Elsevier

CATENA

Volume 70, Issue 1, 1 June 2007, Pages 92-104
CATENA

Development of texture contrast soils by a combination of bioturbation and translocation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2006.08.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Soils and weathering profiles in a wide variety of parent materials and environmental settings exhibit coarse-over-fine vertical textural contrasts. Where these cannot be attributed to inherited texture contrasts or erosion–deposition, the most common explanations are based on translocation (eluviation–illuviation) which removes clays from surface layers and deposits them in the subsoil; or bioturbation, where preferentially fine material is delivered to the surface by organisms, from whence erosional winnowing creates a coarse surface layer. In some soils of the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, U.S.A., neither explanation is sufficient to explain the observed texture contrasts. A heuristic model based on a combination of translocation of fine material from surface to subsoil, and bioturbation-driven delivery and recycling of material to the surface can explain the observed vertical textural contrasts. The key elements in the model are coastal plain sediments which include some fine material; eluviation–illuviation by percolating water; delivery of additional fine and mixed grain size material to surface by bioturbation, making it available for translocation; concentration of fine material originally scattered throughout the parent material in a B horizon; and maintenance of vertical moisture fluxes by bioturbation. The model is supported by morphological evidence of the key mechanisms, argillic horizons that are finer than both the surface layers and underlying parent material, evidence that argillic horizon formation is not limited by the rate of clay synthesis, and the absence of texture contrasts in nearby soils formed from dune sands which lack fines.

Introduction

Regoliths throughout the world exhibit vertical textural contrasts, whereby coarser surface material overlies finer subsurface layers. Erosion and deposition can account for some of these profiles, as can the inheritance of textural contrasts from sedimentary layering or lithological boundaries. The ubiquity of such texture contrasts where inheritance or erosion/deposition are not viable explanations, however, suggests other, more general causes. The interpretation of such textural boundaries is important in a number of geomorphological contexts, such as distinguishing pedological vs. geological layering, the identification of colluvial and other geomorphic processes, and the interpretation of weathering profiles. The formation of texture contrast soils (TCS) is important beyond the study of soil geomorphology and pedogenic processes in specific soils precisely because TCS are so widespread. Explaining the occurrence of TCS in a variety of environmental settings has been an important goal for pedologists and geomorphologists because such an explanation might elucidate general principles of soil development. Conversely, the common occurrence of TCS might be a case of equifinality, whereby different processes and/or histories lead to the same result.

Several authors have pointed out the likelihood of multiple causality in the evolution of TCS (e.g., Kemp and McIntosh, 1989, Nooren et al., 1995, Paton et al., 1995, Schaetzl, 2001), and I have previously used the development of vertical texture contrasts as an illustration of the importance of local historical contingencies in pedology (Phillips, 2001a). Building from these notions, the purpose of this paper is to develop an explanatory model for the formation of TCS that combines bioturbation and translocation of fines as critical elements (thereby explicitly incorporating multiple causality). This represents a specific application of a more general model recently developed and illustrated with several brief case studies, including the study area of this paper (Phillips, 2004).

Section snippets

General considerations

In some regoliths coarse-over-fine vertical textural contrasts may simply be inherited from the parent material; for example in a weathering profile produced from a sandstone layer overlying shale. In other cases surface deposition of coarser material may account for the contrast. In all other situations a texturally-homogeneous, slightly contrasting, or finer-over-coarser vertical sequence must somehow be transformed such that coarser material overlies finer. In this study a TCS is arbitrarily

Texture contrasts in coastal plain soils

The most strongly developed soils on stable uplands of the southeastern U.S. coastal plain are dominantly Ultisols (Nitosols or Acrisols in the FAO-UNESCO system). These are acid soils with low base saturation and an argillic horizon. Typically surficial (A and E) horizons are in the loamy sand or sandy loam textural class, while the argillic (Bt) horizons are sandy clay loam. The parent materials are coastal plain sediments which are typically sandy, but which often include bedding planes or

Soil inventory

At the Redneck Beach site (Pamlico terrace), upland soils are entirely classified in the State series (typic Hapludult). These have loamy sand A and E horizons 25 to 50 cm thick, overlying strong brown (7.5 YR 5/6) sandy clay loam Bt horizons 50 to 70 cm thick, sometimes with a BC horizon transitional to the C horizon. The latter is sand with thin lenses of finer material, giving the C horizon a loamy sand textural class.

At the Talbot terrace sites, a wide variety of soils was found. The

Discussion

Revisiting the multiple causality model (Section 3.1), we can evaluate the terms of Eq. (1) based on the field evidence. TCo is apparently low, as the parent sediments are loamy sand resulting from sandy material with small amounts of fines, or single-grained sand with thin clay lenses or lamellae. Coarse surface additions (Ca+) are negligible, with possible localized exceptions of aeolian sand. Coarse surface losses (Ca−) are also generally negligible at the non-eroding study sites. Fine

Conclusions

In some soils of the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, U.S.A., no single existing explanation–such as eluviation–illuviation or bioturbation–is sufficient to explain the observed vertical texture contrasts. A combination of translocation of fine material from surface to subsoil, and bioturbation-driven delivery and recycling of material to the surface can explain the observed vertical textural contrasts. The key elements in the explanatory model are coastal plain sediments which include

Acknowledgements

Conversations on the formation of texture contrast soils with Carsten Lorz (University of Leipzig) stimulated me to revisit the soils of the lower coastal plain of North Carolina. Lee and Bob Roche of Croatan, N.C. provided accommodations during fieldwork.

References (78)

  • R.A. Kemp et al.

    Genesis of a texturally-banded soil in Southland, New Zealand

    Geoderma

    (1989)
  • L. McCartan et al.

    Comparison of amino-acid racemization geochemistry with lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, uranium coral dating, and magnetostratigraphy of the Atlantic coastal plain of the southeastern U.S

    Quaternary Research

    (1982)
  • C.A.M. Nooren et al.

    The role of earthworms in the formation of sandy surface soils in a tropical forest in Ivory Coast

    Geoderma

    (1995)
  • J.D. Phillips

    Contingency and generalization in pedology, as exemplified by texture-contrast soils

    Geoderma

    (2001)
  • J.D. Phillips

    Divergent evolution and the spatial structure of soil landscape variability

    Catena

    (2001)
  • J.D. Phillips

    Geogenesis, pedogenesis, and multiple causality in the formation of texture-contrast soils

    Catena

    (2004)
  • J.D. Phillips et al.

    Deterministic uncertainty and complex pedogenesis in some Pleistocene dune soils

    Geoderma

    (1996)
  • J.D. Phillips et al.

    Truncation and accretion of soil profiles on coastal plain croplands, implications for sediment redistribution

    Geomorphology

    (1999)
  • R.J. Schaetzl

    Morphologic evidence of lamellae forming directly from thin, clayey bedding planes in a dune

    Geoderma

    (2001)
  • J.N. Shaw et al.

    Lateral flow in loamy to sandy Kandiudults of the upper Coastal Plain of Georgia (USA)

    Geoderma

    (2001)
  • J.A. Sobieraj et al.

    Spatial variability of soil hydraulic conductivity along a tropical rainforest catena

    Geoderma

    (2002)
  • D. Wang et al.

    Nest structure of an Lasius neoniger emery and its implications to soil modification

    Geoderma

    (1995)
  • F.P. Baxter et al.

    Ant (Formica cinera) pedoturbation in a prairie soil

    Soil Science Society of America Proceedings

    (1967)
  • P.W. Birkeland

    Soils and Geomorphology

    (1999)
  • G.H. Brimhall et al.

    Deformational mass transport and invasive processes in soil evolution

    Science

    (1991)
  • J.R. Cooper et al.

    Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment

    Soil Science Society of America Journal

    (1987)
  • D.L. Cremeens

    Pedogenesis of Cotiga Mound, a 2100-year-old Woodland mound in southwest West Virginia

    Soil Science Society of America Journal

    (1995)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Relation between A2 horizon characteristics and drainage in some fine-loamy Ultisols

    Soil Science

    (1967)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Eluvial bodies in B horizons of some Ultisols

    Soil Science

    (1968)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Relations between soil morphology and water-table levels on a dissected coastal plain surface

    Soil Science Society of America Journal

    (1971)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Free iron sources in an Aquult–Udult sequence from North Carolina

    Soil Science Society of America Proceedings

    (1975)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Age of soil landscapes in coastal plain of North Carolina

    Soil Science Society of America Journal

    (1978)
  • R.B. Daniels et al.

    Soil Systems in North Carolina

    (1984)
  • D.J. Eldridge et al.

    Effects of ants on sandy soils in semi-arid Australia: II. relocation of nest entrances and consequences for bioturbation

    Australian Journal of Soil Research

    (1994)
  • E.E. Gamble et al.

    A2 horizons of coastal plain soils. Pedogenic or geologic origin

    Southeastern Geology

    (1969)
  • R.A. Goodwin

    Soil Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina

    (1978)
  • R.A. Goodwin

    Soil Survey of Pamlico County, North Carolina

    (1987)
  • R.A. Goodwin

    Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina

    (1989)
  • W.G. Harris et al.

    Pedon distribution of minerals in a coastal plain Paleudult

    Soil Science Society of America Journal

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text