According to the “Soil environmental quality-Risk control standard for soil contamination of agricultural land ” (GB 15618-2018) [41] and “Risk Screening Values for soil heavy metal-The Pearl River Delta Area” (DB 44/T1415-2014) [42], Cd, Pb, As, Cu, and Zn are heavy metal pollutants, but the new scheme does not include contaminated soils, and so they are not assigned.

3.2. Attributions of the WRB

The results of the soil types attributed to the test soil profiles according to the WRB (2022) led to the results shown in Table 1. Among the 15 test soil profiles, 10 were classified as Technosols in the first level of the WRB categorical unit (reference soil groups (RSGs)). Two profiles were classified as Cambisols, and one profile was categorized as a Calcisol. Some test profiles that were not classified as Technosols may also have had artificial and technical characteristics reflected in the second level of the WRB categorical unit (RSGs with qualifiers), for example, pedons 5, 7, and 9. Profile 5 was affected by the artificial landscaping of the rockery, and the artificial outer mulch compacted the upper layer of the original soil and slowly made the soil permeable to water. However, there were no artifacts greater than 20% in the soil pedon because the material being transported was exogenous soil, and there were no artificially constructed geomembranes that were impermeable (or very slowly permeable) of any thickness starting at ≤100 cm from the soil’s surface. Profile 5, which also did not meet the technical hard material criteria in the WRB, “is consolidated material resulting from an industrial process and has properties substantially different from those of natural materials”. If the technical hard material criteria in the WRB were to consider both the origin of the material and the effect similar to that of the technical hard material caused by human activities, then profile 5 could be classified as a Leptic Linic Technosol (Densic and Transportic). Profile 7 was located on the embankment, which was not the original geomorphic soil, and it was artificially transported for the embankment. It did not meet the requirements of the artifact contents for Technosols, nor did it meet the technical hard material condition. Moreover, it contained a calcic horizon, which was classified as a Haplic Calcisol (Loamy and Transportic). Finally, it had “Transportic” as a supplementary qualifier to reflect its property of being affected by artificial transport. The artifacts in profile 9 did not meet the content requirements for Technosols, and they were classified as Sideralic Cambisols (Arenic, Technic).

3.3. Attributions of the ST

The results of the soil types attributed to the test soil profiles according to the ST (2022) led to the results shown in Table 1. Among the 15 soil profiles for testing, 6 were classified as Inceptisols and 7 were categorized as Entisols. Pedons 1, 8, and 9 contained artifacts, and pedons 2, 3, and 4 met the requirements of the manufactured layer in the ST. However, according to the search order of the ST, they were all classified as Inceptisols, and the influence of anthropogenic activities was not reflected in their names, either in the higher or the basic categories of the soil taxonomy. The reason for this phenomenon is due to the scope of the application of the human-altered and human-transported material classes of the soil family differentiae in the ST. The seven pedons, namely, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which were classified as Entisols, could reflect the influence of the anthropogenic activities from the subgroup, with the subgroup qualifiers of both Anthrodensic and Anthroportic. For profiles 14 and 15, the ST does not currently have taxonomic units related to contamination, and this could be considered for addition during the revision.

3.4. Attributions of the CST

The attributions of the soil types for the test soil profiles were analyzed according to the CST and the “Criteria for establishment of soil family and soil series in Chinese Soil Taxonomy” [43]. The results are shown in Table 1. Among the 15 soil profiles, 6 were classified as Cambisols and 7 were categorized as Primosols. From the names of the taxonomic units, only pedons 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in the higher categories of the soil taxonomy had the word “Turbi-” to reflect the influence of anthropogenic activities. Meanwhile, all the soil profiles in the basic categories of the soil taxonomy failed to reflect the influence of anthropogenic activities in the names of the soil families. The “ Turbi-” in the CST (e.g., Turbi-Anthric Primosols) refers to the plowing-disturbed layer resulting from leveling land or building terraces. In this view, although pedons 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were classified as Turbi-Anthric Primosols, they deviated from the original intention of the CST to establish Anthric Primosols.

3.5. Comparison of the Attribution Results

The representation of the impacts of artificial technological activities on the names of the taxonomic units (which is enough to be represented under any taxonomic category) in the 15 soil profiles in Beijing, Hebei, and Henan was analyzed. The WRB could reflect the artificial and technical characteristics of 12 of the 15 profiles, and those not reflected were mainly due to the definition of the artifacts category and the occurrence of the depth range requirements. The ST could reflect the artificial and technical characteristics of 5 of the 15 profiles, and those not reflected were mainly due to the retrieval order of the ST and the collocation principle between the human-altered and human-transported soil families and subgroups. The attribution results of the CST showed that soils with artificial and technical characteristics could not find a suitable attribution position in the CST because it has not established relevant diagnostic horizons, diagnostic characteristics, or taxonomic units. Although five of the profiles could be named to reflect “Turbi-”, it was not the original intention of the CST to establish Anthric Primosols. The attributed names of the soils of the ancient culture sites in the three taxonomy systems did not reflect their “sense of history and rarity”. Therefore, a relevant classification and retrieval system that can reflect the characteristics of these soils must be established.

4. Discussion

4.1. Tentative Soil Classification System for the Third National Soil Survey

The attribution effect was based on the attribution results of the 15 test profiles, which could represent the engineering characteristics of 13 of the profiles. With regard to the similarity of soils within the same classification unit, profiles two and four, which were enclosed by the road surface, and profile eight, which contained a large amount of refuse, were also attributed to the shallow and thick urban-filled soil species, which does not currently allow the enclosed character of profiles two and four to be characterized in the classification name. In addition, the heavy-metal-contaminated soil profiles 14 and 15 were not attributed.
In terms of the rationality of the scheme, the design logic of the four soil types—deep and orderly situ-disturbed soil, deep and mixed situ-disturbed soil, deep and orderly exogenously disturbed soil, and deep and mixed exogenously disturbed soil—was worth exploring. The names of these four soil types indicated that the common feature was that the soil had been disturbed below 50 cm, but in most cases, if the deep layer was disturbed, the surface layer was inevitably disturbed as well, and the attribution was made to the “Shallow” soil type before the “Deep” soil type.

4.2. Need to Modify the CST

The WRB and ST have corresponding categories for soils with artificial and technical characteristics present in non-agricultural use. The CST does not have specific diagnostic horizons, diagnostic characteristics, and taxonomy units for such soils. The number and depth of studies on these soils in the CST are insufficient in the context of urbanization and industrialization. On this basis, quantitative and taxonomy studies of such soils must be strengthened in accordance with international trends. Although China has a long history, its current taxonomy scheme does not efficiently reflect the characteristics of ancient culture sites’ soils, and no relevant categories of taxonomy units have been established. Human impacts on soils have positive and negative effects (e.g., soil erosion, secondary salinization, arable land destruction, and heavy metal pollution). However, the current CST has yet to establish the corresponding categories for the negative impacts of human activities on soils to better classify these soils that may affect human health and plant and animal survival for land remediation and consolidation; thus, it must be better utilized and managed. In addition to establishing the corresponding classification levels, genetic horizon symbols and the corresponding contents in the CST should also be captured in the next complete revision.

4.3. Suggested Changes to the Genetic Horizon Representative Symbols of the CST

Soil genetic horizons and their combinations are the main basis for soil classification, and the most intuitive and appropriate representative symbols cannot be chosen for soil horizons that are influenced by artificial techniques, such as asphalt horizons, abandoned road horizons, transported soil horizons, compacted soil horizons, and contaminated horizons in test soil profiles. The same situation is faced by the cultural layers of the ancient culture sites. When representing the genetic horizon symbols, English capital letters are often used to indicate the main genetic horizons. Meanwhile, lowercase letters are placed side-by-side after the capital letters of the main genetic horizons to indicate the characteristics. The letters a to z have representative characteristics for genetic horizons. However, there are no symbols for the genetic horizons related to the influence of artificial technology in the upper and lower case letters. Accordingly, this study has suggested adding the relevant genetic horizon representative symbols. This study has also suggested the following to minimize alterations to the original content: A new T symbol should be added under the specific genetic horizon to represent an artificial and technical soil horizon affected by human-altered or human-transport conditions. A T does not conflict with the existing genetic horizon representative symbols and is consistent with the characteristics of the word “Technology”.

4.4. Proposed Taxonomy Scheme

In order to improve the CST, combined with the actual situation of the test soil profiles, establishing the anthropogenic use approach combined with a quantitative system as the idea, considering the diagnostic horizons and the taxonomic units, can be achieved “as its name implies”, and it can minimize changes to, the original CST framework clade. The proposed revisions were formulated as discussed below.

4.4.1. Diagnostic Horizons and Diagnostic Characteristics

The CST is a systematic and quantitative soil classification scheme based on diagnostic horizons and diagnostic characteristics. A new “Manufactured horizon” must be added to its diagnostic horizons to reflect the influence of artificial technological activities in the names. Our definition is as follows:
Manufactured horizon: A “Manufactured horizon is a horizon with artificial and technical characteristics formed under the influence of human non-agricultural activities”. It meets the following requirements if:
(1)
it has pollutant contents that endanger human health and the growth of plants and animals within 50 cm of the mineral soil surface, or it has hazardous radioactivity to humans, plants, and animals (excluding the natural soils of mining areas with high backgrounds);
(2)
it has any thickness of impermeable (or very slowly permeable), constructed, continuous layers caused by non-agricultural activities within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface;
(3)
it has a thickness of more than 50 cm that is replaced or transported by exogenous materials within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface; or
(4)
it has relics, bricks, pottery, glass, industrial waste, garbage, and/or other intrusions by industrial or artisanal manufacturing contents of 20% or more (by volume) within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface.
The “Anthroturbic layer” should be modified in its diagnostic characteristic. This study modified it to read: “The anthroturbic layer is a plowing-disturbed layer resulting from leveling land or building terrace, or a feature in the soil layer that has some influence on human non-agricultural activities”. It meets the following requirements if:
(1)
it has 3% or more (by volume) fragments of original diagnostic horizons that are not arranged in any discernible order, or it has fragments of soil mass, and the original diagnostic characteristics remain between 25 cm and 100 cm from the soil surface;
(2)
it has a thickness of less than 20 cm replaced or transported by exogenous materials within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface; or
(3)
it has intrusion content of 10–20%.

4.4.2. Taxonomic Units

Considering the “name recognition” regarding soil characteristics in the names of taxonomic units, the CST should add a new suborder named Artificialic Anthrosols and related subgroups. The names of the new categories of the taxonomic units are shown in Table 2. In terms of the taxonomic unit names, some taxonomic unit prefix terms are named as a combination of the two taxonomy systems, namely, the WRB and ST, and the proposed revisions were created by John M. Galbraith. This study attempted to include some taxonomic unit prefix terms to innovatively incorporate into the CST. Examples of these terms are Intrusionic (named for intrusions), Reconstructic (named for reconstruction), Relic, and Anthroturbic. The delineation and establishment of the taxonomic units were based on the characteristics of the test profiles and the possible existence of soils with artificial and technical characteristics in reality.
The proposed key for each soil category of the new taxonomic units of the “CST ” are as follows (here, the B3 serial number is continued with the original CST suborders, e.g., B1 Stagnic Anthrosols, B2 Orthic Anthrosols, etc.):
 B3 Anthrosols that have a manufactured horizon.
Artificialic Anthrosols.
 Key to groups:
 B3.1 Artificialic Anthrosols that have a thickness of more than 20 cm replaced or transported by exogenous materials within 200 cm of the mineral soil surface.
Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.2 Other Artificialic Anthrosols.
Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.1 Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 Key to subgroups:
 B3.1.1 Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols that have pollutant contents that endanger human health and the growth of plants and animals within 50 cm of the mineral soil surface or that have hazardous radioactivity for humans, plants, and animals (excluding the natural soils of the mining areas with high backgrounds).
Anthropollic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.1.2 Other Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols that have any thickness of impermeable (or very slowly permeable), constructed, continuous layers caused by non-agricultural activities within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface.
Anthrodensic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.1.3 Other Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols that have relics, bricks, pottery, glass, industrial waste, garbage, and/or other intrusions by industrial or artisanal manufacturing contents of 20% or more (by volume) within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface.
Intrusionic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.1.4 Other Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
Typic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.2 Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 Key to subgroups:
 B3.2.1 Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols that have pollutant contents that endanger human health and the growth of plants and animals within 50 cm of the mineral soil surface or that have hazardous radioactivity for humans, plants, and animals (excluding the natural soils of the mining areas with high backgrounds).
Anthropollic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.2.2 Other Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols that have any thickness of impermeable (or very slowly permeable), constructed, continuous layers caused by non-agricultural activities within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface.
Anthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.2.3 Other Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols that have relics, bricks, pottery, glass, industrial waste, garbage, and/or other intrusions by industrial or artisanal manufacturing contents of 20% or more (by volume) within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface.
Intrusionic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 B3.2.4 Other Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
Typic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols.
 The following soil family differentiae are proposed to be added: the Artificialic and Technical classes. The sequence is placed after “Particle-size classes and their substitutes” in the soil family differentiae. The other differentiae characteristics are postponed.
 Key to the Artificialic and Technical classes:
a.
The intrusions are derived from ancient culture relics;
Relic
  or
b.
The intrusions have pollutant contents that endanger human health and the growth of plants and animals within 50 cm of the mineral soil surface;
Toxic
  or
c.
The intrusions have hazardous radioactivity for humans, plants, and animals within 50 cm of the mineral soil surface (excluding the natural soils of the mining areas with high backgrounds);
Radiohazic
  or
d.
The intrusions have any thickness of impermeable (or very slowly permeable), constructed, continuous layers caused by non-agricultural activities within 5 cm of the mineral soil surface;
Ekranic
  or
e.
Have any thickness of an impermeable (or very slowly permeable), constructed, continuous layer caused by non-agricultural activities between 5 cm and 100 cm below the mineral soil surface;
Linic
  or
f.
The intrusions have a thickness of less than 20 cm replaced by coal gangue, fly ash, exogenous soil, etc., for soil reconstruction within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface;
Reconstructic
  or
g.
The intrusions have a thickness of more than 50 cm transported out of the original soil within 100 cm of the mineral soil surface;
Truncatic
  or
h.
The intrusions have a thickness of more than 20 cm replaced by rubble and refuse of human settlements, industrial waste, and organic waste within 200 cm of the mineral soil surface;
Wastic
  or
i.
The intrusions have an anthroturbic layer, but the anthropogenic pedoturbation is not reflected in the subgroup name.
Anthroturbic

4.5. Attribution of the Proposed Revisions of CST

The results of the proposed CST revision attributions for the test soil profiles are shown in Table 3. The proposed revisions increased the collocation combinations between the soil subgroups and the soil families, and the corresponding Artificialic and Technical classes were established in the soil family differentiae. After the attributions of the test soil profiles were compared with the proposed revisions, in addition to the changes in the diagnostic horizons, diagnostic characteristics, and subgroups names, the soil families were also changed.
The results of the proposed revision attributions reflected that all 15 test soil profiles could be characterized from the names of the artificial and technical characteristics, and the degree of modification to the original CST framework was small.

5. Conclusions

In this study, 15 typical anthropogenic soil profiles with engineering and technical characteristics from China were selected for a classification study. These soil profiles were classified with the following four soil classification systems: the Soil Taxonomy, the WRB system, the Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CST), and the Geogenetic Soil Classification of China (GSCC). When comparing the four classification methods, the results of the attribution research showed that the CST, which is currently used in China, has no relevant diagnostic horizons, diagnostic characteristics, and categories of soil units compared with the WRB and the ST. Accordingly, soils with artificial and technical characteristics do not have suitable positions in the CST to reflect their characteristics. On this basis, this study formulated proposed revisions to the CST with respect to the diagnostic bases and categories of taxonomy units. In combination with the attribution results of the CST-proposed revisions for the 15 test soil profiles, the classification results of the proposed revisions could reflect the artificial and technological characteristics of the 15 test profiles from the names of the taxonomy units. The proposed revisions can be considered for incorporation into the next version of the CST in order to be useful in soil survey, land evaluation, and land remediation work in China, as well as to be synchronized with global mainstream soil classification systems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land12111974/s1, Table S1: Physical properties of the soil profiles tested in Beijing, Hebei, and Henan; Table S2: Chemical Properties of the soil profiles tested in Beijing, Hebei, and Henan; Table S3: Contents of the heavy metals in the soil profiles from Guangdong. Figure S1: Soil profile 1; Figure S2: Soil profile 2; Figure S3: Soil profile 3; Figure S4: Soil profile 4; Figure S5: Soil profile 5; Figure S6: Soil profile 6; Figure S7: Soil profile 7; Figure S8: Soil profile 8; Figure S9: Soil profile 9; Figure S10: Soil profile 10; Figure S11: Soil profile 11; Figure S12: Soil profile 12; Figure S13: Soil profile 13.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.H., K.W. and L.L.; Methodology, L.L.; Formal analysis, S.H. and K.W.; Investigation, S.H., L.L., H.W., X.W. and B.L.; Writing—original draft, S.H.; Writing—review & editing, S.H., K.W. and X.L.; Supervision, K.W.; Project administration, K.W.; Funding acquisition, K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 42171261).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank all the staff and students who provided input to this study. Their acknowledgements are also extended to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive reviews of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Riddle, R.L.; Siebecker, M.G.; Weindorf, D.C.; Shaw, R.K.; Scharenbroch, B.C. Soils in Urban and Built Environments: Pedogenic Processes, Characteristics, Mapping, and Classification. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 173, pp. 227–255. ISBN 978-0-323-98955-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Certini, G.; Scalenghe, R. Anthropogenic Soils Are the Golden Spikes for the Anthropocene. Holocene 2011, 21, 1269–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Leguédois, S.; Séré, G.; Auclerc, A.; Cortet, J.; Huot, H.; Ouvrard, S.; Watteau, F.; Schwartz, C.; Morel, J.L. Modelling Pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma 2016, 262, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Richter, D.D. Game Changer in Soil Science. The Anthropocene in Soil Science and Pedology. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2020, 183, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. State Council Notice of the State Council on the 3rd National Soil Survey. In Bulletin of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China; State Council of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2022; pp. 29–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Research Group of Chinese Soil Taxonomy. Keys to Chinese Soil Taxonomy, 3rd ed.; Press of University of Science and Technology of China: Hefei, China, 2001. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Schad, P. Technosols in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources—History and Definitions. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  9. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 13th ed.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  10. Cheng, Z.; Vasenev, V.; Muth, T.; Kim, K.-H.; Shaw, R.K. Advances in Urban Soils Science—SUITMA 9 International Congress Special Issue. Soil Sci. 2018, 183, 121–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cheng, Z.; Hettiarachchi, G.M.; Kim, K. Urban Soils Research: SUITMA 10. J. Environ. Qual. 2021, 50, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Scharenbroch, B.C.; Trammell, T.L.; Paltseva, A.; Livesley, S.J.; Edmondson, J. Editorial: Urban Soil Formation, Properties, Classification, Management, and Function. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 987903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Makki, M.; Thestorf, K.; Hilbert, S.; Thelemann, M.; Makowsky, L. Guideline for the Description of Soils in the Berlin Metropolitan Area: An Extension for Surveying and Mapping Anthropogenic and Natural Soils in Urban Environments within the German Soil Classification System. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 1998–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Van De Vijver, E.; Delbecque, N.; Verdoodt, A.; Seuntjens, P. Estimating the Urban Soil Information Gap Using Exhaustive Land Cover Data: The Example of Flanders, Belgium. Geoderma 2020, 372, 114371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rossiter, D.G. Classification of Urban and Industrial Soils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (5 Pp). J. Soils Sediments 2007, 7, 96–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Watteau, F.; Huot, H.; Séré, G.; Begin, J.C.; Rees, F.; Schwartz, C.; Morel, J.L. Micropedology to Reveal Pedogenetic Processes in Technosols. Span. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 8, 2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gerasimova, M.I.; Ananko, T.V.; Savitskaya, N.V. Approaches to the Introduction of Human-Modified Soils in the Updated Version of the Soil Map of Russia, 1:2.5 M Scale (by the Example of Moscow Oblast). Eurasian Soil Sci. 2020, 53, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guilland, C.; Maron, P.A.; Damas, O.; Ranjard, L. Biodiversity of Urban Soils for Sustainable Cities. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 1267–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, J.J.; Chanasyk, D.S.; McNeil, R.L. Proposed Revision to Canadian System of Soil Classification: Broaden Taxonomic Criteria for Applying LFH Horizons to Include Nonforest Soils. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 2022, 102, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lehmann, A.; Stahr, K. Nature and Significance of Anthropogenic Urban Soils. J. Soils Sediments 2007, 7, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, D.-B.; Kim, Y.-N.; Sonn, Y.-K.; Kim, K.-H. Comparison of Soil Taxonomy (2022) and WRB (2022) Systems for Classifying Paddy Soils with Different Drainage Grades in South Korea. Land 2023, 12, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dazzi, C.; Monteleone, S. Anthropogenic Processes in the Evolution of a Soil Chronosequence on Marly-Limestone Substrata in an Italian Mediterranean Environment. Geoderma 2007, 141, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, S.B.; Chun, H.C.; Cho, H.J.; Hyun, B.K.; Song, K.C.; Zhang, Y.S.; Sonn, Y.K.; Park, C.W. Soil Classification of Anthropogenic Soils in a Remodeled Area Using Soil Taxonomy and World Reference Base for Soil Resources. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fertil. 2013, 46, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mastrolonardo, G.; Certini, G. Viewpoint. Charcoal Hearth Soils Should Be Better Accounted for by the WRB and the Soil Taxonomy. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2020, 183, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Howard, J.L. Urban Anthropogenic Soils—A Review. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 165, pp. 1–57. ISBN 978-0-12-824573-6. [Google Scholar]
  26. Meuser, H.; Blume, H.P. Characteristics and Classification of Anthropogenic Soils in the Osnabruck Area, Germany. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2001, 164, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Costa Campos, M.C.; Ribeiro, M.R.; Souza Junior, V.S.; Ribeiro Filho, M.R.; Cordeiro Conceicao Souza, R.V.; Almeida, M.C. Characterization and classification of archaeological dark earths from the Middle Madeira River Region. Bragantia 2011, 70, 598–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. VandenBygaart, A.J. Regosolic Soils of Canada: Genesis, Distribution and Classification. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 91, 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Naeth, M.A.; Leskiw, L.A.; Brierley, J.A.; Warren, C.J.; Keys, K.; Dlusskiy, K.; Wu, R.; Spiers, G.A.; Laskosky, J.; Krzic, M.; et al. Revised Proposed Classification for Human Modified Soils in Canada: Anthroposolic Order. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 2023, 103, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zanella, A.; Schad, P.; Galbraith, J.; Ponge, J.-F. Humusica 2, Article 14: Anthropogenic Soils and Humus Systems, Comparing Classification Systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 122, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ureta, S.; Otaegui, A. Seeing Copiaposols: Anthropogenic Soils, Strategic Unknowing, and Emergent Taxonomies in Northern Chile. Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 38, 881–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Micheli, E.; Lang, V.; Owens, P.R.; McBratney, A.; Hempel, J. Testing the Pedometric Evaluation of Taxonomic Units on Soil Taxonomy—A Step in Advancing towards a Universal Soil Classification System. Geoderma 2016, 264, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Capra, G.F.; Vacca, S.; Cabula, E.; Grilli, E.; Buondonno, A. Human-Altered and Human-Transported Soils in an Italian Industrial District. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1828–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Capra, G.F.; Vacca, S.; Cabula, E.; Grilli, E.; Buondonno, A. Through the Decades: Taxonomic Proposals for Human-Altered and Human-Transported Soil Classification. Soil Horizons 2013, 54, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Galbraith, J.M. Human-Altered and Human-Transported (HAHT) Soils in the U.S. Soil Classification System. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, G.; Zhu, Y.; Fu, B. Quality Changes of Soils in Urban and Suburban Areas and Its Eco-Environmental Impacts—A Review. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2003, 23, 539–546. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Wu, K.; Gao, X.; Zha, L.; Li, F. Soil Taxonomy of Artificial Soils Containing Artifacts Typical of Henan Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 54, 1091–1101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu, Y.; Gong, Z.; Zhang, G. Characteristics and Management of Urban Soils. Soil Environ. Sci. 2002, 11, 206–209. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. Bao, S. Soil and Agrochemistry Analysis; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2000. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, G.; Gong, Z.; Yang, J. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  41. GB 15618-2018; Soil Environmental Quality-Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Agricultural Land. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, State Administration for Market Regulation: Beijing, China, 2018.
  42. DB 44/T1415-2014; Risk Screening Values for Soil Heavy Metal-The Pearl River Delta Area. Guangdong Administration for Market Regulation: Guangzhou, China, 2014.
  43. Zhang, G.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, F.; Wu, K. Criteria for Establishment of Soil Family and Soil Series in Chinese Soil Taxonomy. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2013, 50, 826–834. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Land 12 01974 g001
Figure 1. Anthropogenic soil classification dilemmas in China.
Figure 1. Anthropogenic soil classification dilemmas in China.
Land 12 01974 g001
Land 12 01974 g002
Figure 2. Soil profiles from Beijing, Hebei, Henan, and Guangdong (see Supplementary Materials Figures S1–S13).
Figure 2. Soil profiles from Beijing, Hebei, Henan, and Guangdong (see Supplementary Materials Figures S1–S13).
Land 12 01974 g002
Land 12 01974 g003
Figure 3. Conceptual drawing of the filled soil profiles.
Figure 3. Conceptual drawing of the filled soil profiles.
Land 12 01974 g003
Land 12 01974 g004
Figure 4. Conceptual drawing of the anthroturbic soil profiles.
Figure 4. Conceptual drawing of the anthroturbic soil profiles.
Land 12 01974 g004
Table 1. Attribution results for the typical anthropogenic soil profiles.
Table 1. Attribution results for the typical anthropogenic soil profiles.
PedonSoil Classification
No.GSCC Trial Scheme Soil SpeciesWRB RSGs with QualifiersST Soil FamilyCST Soil Family
1Deep and thick urban-filled soilSpolic Urbic Technosols
(Loamic, Calcaric)		Sandy-Skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic HaplusteptsSandy-Skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic Hapli-Ustic Cambisols
2Shallow and thick urban-filled soilLeptic Ekranic Technosols
(Loamic, Cambic)		Loamy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic HaplusteptsLoamy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic Hapli-Ustic Cambisols
3Shallow and orderly situ-
disturbed soil		Leptic Ekranic Technosols
(Alcalic, Calcic)		Loamy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic DystrudeptsLoamy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Mottlic Hapli-Udic Cambisols
4Shallow and thick urban-filled soilIsolatic Ekranic Technosols
(Calcic, Hyperartifactic)		Skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic HaplusteptsSkeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic Hapli-Ustic Cambisols
5Shallow and orderly disturbed soilSkeletic Cambisols
(Geoabruptic, Transportic)		Loamy-Skeletal over Sandy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Anthrodensic UstorthentsLoamy-Skeletal over Sandy Mixed Mesic-Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
6Shallow and exogenously
disturbed soil		Spolic Urbic Technosols
(Calcic, Transportic)		Loamy-Skeletal Artifactic Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Anthroportic UstorthentsLoamy-Skeletal Mixed Mesic-Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
7Shallow and orderly
disturbed soil		Haplic Calcisols
(Loamic, Transportic)		Loamy Spolic Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Anthroportic UdorthentsLoamy Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
8Shallow and thick urban-filled soilSpolic Urbic Technosols
(Alcalic, Loamic)		Sandy-Skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic HaplusteptsSandy-Skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic-Typic Hapli-Ustic Cambisols
9-Sideralic Cambisols
(Arenic, Technic)		Sandy Mixed Nonacid Mesic-Typic HaplusteptsSandy Mixed Nonacid Mesic-Typic Hapli-Ustic Cambisols
10Shallow and thin urban-filled soilLeptic Linic Technosols
(Calcaric, Densic)		Loamy-Skeletal over Fine-silty Concretic Mixed Mesic-Anthroportic UstorthentsLoamy-Skeletal over Fine-silty Mixed Mesic
Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
11Deep and thin urban-filled soilSpolic Urbic Technosols
( Grossartifactic, Dystric)		Fine-Silty over Loamy-skeletal Artifactic Mixed Mesic-Anthroportic Ustorthents Fine-Silty over Loamy-skeletal Mixed Mesic
Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
12Deep and thick mineral-filled soilSpolic Technosols
(Sideralic, Calcaric)		Loamy Spolic Mixed Mesic-Anthroportic UstorthentsLoamy Mixed Mesic-Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
13Shallow and thick mineral-filled soilSpolic Technosols
(Sideralic, Calcaric)		Loamy Spolic Mixed Mesic-Anthroportic Ustorthents Loamy Mixed Mesic-Calcaric Turbi-Anthric Primosols
14-Supplementary qualifier: toxic--
15-Supplementary qualifier: toxic--
Table 2. List of the additional soil types proposed for the CST.
Table 2. List of the additional soil types proposed for the CST.
SuborderGroupSubgroupSoil Family Differentiae
Artificialic AnthrosolsTransporti-Artificialic AnthrosolsAnthropollic Transporti-Artificialic AnthrosolsArtificialic and Technical classes: Relic, Toxic, Radiohazic, Ekranic, Linic, Reconstructic, Truncatic, Wastic, and Anthroturbic
Anthrodensic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols
Intrusionic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols
Typic Transporti-Artificialic Anthrosols
Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsAnthropollic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols
Anthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols
Intrusionic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols
Typic Alteri-Artificialic Anthrosols
Table 3. Proposed revisions to the CST for the taxonomy of the studied soils.
Table 3. Proposed revisions to the CST for the taxonomy of the studied soils.
No.Changes in Diagnostic Horizon and CharacteristicsSubgroupSoil Family Differentiae
1Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsSandy-skeletal Wastic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
2Manufactured horizonAnthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy Ekranic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
3Manufactured horizonAnthrodensic Transporti-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy Linic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
4Manufactured horizonAnthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsSkeletal Ekranic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
5Manufactured horizonAnthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy-skeletal over Sandy Linic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
6Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Transporti-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy-skeletal Mixed Calcareous Mesic
7Manufactured horizonTypic Transporti-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy Reconstructic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
8Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsSandy-skeletal Wastic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
9Anthroturbic layerTypic Hapli-Ustic CambosolsSandy Anthroturbic Mixed Nonacid Mesic
10Manufactured horizonAnthrodensic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy-skeletal over Fine-silty Linic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
11Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsFine-silty over Loamy-skeletal Wastic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
12Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy Reconstructic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
13Manufactured horizonIntrusionic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsLoamy Reconstructic Mixed Calcareous Mesic
14Manufactured horizonAnthropollic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsToxic
15Manufactured horizonAnthropollic Alteri-Artificialic AnthrosolsToxic
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hao, S.; Wu, K.; Li, L.; Li, X.; Wei, H.; Wu, X.; Liu, B. Revised Proposed Classifications for Typical Anthropogenic Soils in China. Land 2023, 12, 1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111974

AMA Style

Hao S, Wu K, Li L, Li X, Wei H, Wu X, Liu B. Revised Proposed Classifications for Typical Anthropogenic Soils in China. Land. 2023; 12(11):1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111974

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hao, Shiheng, Kening Wu, Ling Li, Xiaoliang Li, Hongbin Wei, Xiangyuan Wu, and Bingrui Liu. 2023. "Revised Proposed Classifications for Typical Anthropogenic Soils in China" Land 12, no. 11: 1974. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111974

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop