Reﬂections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantlepfarrell/Soils/Readings/Soil as Biomantle.pdf · Reﬂections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantle D. L. Johnson,*w J. E. J

Reflections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantle

D. L. Johnson,*w J. E. J. Domier,** and D. N. Johnsonw

*Department of Geography, University of Illinois Urbana**Illinois State Geological Survey

wGeosciences Consultants

Apart from the engineering approach to soil as movable regolith, most specialists who study soil view it as a plant-linked, land-only, and Earth-only entity whose character and properties are explained by a mix of four envi-ronmental factors—climate, organisms, relief, and parent material—that operate over time. These factors func-tion to produce soil, where S5 f (cl, o, r, p, t . . .). This relationship constitutes the five-factors, ‘‘clorpt,’’explanatory model of soil formation that lends itself to the survey, classification, and mapping of soil for agri-cultural and environmental purposes and aids in soil valuations and soil conservation-management needs. Ingeomorphology and Quaternary research, it has met success in soil chronosequence and age-dating studies. Butinasmuch as soil is the most complex and unparsimonious of all natural science entities, is any model so con-ceptually endowed that it allows a deep understanding of the full range and nuances of soil-forming processes?Can a conventional model provide new visions and different levels of knowledge beyond conventional levels? Wepresent a multifaceted and biodynamic approach that views soil in different ways. One is that soil is the outerintegument, or ‘‘skin’’ of all lithic-composed celestial bodies, planets, their satellites, and such. But Earth differsfrom others because water covers nearly three-fourths of its surface and life covers nearly all of its surface andproduces a biodynamically mediated ‘‘epidermis’’—a biomantle that other planets lack. The biomantle constitutesa subaerial-subaqueous continuum across the globe. Life imparts myriad biomechanical and biochemical proc-esses—biodynamic processes—to the soil-biomantle continuum, and these coact with physical processes in pro-ducing soil landscapes. This multifaceted approach is embedded as a component of the dynamic denudationframework of landscape evolution, which carries useful and different explanatory and predictive powers forstudying the global soil-biomantle that may be invisible, unacknowledged, or unstressed in other frameworks,including one where ‘‘organisms’’ essentially means plants. To appreciate how our approach differs from con-ventional views of soil formation, and to provide a historic context, we reflect on the nineteenth- and twentieth-century turning points in Earth sciences, mainly in geography, geology, and soils, which led to the five-factors(clorpt) model as the sine qua non way to explain soils. The details of our approach then follow. Key Words: soil,biomantle, bioturbation, biodynamic processes, dynamic denudation, ichnology, subaerial-subaqueous soils, Darwin,Dokuchaev.

The efforts of ants, earthworms, gophers, and other bur-rowing animals . . . since the retreat of the Iowan ice . . .have resulted in developing upon the surface of the drift[Iowan surface] a mellow loam.

—(Calvin 1896, 92).1

Soil is the outer layer of Earth, its fundamentalsubstrate—its pedosphere. It is the lithospheric,atmospheric, hydrospheric, biospheric interface

of our planet. Insofar as soil is the ‘‘skin,’’ so to speak, oflandforms, it is an essential part of geomorphology, arealization that saw the recent emergence of the subfieldsoil geomorphology. But soil, at least on Earth, is also anessential part of biology and ecology, both subaerial andsubaqueous. In fact, soil is an essential part of all naturalsciences insofar as it is the substrate continuum uponwhich most of Earth’s life plays out, in one way or an-other. The planetary biosphere is concentrated here—we

call it the biomantle, the functional ‘‘epidermis’’ of soil.All life is more or less linked to the biomantle, and alllife joins it upon death. Thus, what we think soil is (itsdomain), how we think it forms, how deep it is, how weview its extent on Earth, how we think it functions ec-ologically, how we define it—and whether the definitionextends to other planets—are all matters of keen interestto those who study soil and the environments of Earthand other planets.

Now, the traditional gatekeepers of soil, those mostresponsible for having formed our central conceptualview of it—‘‘the first principles’’ worldview projectedby the soil paradigm—have, in the first instance, beenchemists, geologists, and soil scientists following (also inthe first instance, regardless of disclaimers) a practical,agronomic societal mandate. They have, for better orworse, subscribed to and helped forge a plant/crops-emphasized, land-only (mainly), and Earth-centered

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(1), 2005, pp. 11–31 r 2005 by Association of American GeographersInitial submission, April 2003; revised submission, September 2003; final acceptance, June 2004

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.

view of soil. One aspect of this conventional viewis powered by a rather simple genetic construct, an‘‘environmental factors’’ approach to soil formation,that was promulgated in nineteenth-century Europe asboth a practical and scientific way to explain thecomplexities of soil genesis and soil geography acrossthe Euro-Russian plains. The essence of the model isthat four environmental factors—climate, organisms,relief, and parent material—operate over time to pro-duce soil, or in Jenny’s (1941) update: S5 f (cl, o, r, p,t . . .). This relationship constitutes the five-factors, or‘‘clorpt’’ explanatory model of soil formation. It wasconceived by Dokuchaev (1883), partly to make geo-graphical sense of soil over a vast area of Eurasia, butalso for very practical purposes: land valuations andtaxation (Tandarich et al. 2002). But soils are notsimple, as the three dots indicate, and there may be asmany ways to explain them as there are humans toconceive of ways. In fact, Earth’s soil and biomantle—at least its subaerial component—are among the mostcomplex and unparsimonious of all entities producedin nature. Simple explanatory frameworks cannot easilyconvey this.

In this article we examine some historical turningpoints that led soil scientists to embrace a plant-linked,agronomic-inspired, ‘‘environmental factors’’ approach toexplain soil formation and to turn away from a process-oriented and animal-linked approach championed byDarwin and others. Our examination is predicated onthe notion that we must understand why we view soils aswe do, how we think about them as entities, and whathistoric pressures and events led to the research-limiting,five-factors, genetic approach. The purpose behind theexamination is to provide a context to better appreciateour augmentive approach.

We then advance a multifaceted and biodynamicapproach where soil is viewed as the ‘‘skin’’ of planetarylandforms, but where on Earth—and Earth only—thebiomantle comprises a unique global ‘‘epidermis.’’ In thisapproach we advocate a biomantle-emphasized, sub-aerial-subaqueous view of Earth’s soil as a global con-tinuum. Our goals are to explore new views on thenature of soils and vitalize the soil paradigm by infusingit with a strong biodynamic and global perspective. Anaugmented soil paradigm should provide expanded andcreative interpretive, explanatory, predictive options fortwenty-first-century researchers across multiple disci-plines. Because the biomantle is a fairly new concept,and the soil evolution and dynamic denudation frame-works that showcase it are also new, we briefly sketchtheir histories. We discuss the origin of the biomantleconcept, how biomantles form, and how they function

ecologically and address the matter of subaqueous soils,which are receiving increasing attention (Deelman1972, 1973; Buurman 1975; Demas 1993; Demas et al.1996; Wall Freckman et al. 1997; Wall et al. 1998; SoilSurvey Staff 1999; Demas and Rabenhorst 1998, 1999,2001). We also reflect on the 1950s origin and appli-cation of the term/concept bioturbation, as coined andused in ichnology, then later (1980s) adopted in ar-chaeology, pedology, and geomorphology (but not yet insoil science).

In a related article (Johnson et al. forthcoming),which in some ways is an extension of this one, we shedlight on how the soil and its biomantle evolve by digitallyanimating the dominant biomechanical processes thatare involved in soil formation. That animation, on whichthis article also draws for conceptual and process-nuancing support, explicates certain broad (though subtle)and major (though largely overlooked) soil-forming‘‘process pathways’’ that transform Earth’s subaerial andsubaqueous substrates into soil with a biomantle. Theanimation provides useful insights on how soil forms, andespecially how soil and its biomantle thicken and thinwith time.

In both articles we focus on the biodynamic process-es involved in imparting to Earth its unique skin (soil)and epidermis (biomantle). The biodynamic processesinclude an array of biochemical and biomechanical(bioturbational) processes, biomass accumulations, andassociated biovoid- and volume-producing processes,balanced by metabolic and physical removal processes.We categorize several kinds of bioturbation (Table 1), adominant component of biodynamics, and suggest asa first approximation four bioturbational pathways thataid in understanding the role that this Earth-uniqueset of processes has in producing Earth’s soil and itsbiomantle.

We ask, insofar as Earth’s subaerial soil is the mostcomplex and unparsimonious of all natural science en-tities, is the clorpt model, or any one model, so con-ceptually endowed and empowered that it can answerall or most questions that might be raised about soil?Can it or any one model allow a comprehensive un-derstanding of the full range and nuances of soil-formingprocesses? What model best applies to subaqueous soil?Can a conventional model of science offer new visions,creative thinking, and different levels of knowledgebeyond conventional levels? Can a generalized soil for-mation model that was conceived and nurtured undera geologic-soil science-agronomic mandate answer allthe process questions that might be raised by modernresearchers in the earth, geographical, ecological, andenvironmental sciences? In sum, can a paradigm of soil

Johnson, Domier, and Johnson12

so conceived and nurtured allow maximum scientificunderstandings of the complex soil, biological, chemical,and physical processes that operate in Earth’s subaerialand subaqueous systems across the global substrate? Tofully appreciate why we raise these questions requires anunderstanding of how and when the geologic-agronomicparadigm historically evolved, who the key players were,and what was their level of prominence. On this pointGould (1977, 4) cautioned that those ignorant of his-tory and its key players are not so much condemned torepeat it as to be confused, and Medawar (1979, 30)lamented the often-total indifference of many scientiststo the history of ideas that lie at the root of their ownresearch.2

Two caveats are appropriate regarding references andendnotes. This article is heavily cited across a range ofeclectic literature covering multiple disciplines. Ourpurpose is not to impress but to document and call at-tention to disparate views and areas of knowledge thatare not only relevant to our themes but are likely to falloutside the normal purview of most specialists who dealwith soil and who might benefit by its knowledge. Also,the endnotes, far from being mere afterthoughts, provideessential details that support the text without deflectingfrom its flow of thought.

Darwin and Dokuchaev: Their DifferentApproaches to Soil

Darwin’s Animal-Process Approach, andDokuchaev’s Vegetal, Terrestrial, Five-Factors,Zonal Approach

Historically, soil science has largely followed a practicalagronomic agenda, understandable in light of the roleof soil in producing foodstuffs. Soil science appeared inthe late nineteenth century, having evolved from thegenetic-geographic principles formulated by agriculturalgeologists and chemists, mainly in Europe (Tandarich,1998a, b, c). Many of these principles were estab-lished and collated in the work of famed agriculturalgeologist V. V. Dokuchaev and his colleagues. The prin-ciples gained initial visibility through Dokuchaev’s 1883tour de force Russian Chernozem (Dokuchaev 1883). Thistome summarized several years’ work by Dokuchaev inwhich the role of plants became canonized as soil pro-ducers—the ‘‘o’’ factor in his five-factors model. Soil wasthen widely called ‘‘mould,’’ ‘‘vegetable mould,’’ ‘‘vege-table soil,’’ and ‘‘vegetal-terrestrial soil,’’ reflecting farmer-gardener traditions. (Dokuchaev preferred to use theterm ‘‘vegetal terrestrial soil.’’) And while the soil genetic

Table 1. Bioturbation Styles, Organismic Examples, and Main Expressions in Soil Biomantles in Subaerialand Subaqueous Substrates

Bioturbation Process Styles* Examples of Organisms*Main Expressions in Mixed Particle Soils

and Biomantles

upward biotransfers of fine-fraction andsmall gravels from the lower biomantle—orbelow it—into and/or onto the biomantleby conveyor belt and moundmaker organisms

some ants, termites, worms, myriadcrustaceans (clams, crayfish, shrimp, etc.);myriad other marine and terrestrialinvertebrates; many terrestrial vertebrates(wombats, ground squirrels, badgers, tuco-tucos, mole-rats, moles, armadillos, etc.)

loosened, texturally anisotropic biomantle(contrasts between upper biomantle andbasal stonelayer, and between biomantleand subsoil), surface mounds, small tumuli,and fenestrate-inosculate biofabriccommon in biomantle

biomixing via mixmaster and moundmakerorganisms that burrow, wriggle, mix and/orchurn mainly within the biomantle

moles, pocket gophers, tuco-tucos, mole-rats, armadillos, marsupial moles; myriadmarine and terrestrial invertebrates,humans

loosened, texturally anisotropic biomantle(contrasts between upper biomantle andbasal stone layer, and between biomantleand subsoil), surface mounds, vuggybiofabric common in biomantle

cratering (and rooting-scratching-scouring-scraping-plowing-pitting-furrowing) and other surface impactingorganisms (for simplicity they are referredto as cratermakers, and the process ascratering)

badgers, aardvarks, wombats, viscachas,armadillos, pigs, birds, skunks, tree-uprooting, myriad aquatic invertebrates,fish, humans

surface craters, hollows, depressions,shallow licks, scratchings, scrapings,sediment burrow collars, surface rubble,vuggy spoil heaps and piles, excavations,furrows, etc.

soil/biomantle volume increases by in situorganic movements, growth, bioagitations,and bioaccumulations that occur mainlywithin the biomantle, but also below itthrough the whole soil

growth structures of plants, fungi, algae(roots, root hairs, mycelia, hyphae,filaments etc.) and free-living protoctists,and bacteria

loosened biomantle, visible and subvisiblefenestrate-inosculate biofabric, soilmicrostructural features, biopellets,biopores, biochannels, biovugs, etc.

*Not mutually exclusive

Reflections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantle 13

principles began as agricultural geology and agriculturalchemistry principles, with time, they evolved into a broadsoil science worldview—referred to as the ‘‘Dokuchevdoctrine,’’ nucleated by the vegetal, terrestrial soil, five-factors, geographic, zonal approach to explaining soilsand their distribution.3 Latitudinal soil zones of EasternEurope and Russia, which correspond generally to climateand vegetation zones, were noted, and a map of black(chernozem) steppe soils was included in Dokuchaev’s1883 treatise. The map reflects the zonal aspect of thedoctrine and its chernozem (‘‘black soil’’) explanatorytheme. Because of their geographic extent and high yieldvalue, chernozems (Figure 1) were a major focus of Do-kuchaev’s work and a major focus of his many contem-porary and postmortem followers. This doctrine found itsgreatest appeal, in the first instance, as a pragmatic so-lution to the survey, mapping, classification, and valua-tion of Russian soils, and, in the second instance, as ameans to geographically explain them.

Forty-six years earlier, in 1837, Charles Darwin pre-sented a paper on how worms form soil, the first of atleast five essays on the subject, which culminated in

1881 with his tour de force, The Formation of VegetableMould Through the Action of Worms. This tome summa-rized observations and experiments conducted over fortyyears by Darwin on the role of animals, mainly worms, informing soil. (Darwin died in 1882 soon after its publi-cation.) Darwin noted (p. 9) that ‘‘animal mould wouldbe . . . more appropriate than vegetable mould.’’ Do-kuchaev acknowledged Darwin’s work (Dokuchaev1883, 336–37), but minimized its central theme—thatanimals play key process roles in soil formation. Never-theless, Darwin’s book influenced many late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century scholars (e.g., our 1896,Darwin-influenced epigraph from Calvin), resulting inmany papers published in disparate venues during the1880–1920 period on animals as soil formers (referencesin Johnson 1993a, b, 1999a, b, 2002). However, between1929 and 1941, Dokuchaev’s vegetal, terrestrial, soil,five-factors, zonal approach gained almost total and ex-clusive ascendancy over Darwin’s ‘‘animal-process’’bioturbational approach. (Ironically, illustrations in Do-kuchaev’s 1883 book and later papers display abundantkrotovinas (infilled animal burrows) that unequivocallyconfirm Darwin’s animal-process message; see Figure 1.)

Following the publication of Russian Chernozem, Do-kuchaev’s principles were dispersed widely and expandedthrough voluminous writings, mainly in Russian (butalso in French and German), by him and his many disci-ples and students, including Sibirtsev, Vil’yams, Glinka,and Neustruev. Unlike Darwin, who had no students anddied (in 1882) a year after his ‘‘worm-soil’’ book ap-peared, Dokuchaev had many students and twenty yearsto promulgate his views before his death in 1903. Hisfive-factors approach, with the ‘‘o’’ factor emphasizingplants in explaining chernozems, with peripheral com-ponents added later, became central to his doctrine.4

Dokuchaev’s philosophies effectively found their wayto North America in the late 1920s where they werenurtured by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)Soil Survey personnel, especially by the director andnoted agricultural geologist Curtis F. Marbut. They wereabsorbed into a strongly preexistent North Americanagronomic philosophy that early advocated a mainlyplants/crops approach to soil. A manifestation of thispractical, plants/crops approach, which had been evolv-ing for decades, long before Dokuchaev’s doctrine arrivedin North America, is captured in a 1907 statement inBailey’s popular Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, whichadvocated the study of soil following a plants/cropsagenda, not the study of soil as an end in itself:

We are in danger of regarding soil study as an isolateddepartment of knowledge, or the pursuit of this study as an

isotropicbiomantle121 cm

Figure 1. Typical loessal chernozem of the Russian Plain, showinginfilled animal burrows (dark streaks) called krotovinas. The kro-tovinas are indicative of bioturbation by animals, mainly rodents, inthe subsoil (B) and parent material (C) horizons. The A-horizontopsoil, in this case, the biomantle, is thoroughly ‘‘krotovinized,’’ soto speak (i.e., strongly bioturbated). The burrows were made mainlyby susliks and related sciurids (ground squirrels, marmots, etc.), andto a lesser extent by insectivores, and their collective predators, allof which were historically abundant on chernozem and other tractsof the presettlement Russian-Eurasian landscape (Dokuchaev 1892;Sibirtsev 1897; Jettmar 1926; Formosov 1928; Ognev 1948, 1950).The biomantle is mixed and blended by the biomixing activity ofthese animals. Inasmuch as the chernozem formed in loess (finesand and silt), no stonelayer (stone-line) is discernible at the base ofthe biomantle (figure from Dokuchaev 1883, 158).


end in itself. The truth is, however, that the study of soil isonly a means to an end: the end is the plant or crop. Thesoil is one part of the environment or condition of plants.(Bailey 1907, 1, 320; this view carries into the 4th [1912]edition of Bailey’s popular work).

Here it is worth noting that, for almost fifty years fol-lowing the publication of his ‘‘worm-soil’’ book, Darwin’spedogenic views had gained wide endorsements acrossmultiple disciplines in eclectic scientific venues duringthe 1881–1920 period. His views of animals as soilformers were augmented by growing turn-of-the-centuryevidence and sentiment for animal-caused sorting in soilformation.5 This also was a time of increasing scientific,agronomic interest in soil in North America, with newbooks appearing and university departments and chairsbeing formed for its study.

The practical philosophy behind Bailey’s ‘‘means toan end’’ proviso permeates the literature producedduring the 1880–1930 period by English-speaking soiland crop specialists, a community mentored in NorthAmerica after 1900 by USDA soil and crop science as-sociates. We note that this soil-crop literature consist-ently ignored preexisting (1881–1920) literature onanimal-caused soil formation inspired by Darwin’s‘‘worm-soil’’ book, a literature produced mainly bynonagronomic, process-oriented scientists across eclecticdisciplines (references in Johnson 1990a, b, 1993a, b,2002; Johnson et al. forthcoming). We are inclined tobelieve that this likely happened by osmotic abjurationunder pressure driven by an intense pragmatic-societalmandate,6 which after 1900 became increasingly gov-ernment driven by yield and, later (1930s), dustbowlconcerns, and not by accident or ignorance of this animal-process literature.

As a consequence, the North American pragmatic-agronomic worldview of soil evolved rapidly after 1900.Beginning about 1929, when the Dokuchaev five-factors,plants, zonal doctrine began being emphasized as itscentral genetic core, this pragmatic crops mandate fast-tracked through the remainder of the twentieth century.Manifestations of this worldview were showcasedthrough influential writings of Marbut (1935) and hissuccessor C. E. Kellogg (1936) and their USDA affiliatesand others, and especially by highly respected agricul-tural chemists J. Thorp (1941) and academician H.Jenny (1941). This august nucleus, and several others,became recognized during their lives and after—andrightly so—as preeminent, articulate, world-class soilscientists-pedologists. They comprised a corpus of highlyvisible and influential North American USDA and ac-ademic caretakers of the evolving, modern soil paradigm.

This soil paradigm, nucleated by the Dokuchaev doc-trine, whose five-factors component was reinforced atthe dawn of World War II by Thorp (1941), and elo-quently repackaged and popularized by Jenny (1941),was (and is) expressed as the genetic essence in two basicUSDA soil science reference works, the Soil SurveyManual, with three editions, in 1937, 1951, and 1993,and Soil Taxonomy, with two editions, in 1975 and 1999.It also forms the genetic basis of hundreds, literally, ofthe U.S. county soil survey reports produced by theUSDA during the twentieth century, several of whichstill appear annually. The five-factors component alsoforms the soil-explanatory essence of many multieditionpopular texts (e.g., Birkeland 1984, 1992) and almost allbooks that deal in nearly any way with either soil sci-ence, soil geomorphology, soil geology, or soil geographyin North America and elsewhere (reviewed in Johnsonand Hole 1994).

The doctrine, whose impact on soil science and pe-dology has been huge, received intense post-World WarII scrutiny, especially in Eastern Europe during the So-viet era (Glinka 1927; Gerasimov 1946; Gregoryev andGerasimov 1946; Sokolov 1946; Vilenski 1946; Yarilov1946; Zakarov 1946; Prasolov 1947; Zavalishin 1958;Dobrovol’ski 1983). The five-factors part of this doc-trine, mainly Jenny’s 1941 masterly expansion andupdate, was recently scrutinized by North Americanspecialists (SSSA 1994).

Thus, our collective modern view of soil had agro-nomic beginnings in Europe, became doctrinally struc-tured in 1883, and was largely shaped by agricultural-ly motivated specialists using a pragmatic and zonallyinspired explanatory view that came to overshadowDarwin’s (1881) more purely science-inspired, animalprocess, sorting approach to soil. The pragmatic plant/crops pressures behind many pedological studies havelong been noted—and frustratingly lamented frompurely science, process, and broader ecological points ofview by many workers, especially those most pedologi-cally inclined (e.g., Marbut 1921, 1923; Glinka 1927;Ramann 1928; Nikiforoff 1959; Johnson 1993a, b,1994b, 1999a, b, 2002; Paton et al. 1995; Johnson et al.forthcoming). The history behind and beyond thissummary should be known especially to students intraining or professing to be archaeologists, geographers,geomorphologists, pedologists, and soil scientists andwho plan to specialize in any ecological or environmentalscience (for more coverage of this theme see Johnson1993a, b, 1994a, b, 1999a, b, 2002; Johnson and Hole1994; Tandarich 1998a, b, c; Tandarich et al. 2002; Canti2003; Feller et al. 2003; Johnson et al. forthcoming).Explanatory alternatives, however, do exist.


The Biodynamic Approach to Soil

The Soil Biomantle: Its Nature and History

The biomantle is the uppermost part of soil produceddominantly by bioturbation. Though presaged by many(e.g., Darwin 1840, 1881; von Ihering 1882; Shaler1888, 1891; Millson 1890; Davison 1891; Keilhack1899; Branner 1900, 1910; Passarge 1904; Dimo 1905,1938, 1955; Grinnell 1923; Taylor 1930, 1935; Thorp1936, 1949; Ghilarov 1939; Charter 1949; Joffe 1949;van Straaten 1952, 1954; Hoeksema 1953; Nye 1954,1955a, b, c; Ollier 1959; Thorp and Bellis 1960; Watson1961, 1970; Rhoads and Stanley 1965; Rhoads 1967,1974; Warme 1967; Williams 1968; Hanor and Marshall1971; other references in Johnson 1990a, b.), the con-cept, apparently suggested by James Thorp, was given life(sadly, with low visibility) on page 21 of the first editionof Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1975). It was buriedin a soil genetic statement that focused on how clay-rich,subsoil, argillic horizons form and why textural differ-ences exist between topsoils and subsoils.7 The specificstatement treats the loss of clay from the surface ofsubaerial soils via rainwashing of mounds made by ani-mals as a partial explanation for textural contrasts be-tween clayey subsoils and clay-depleted topsoils:

Loss of clay from the upper [soil] horizons can take placeduring the formation of a biomantle, which is a mantle ofmaterials sorted and brought to the surface by animals suchas ants, termites, worms, and burrowing mammals. Whenfirst deposited at the surface, the materials are exposed tothe beating action of rain and the finest particles can becarried away in the runoff. . . . If a biomantle has been re-worked many times, the loss of clay can be significant.

—(Soil Survey Staff 1975, 21)

Two main elements in this important soil-process mes-sage need to be clarified and stressed, and the messageitself needs augmentation.

First, all soil organisms are motile in that they allwriggle, grow, and/or move in some way, and many mixand biostratify the upper soil—that is, they sort it—somefar more than others. Nevertheless, all soil organisms areinvolved. In the course of bioturbating, many animalsmake surface mounds and tumuli, some obvious, mostless so, though bioturbation significantly impacts theentire biomantle, not just the surface. Enormous num-bers of organisms, invertebrate species especially, areinvolved and comprise a complex soil infauna across theglobal subaerial and subaqueous substrate (Kevan 1955,1962; Kuhnelt 1961; Bromley 1996; Brussard et al. 1997;Margulis and Schwartz 1999; Cadee 2001; Nardi 2003).

Second, clay is indeed depleted from the upper part ofsubaerial soils by constant rainwashing of oft-producedsurface mounds and is removed laterally (downslope) onthis ‘‘wash planation surface’’ (i.e., the P1 surface dis-cussed below). But depletion is abetted by clay that istranslocated (eluviated) downward into the soil by wet-ting fronts out of the topsoil and deposited (illuviated) inthe subsoil where it joins some clay presumed to haveformed in situ. The result is a relatively coarse-texturedbiomantle above a finer textured subsoil B horizon.8

What isn’t made clear in the passage is that eachanimal bioturbates differently, with great implications asfar as process is concerned, considering the enormous-ly large inventory of life forms involved (Margulis andSchwartz 1999; Nardi 2003). (Students: This rich re-search arena of geomorphology and pedology has hardlybeen scratched!) Further, biomantles, texturally sortedand reorganized by biota, are essentially ubiquitous overEarth’s subaerial and subaqueous substrates. On landthey are observable in many natural exposures, roadcuts, and drill cores, either as a one-layered homoge-neous (texturally isotropic) biomantle over a finer-textured subsoil, as per the 1975 Soil Taxonomy example,or as a two-layered heterogeneous (texturally aniso-tropic) biomantle consisting of a more or less homoge-neous upper layer over a stonelayer (‘‘stone-line’’)composed of coarse clasts (these are unmentioned inTaxonomy). In subaqueous soils they have been docu-mented in innumerable studies since the early 1950s andpartly summarized in Bromley (1996), Cadee (2001),Ekdale and others (1984), and in papers by Rhoads(1963, 1967, 1970) and colleagues.

Also not mentioned in the Taxonomy passage is that,excepting loess-mantled and dunal landscapes of theworld, biomantles are usually two-layered if soils containfine and coarse particles (Johnson 1990a) and if crater-makers are absent (Table 1). In subaqueous soils, two-layered biomantles are direct simple homologues to themore complexly formed two-layered biomantles of sub-aerial soils. Marine geologists and ichnologists refer tothem as ‘‘biogenic graded beds’’ (Rhoads and Stanley1965; Bromley 1996). Both layers are produced by ani-mal bioturbations, as is the case for most subaerial two-layered biomantles, though the latter involve far morebiota and physicobiochemical processes and thus aremuch more complex. And while upward biotransfers andbiotransformations occur below the biomantle, the bio-mantle itself is the zone of most biogenic and physico-chemical dynamics in both subaqueous and subaerialsoils. Subaerial soils are collectively far thicker (anddeeper) and, we emphasize, as a group, eminently morecomplex than subaqueous soils.


In fact, meters-thick, two-layered biomantles typifymany subaerial, perhumid–humid, tropical, and sub-tropical soils, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Their thicknessattests to the soil-sorting efficacy of conveyor belt or-ganisms, archetypified by ants and termites in manytropical lands involved in the inexorable and incessantbiomantle-producing process.9 Such biomantles withstonelayers have been historically misattributed to: (1)tropical loess (Agassiz 1867; Mills 1889; Bibus 1984;Lichte 1990; Iriondo 1997; Iriondo and Krohling 1997;Lichte and Behling 1999; see counterpoints by Hump-hreys and Adamson 2000); (2) glaciation (Agassiz 1867;Hartt 1870, 1871; see counterpoints by Wallace 1870);and (3) Quaternary pedimentation–pedisedimentation cycles(Ruhe 1954, 1956, 1959, 1969; Rohdenburg 1969;Stocking 1978; and others; see counterpoints by Johnson1999 and Miklos 1999). Various permutations of climaticchange have also been invoked to justify these disparateinterpretations. The implications are sobering and browraising for a large body of work still being produced (cf.Lichte and Behling 1999).

The confusion associated with deep tropical bio-mantles reflects multiple circumstances. One is thatmost principles of the conventional agronomic-inspired,soil genesis paradigm were formulated in the midlati-tudes, many in the loess-mantled breadbaskets of theworld—the farmlands of the midlatitudes10—wheremany shallow, two-layered biomantles have been de-stroyed by plowing or are difficult to detect and thususually overlooked (as in deep loess and sandy areas; seeT. Cox 1994, 1998). Another is the early adoption ofexplanatory models in both geomorphology and soilsthat lack a robust biodynamic component. A third hasbeen the adoption of simplistic, parsimonious, geogenic

undulatinginterfacebio

man t

le

stone layerstone layer

stone layer

?undulatinginterface

‘ter

mite

ear

th’

(ino

scul

ate

biof

abri

c)

Figure 2. A very thick biomantle with a very thick residualstonelayer exposed in a north-facing roadcut along the east-westinland ‘‘coastal’’ road some 100 km west of Abidjan, Ivory Coast.(Horizontal marks are artificial scratches caused by road equip-ment.) The environment is perhumid tropical, with broadleafrainforest prior to deforestation and agriculture. The dominantbioturbators are mainly species of termites (unidentified) and antsthat produce surface mounds. This biomantle is indicative of theefficacy of conveyor belt species of bioturbators (Table 1), mainlytermites and ants, that operate in perhumid and thickly forestedlandscapes where the biodynamic processes were probably, beforeclearing for cultivation, more or less in balance with removalprocesses. The white arrows define the top of the stonelayer; blackarrow points to the recent burrow of an unidentified small mammal.The lower right inset shows a close-up of the interface between thestonelayer and upper, inosculate-dominated, termite-producedbiofabric in this biomantle. The upper left inset shows laterite bricks(quarter for scale) composed of inosculate biofabric, now hardenedand identical to that in the lower inset, that is so common inbiomantles throughout the moist tropics.

Figure 3a. The photo shows a moderately thick biomantle with abasal stonelayer that forms an angular unconformity with subjacent,right-dipping saprolitized Tertiary sediments. This photo was takenin the termite- and ant-infested Bananal-Resende district of theParaibo do Sul River basin, near the border area of Sao Paulo andRio de Janeiro States, southeastern Brazil (see Figure 3b).

weathered Tertiary sediments

stone layer

biom

antle

Figure 3b. The photo is a close-up of the biomantle and stonelayerof area shown in box of Figure 3a.


explanations (e.g., erosion, pedimentation–pedisedi-mentation) for complex and unparsimonious pedogenic-produced entities, like biomantles with stonelayers. Afourth circumstance, perhaps most important, is thattropical landscapes in general are older and far morepolygenetic and complicated in terms of process andhistory than are middle-latitude landscapes (cf. the manyarticles regarding the origin of stonelayers in Alexandreand Malaisse 1987).

Another fundamental point, also unmentioned inthe 1975 Soil Taxonomy passage, is that the generalmorphology of the biomantle—that is, whether it isheterogeneous and two-layered, or homogeneous andone-layered—depends on which organisms are thedominant bioturbators, and what particle sizes make upthe soil. Soils in which deep-burrowing species like ants,termites, and some worms—the major ‘‘conveyor belt’’species—dominate the bioturbational regime will befundamentally different than soils dominated by shallow-burrowing mixmaster species, such as many insects andsome vertebrates (mole-rats, pocket gophers, susliks,moles, tuco-tucos) that burrow mainly within the bio-mantle (see Table 1). To complicate the picture, manysoil tracts have both these bioturbators, plus one or morecratermaker species, such as ground squirrels, tortoises,wombats, armadillos, viscachas, aardvarks, Canids, andother life forms that neither fit into the conveyor-beltnor mixmaster categories (Table 1) and that crater thesurface in point-centered styles.11

To illustrate, Figures 2 and 3 show thick and moder-ately thick biomantles in different forested lands withinthe humid tropics of Africa and South America. In bothcases, as is typical in these areas, the biomantle isdominantly produced by multiple species of mound-building termites and ants—signature members of theconveyor belt group of bioturbators (Table 1). The bio-mantle in such cases consists mainly of small soil parti-cles (o2 mm) brought up from depth that accumulateabove coarser gravels ( � 2 mm) mainly too large forinsects to carry. The gravels are slowly displaced down-ward under this inexorable and relentless biosortingtropical process and become concentrated as the ubiq-uitous basal stonelayer of tropical soils. The biomantlesthat form can be very thick—meters thick—and aredirectly homologous to the thin ones that Darwin as-cribed to worms in England at the onset, middle, andvery end of his research career (Darwin 1837/1838,1840, 1844, 1869, 1881) and displayed graphically inseveral woodcuts (Darwin 1840, 1881). The stone layerthat forms the base of thick or thin biomantles can bereadily observed (exposures allowing) in most mixed-clast, subaerial soils on Earth. Exceptions are where life is

sparse, like Antarctica and very high mountainous orbedrock areas, or where deep sand and/or loess occur(where they may be formed of small gastroliths, thoughnot easily observed or detected). Stonelayers are espe-cially evident, if exposures are deep enough, throughoutthe humid tropics and subtropics, where they sometimesfunction as subsurface aquifers—lateral throughflowzones subject to intense biochemical transformations. Insuch cases, stonelayers often accumulate relatively in-soluble residual elements, such as quartz-rich clasts,gold, diamonds, other precious and semiprecious stones,metallic oxides (iron, manganese, tin), and artifacts ofstone, glass, pottery, or metal.12

So, in the absence of a logical and coherent frame-work to explain stonelayers—apart from Darwin’s largelyeschewed (by agronomists) soil-animal process model—deep stonelayers have puzzled and intrigued (and con-fused) generations of tropical researchers, from Mawe(1812) and Agassiz (1867) to the present, especially inBrazil and very recently in tropical northeastern Ar-gentina (see Iriondo 1997; Iriondo and Krohling 1997).This puzzlement and intrigue was captured 130 years agoby Alfred Russel Wallace, who lived and traveled forsome years in Brazil, in his 1870 review of Hartt’s TheGeology and Physical Geography of Brazil, where he(Wallace) discusses what is obviously the biomantle andits basal stonelayer, which Hartt and Agassiz attributedto glaciation, and others later to tropical loess:

We now come to a very wide-spread, yet recent and su-perficial deposit, which is at once the most puzzling and themost interesting feature in Brazilian geology. This is a layerof clay or loam, varying in thickness from a few feet to onehundred . . . over vast tracts of country, including the steepslopes and summits of some of the highest mountains . . .This clay is of a red color, and is evidently formed of thematerials of the adjacent and under-lying rocks, but groundup and thoroughly mixed. There is never the least sign ofstratification throughout its mass, although it very fre-quently rests on a thin layer of quartz pebbles.

—(Wallace 1870, 510)

Hartt’s book has many illustrations of this ‘‘layer ofclay or loam’’ with its basal stonelayer, which matcheswhat we ourselves and many others have observed inBrazil, northeastern Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela,Africa, Australia, and, indeed, throughout the subhu-mid-perhumid tropics in general: It is the biomantle (seeFigures 2–3). Indeed, what Wallace described is thearchetypically humid-perhumid biomantle, whose basalstonelayer invariably overlies saprolite in Brazil andnortheastern Argentina. This history of confusion un-derscores the power of a term to convey a concept, for if


the biomantle concept had existed during the Agassiz-Hartt-Wallace era then almost certainly no legacy ofconfusion would exist today. (Darwin too lacked arepertoire of term-concepts to describe his observations,and he, alas, did not coin terms for the soil bioticprocesses he noted.)

Figure 4 shows a much thinner biomantle with a basalstonelayer in a temperate midlatitude prairie soil of mid-continental North America (Iowa) where small fossorialvertebrates, such as pocket gophers and moles, and in-vertebrates like ants, earthworms, and crayfish are amongthe dominant infaunal bioturbators—dominant in theireffects, not necessarily in their numbers (see Calvin 1896).The small vertebrates are shallow-burrowing and surface-mounding mixmaster species that bioturbate principallywithin the biomantle (Table 1)—the very organismslargely responsible for mixing in many of Dokuchaev’sone-layered biomantles formed in loessal chernozems ofEurasia (Figure 1). In the Iowa case (Figure 4), the bio-mantle consists of a homogenized mix of fine particles andgravels above a sorted, basally concentrated stonelayer.

Biomantle Definitions and Applications

Thus the soil biomantle concept, presaged by manyand articulated by James Thorp, was born in the 1975

Soil Taxonomy to explain clay losses from topsoils byrainwashing of animal-produced mounds and partly toexplain textural contrasts between topsoils and subsoils.The concept began appearing in new explanatoryframeworks in the late 1980s, for example, in a ‘‘soilevolution’’ framework that emphasized process (Johnsonand Watson-Stegner 1987; Johnson et al. 1987) at a timewhen bioturbation was being recognized as a notable soilprocess (Humphreys and Mitchell 1983, 1988; Michie1983; Brink 1985; Johnson 1989). Although the termsbioturbation and biomantle were not used, near identicalgenetic linkages were noted by researchers in southernAfrica to explain the ubiquitous, commonly artifact-bearing ‘‘biogenic marker horizon’’ (stonelayer) in thesoils of that continent (Watson 1961, 1970; Brink et al.1982; Brink 1985).

These uses led to a formalization of the biomantleconcept by one of us (Johnson 1990a) wherein a workingdefinition was offered: A biomantle is the differentiatedzone in the upper part of soils produced largely by biotur-bation aided by subsidiary processes. Subsidiary proces-ses include those usually emphasized in the conven-tional pedogenic model (shrink-swell, wetting-drying,leaching-precipitation, eluviation-illuviation, additions,biochemical transformations, etc.).

A simpler, near-equivalent version is: The biomantle isthe upper part of soil produced largely by biodynamic proc-esses. The biomantle is the main zone of biodynamics,and while bioturbation is indeed a dominant process informing it, the broader replacement term biodynamicsencompasses bioturbation plus all other biologicallyproduced and mediated processes, such as biosynthetic-metabolic productions and transformations, all living–

Figure 4a. Photo shows a thin biomantle with a barely discernibleeluvial layer that occurs slightly above (though largely coincidingwith) a basal stonelayer in a prairie soil 5 km west of Elma on StateRoad B-17, Howard County, Iowa. The location is the Iowan sur-face of northeastern Iowa and southeastern Minnesota, underlainby glacial drift. (The handle of the trench shovel is 51 cm (20 in.)long, and its head is 20 cm (8 in.) wide. The presettlement bio-mantle was profusely biomixed by pocket gophers and other smallvertebrates, and their predators, and by crayfish, worms, ants, andsuch. Before cultivation, pest control, and land drainage, the twodominant bioturbators of this landscape segment were the Plainspocket gopher (Geomys bursarius), a typical mixmaster species, andcrayfish, typical conveyor belt organisms (cf. Table 1, Figures 4b and 5).

Figure 4b. Close-up of subsoil of Figure 4a, showing vertically ar-rayed krotovina of crayfish to left of shovel, plus other krotovina ofmuch smaller invertebrates (worms, ants), which are, collectively,conveyor belt bioturbators (cf. Table 1; dimensions of shovel as inFigure 4a).


nonliving biomass and organic accumulations, kroto-vina, microaggregates and agglutinates, associated bio-voids, and the volume increases due to their sum. It thusencompasses humus (mull-mor) and all other forms oforganic matter (biopellets and animal droppings, animalbodies, plant roots, fungal mycelia-hyphae) and biologi-cally mediated soil materials, including many bioformediron-manganese and other metal oxides, phosphate andcarbonate nodules, etcetera. It also includes the bio-pores, biovugs, biochannels and such that are createdduring these biomechanical and biochemical metabolic-biosynthetic activities, including all the pores owed tometabolically produced gases.

The biomantle is thus the upper part of soil producedlargely by biodynamic processes. By definition, the soilfabric of the biomantle must be at least 50 percentbiofabric (the spatial arrangement of biologically medi-ated-produced soil structures, bioaggregates, pellets,voids, etc.).13 In many grassland soils, the biomantleoften approximates the topsoil (A horizon) and itssubjacent stonelayer (if one is present). In many humidand savanna-forested soils, the biomantle includes thetopsoil, eluvial (E), and stonelayer horizons, and eventhe uppermost of some subsoil B and saprolite horizons ifthey are undergoing active bioturbation. In many sub-humid savanna grassland and desert soils, the bioman-tle is often the layer above the main zone of calciumcarbonate or silica cementation (calcic-petrocalcic lay-ers, caliche, croute calcaire, duripan, silcrete, etc.),though it can sometimes include the whole soil if thedominant bioturbators are large vertebrates (like wom-bats in Australia, or badgers in North America; seeJohnson 1997).

In keeping with the 1990 formulation, a biomantleshould have observable and measurable isotropic oranisotropic morphology produced by biodynamic proc-esses. Observable evidence is also indicated by biofab-ric and, in anisotropic biomantles, by the stonelayer.Other (subsidiary) processes in the definition includesrainwashing of surface moundings, as per the 1975 Tax-onomy passage, and such processes as slope mass trans-fers, removals, throughflow, eluviations and illuviations,biochemical transformations, etc. As has been ob-served, biofabric commonly makes up 100 percent of thesoil fabric of many if not most biomantles. It imparts alow bulk density (abundant pore spaces and organicmatter) relative to the invariably denser and less biot-ically affected subsoil or saprolite below. The biomantlesurface is that which notably (though slightly) sinksunderfoot in humid forests and grasslands. Those whochance to overturn a long-lying piece of plywood or sheetmetal invariably bear witness to 100 percent biofabric—

puffy, spongy, well animal-bioturbated and biopored,free from obscuring live vegetation, and protectedfrom rainwash, snowmelt, and other obscuring naturalelements.

Some of the more useful recent applications of thebiomantle concept have been in archaeology (Johnson1989, 1990b, 2002; Balek 2002; Peacock and Fant 2002;Van Nest 2002). In soils where small fossorial vertebrates(moles, mole-rats, pocket gophers, tuco-tucos, etc.) aredominant bioturbators, artifacts too large for them tomove will concentrate in basal biomantle positions, thestonelayer of two-layered biomantles (see Brink et al.1982; Brink 1985; Bocek 1986, 1992; Johnson 1989).Small artifacts that these animals can easily move areconversely mixed and recycled throughout the bioman-tle, exactly as displayed in the digital animation (John-son et al. forthcoming). Where ants and termites are thedominant bioturbators, as in many parts of the tropics,both large and small artifacts will eventually concentratein the stonelayer.

Biomantle concepts also have shed bright geneticlight on an intriguing and enduring problem in soils andgeomorphology—the origin of Mima-type mounds thatdot large tracts scattered across the western half of theNorth American continent. Evidence that Mima-typemounds are simply point-centered and locally thickenedbiomantles is compelling, in fact overwhelming! Mima-type mounds tend to form where thin soil (50 cm) liesover dense substrates, and/or where water tables are highor soils episodically waterlogged. They invariably occurwithin the range or recent range of pocket gophers, smallmixmaster rodents (Table 1) of the fossorial Geomyidaefamily (see Dalquest and Scheffer 1942; G. W. Cox andAllen 1987a, b; G. W. Cox et al. 1987). If soil is gravellywith some coarse clasts (47 cm), the mounds producedare two-layered biomantles. Such biomantles becomepoint-centered, reorganized (biomixed), and locallythickened (as mounds) due to the centripetal nesting-foraging and advectional soil-transferring behaviors ofthese supremely burrowing-efficient mixmaster animals(G. W. Cox and Allen 1987a; Horwath 2002; Horwathet al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2002, 2003).

A Broadened View of the Biomantle

The 1975 Soil Taxonomy biomantle concept has beenbroadened and refined to render it more useful and morewidely applicable. And while animals do play seminalroles in producing and sorting the biomantle, all soilbiota are involved—from microbes to elephants—andall are motile (think of plant roots, rotifers, nematodes,bacteria, fungal mycelia, insects, crustaceans, moles, and


most other members of the five kingdoms of life).14 Theyall metabolize and produce metabolic by-products,15 andtheir motility means that all are involved in bioturbat-ions at widely different scales and rates, as showcased byplants (floralturbation, mainly root growth and tree up-rooting), fungal mycelia (fungiturbation, hyphae growth),and especially by movements and burrowings of animals(faunalturbation). As arrayed in Table 1, those animalshierarchically important in producing subaerial bio-mantles are: (1) invertebrates, especially termites, ants,and worms—the conveyor belters; (2) small fossorialvertebrates—the mixmasters; and (3) large burrowingand surface-cratering, scratching, rooting vertebrates—the cratermakers. The conveyor belt and mixmaster or-ganisms apparently dominate the mixing in most sub-aqueous soils (see Ekdale et al. 1984; Bromley 1996;Cadee 2001), but any member or members of the threegroups listed probably can dominate a given subaerialsoil. Collectively, animals are probably the most effica-cious soil and sediment-destratifying mixers among thevast global suite of motile soil organisms that comprisethe five kingdoms of life, though one hesitates to rankthem in forested lands above plant roots, fungal mycelia,and uprooting. Nevertheless, essentially, all life forms onEarth are involved in producing biomantles insofar asessentially all join it upon death, and all biota are thusincluded in the broadened concept (Figure 6).

Also in the broadened view, and as mentioned forsubaerial soils, the biomantle in humid lands equates toboth the topsoil and eluvial horizon-stonelayer, and theuppermost of some bioturbationally degraded B-horizonsand saprolites. In eolian, volcanic, and fluvial stratifiedsediment (loess, ash, alluvium) that is deposited in hu-mid environments, the biomantle begins forming as soonas deposition slows or ceases and bioturbation initiatesits destratification and concomitant biostratification ac-tivities. In such new sediments, the biomantle thickensas destratification, coupled with biostratification, pro-ceeds. For example, a biomantle began forming in 1980from Mount St. Helens ash in Washington State almostimmediately after its deposition; after twenty-five yearsthe depth of ash destratification now records the thick-ness of its biomantle. Rates of biomantle formation,however, must vary widely inasmuch as suites of soilorganisms, their above- and below-ground environ-ments, and human disturbance factors all vary widely;and all vary with time. (These are among the most un-certain issues deserving of graduate research in geo-morphology, pedology, and soil ecology.) Observationssuggest that biodynamics operate most actively in theupper biomantle, with commensurate less activitydownward toward its base—manifested by an increased

expression of the eluvial (E) horizon in the basal bio-mantle of many subaerial temperate soils.16

The Stonelayer (Stone-Line) as theNatural Base of Two-Layered Biomantles

Because much bioturbation involves invertebratesthat mix and biotransfer small soil particles from depthto the surface as mounds, any large clast or other objectdropped or placed on the surface by people or otheranimals, such as gastroliths, shells, bones, ceramics,bricks, coins, shards, sherds, and projectile points, aredisplaced downward, as Darwin demonstrated, aided bygravity, ultimately to join the stonelayer, or to form one(Figure 5).17 In this way the biomantle becomes textural-ly sorted (biostratified) into two layers, an upper mixedlayer of finer material over a basal stonelayer of coarsematerial. In regolith and residual materials that containgravels or weathering-resistant clasts, a stonelayer orartifact layer, or a mix of both, defines the basal part ofthe soil biomantle. Biomantles with basal stonelayersthat contain artifacts are observed in exposures in manylands of the world. They are especially evident in Africawhere stone/artifact layers are common and record along hominid history (Brink et al. 1982; Brink 1985;Alexandre and Malaisse 1987; Quinton 2001; Johnson2002).

According to dynamic denudation-biomantle theory,the stonelayer, often interpreted as a geogenic, erosion-produced, surface lag of gravels that ‘‘somehow’’ getsburied—and often ambiguously referred to by soil sci-entists as a ‘‘lithologic discontinuity’’—has long beengenetically misread (see Johnson 1998).18 Unless dem-onstrated otherwise, stonelayers are assumed to be pe-dogenically produced and an expected and typical partof soil wherever: (1) parent materials contain gravels orweathering-resistant clasts (or artifacts), (2) the mainbioturbators are small conveyor belt and/or mixmasterspecies, (3) and the collective effects of such biotur-bations outweigh removal or cratering processes (seeJohnson 2002). Conveyor-belt animals, such as ants andtermites, are responsible for annually biotransfering hugevolumes of soil from depth to the surface per year (oneconservative estimate in Brazil is 20–30 cm/1,000 years,Miklos 1999). Bioturbation of soil that consists exclu-sively of fine fraction materials, like loess or eolian sand,which lack gravels or large particles, will not producebiomantles with obvious stonelayers (i.e., two-layeredbiomantles).19

In sum, stonelayers form in soils and sediments withmixed particle sizes. They occupy the basal part of two-layered biomantles and are a genetic part of them. They


are produced through particle sorting mainly by con-veyor belt and biomixing organisms, mainly animals, andcan be almost instantly (geologically speaking) destroyedby cratermaker organisms (Table 1).

Dynamic Denudation ExplanatoryFramework

After 1990, the soil evolution and biomantle conceptswere joined with others in a broader framework termeddynamic denudation (Johnson and Balek 1991; Johnson1993a, b, 2002). This holistic framework showcasesmajor pathways of upland landscape evolution in allbut Earth’s most inhospitable (hyperarid-hypercold) orspecialized (vertisol) environments. The framework incor-porates Aleva’s (1983) ‘‘triple planation’’ denudationalscheme, which is an expansion of Budel’s (1957) doubleplanation model, similar to Millot’s (1983) double (surface-subsurface) ‘‘planes of discordance.’’ In the dynamicdenudation scheme three ‘‘planation surfaces’’, the P1,P2, and P3 surfaces are the main denudational levels formost particulate and solutional materials that exit up-land soil-landscape terrestrial systems via surface andsubsurface waters. The levels are, respectively, the P1wash surface, the P2 weathering zone at the base of thesoil, and—if present20—the P3 stonelayer at the base ofthe biomantle. They are shown in Figure 5, which alsoprovides glimpses of the hypothetical biodynamic evo-

lution and denudation of a soil and its biomantle on theIowan surface, like that in Figure 4, where emphasis is onbiomantle and soil thickness processes (see digital ani-mation in Johnson et al. forthcoming).

Other Frameworks and Approaches

Various frameworks have been proposed to explainsoil formation and may be categorized as either processor factorial models, or a combination of both. Perhapsbest known of the process group is Simonson’s (1959)generalized four-process model, where soil formation isconceptualized as the totality of additions, removals,transformations, and translocations that occur (good forteaching and intellectual discussion, but limited—toogeneral—for research). The factorial models have usu-ally been permutations of Dokuchaev’s environmentalfactors approach. Many of these approaches are reviewedin SSSA (1994).

In a novel approach to explain both soil formationand the distribution of soil types on world continents, T.R. Paton, G. S. Humphreys, and P. B. Mitchell producedthe book Soils: A New Global View, which appearedin 1995. Though it has notable shortcomings (see ex-panded reviews in Annals 90 (4), December 2000), itis the first text that showcases bioturbation as a majorpedogenic force. A chapter focuses on its various pe-dogenic ramifications, and the biomantle is emphasizedas a logical product. (It is also the first text that

Figure 5. Hypothetical evolution of aglacial drift soil (now a Mollisol) sim-ilar to that of Figure 4a, from timezero (1) in the middle Pleistocene(ffi 600,000 years ago) to the present(7) in a midlatitude temperate envi-ronment. The location is the Iowansurface of northeastern Iowa andsoutheastern Minnesota of NorthAmerica, a landscape underlain byglacial drift, with a prairie soil (pres-ently) whose presettlement biomantlewas profusely mixed by animals, espe-cially the dominant bioturbator of thislandscape, the Plains pocket gopher,Geomys bursarius. An E horizon isweakly expressed just above, and alsopartly coincident with, the stonelayer.(Pedons 2–5 span the digital anima-tion that accompanies Johnson et al.forthcoming; see also http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/ � jdomier/temp/bioman-tle.html. (Modified from Figure 4 ofJohnson and Balek 1991.)


incorporates the new global tectonics/plate tectonics inexplaining soils of the world.) Earlier, Humphreys andMitchell (1983, 1988) were among the first pedologiststo call attention to bioturbation in soil formation andgeomorphology.

Discussion

A general understanding of the way the biomantleworks, how it forms, and how it operates and functions atthe top of the soil as the critical biointerface layer be-tween the atmosphere and lithosphere in subaerial soilsand between the hydrosphere and lithosphere in sub-aqueous soils and how it thickens and thins is a principalfocus here. It is worth noting that bioturbation, theprimary process in producing biomantles and only re-cently recognized as a pedogenic force in pedology(Humphreys and Mitchell 1983, 1988), is borrowed fromichnology (coined by Schafer 1952). Ichnology is thescience that treats trace fossils in rocks, whereas ne-oichnology treats the modern biodynamics of oceansubstrates (see Bromley 1996). Two other ichnologicalterms, infauna and epifauna (coined by Peterson 1914)are also usefully applied to terrestrial biomantles. Hencemicrobes, mole-rats, and moles are part of the terrestrialsoil infauna, whereas echidnas and elephants are part ofits epifauna.21

The soil concepts presented here are inspired by twosources, aquatic and terrestrial (Figure 6). The aquaticsource comes from the vast literature of ichnology andlake, stream, and especially, ocean-bottom biodynamics(e.g., Rhoads 1963, 1967, 1970, 1974; Seilacher 1964;Rhodes and Stanley 1965; Ekdale et al. 1984; Thomset al. 1995; Bromley 1996; Cadee 2001). Much of thevoluminous literature that treats aquatic bottom dy-namics comes from ocean research, not surprising be-cause oceans cover 70 percent of Earth (see Figure 6).This body of research, executed remotely and at greatexpense with very specialized and costly equipment, mayinspire pedologists to undertake similar studies of sub-aerial biomantles, which, while far more complex, arecomparatively much easier and inexpensive to accessand study. An irony here is that while much has beenaccomplished in understanding aquatic soil biodynamics,at great expense and trouble, relatively little has beenaccomplished in understanding terrestrial soil bio-dynamics—at least as regards bioturbation, its centralcomponent.

The terrestrial source is from the dynamic denudationframework, partly as expressed in Figure 5, and from thecollective body of bioturbation-linked soil and geomor-phic research done by many others, only some of which is

cited here. As noted, the dynamic denudation frame-work itself is based partly on various published studiesand is a synthesis of, and combines, multiple theories andconcepts (summarized in Johnson 2002). It also draws onbroad field experience and observations in many worldenvironments. Its biomantle component applies equallyto subaerial and subaqueous soils because the main bi-otic groups responsible are active in both environments(Table 1). Subaqueous and subaerial biodynamic path-ways are similar but involve different taxonomic mem-bers and numbers.

Regarding water-land comparisons, as noted above,two-layered subaqueous biomantles (biogenic gradedbeds) are due to mixing by animals, often, dominantly,due locally to just one or two animals (Rhoads 1963;

Figure 6. This figure captures a proportionate sense of the sub-aerial-subaqueous, soil-biomantle continuum on planet Earth. Theupper block represents the biomantle of subaerial soils, whichconstitutes 29 percent of the present planetary surface. The fourlower blocks represent the biomantle of subaqueous soils, whichconstitutes 71 percent of the global soil integument. The blocks aremeant to convey the coastal-marsh-intertidal zone and continentalshelf (second block), the continental slope (third block), and thedeep abyss (lower two blocks). (Drawn by R. G. Bromley; fromEkdale et al. 1984.)


Rhoads and Stanley 1965). Subaqueous biomantles thusclarify the basic bioturbational processes that producetwo-layered biomantles in subaerial soils that, taken as awhole, are far more complex. Indeed, the processes thatproduce subaerial biomantles are masked, blurred, andcomplicated by myriad other soil-forming processes,factors, and conditions that are absent in the subaqueousdomain. Subaqueous soils are not subjected to rainwash,snowmelt, freeze-thaw, shrink-swell, particle eluviation-illuviation, leaching, neoformation of clays, stormflow-interflow processes, wet-dry processes, and wetting front(and other) gravity- and artesian-controlled rain/groundwater movements, and so on. (Such eclecticprocesses operate in the subaerial realm as multiples onmultiples.) Nor are subaqueous soils subject to thecomplex array of microenvironmental and plant-fungaland other biochemical processes that subaerial envi-ronments experience in multiples, all of which signifi-cantly complicate the genetic understanding of subaerialsoils and their biomantles compared to subaqueous ones.(Probably far fewer organisms are involved in producingsubaqueous biomantles.)22 The absence of such com-plicating processes in subaqueous biomantles imbuesthem as windows of simplification for understandingsubaerial biodynamics and biomantle genesis in general. Itis almost certainly for these reasons that those who studymarine and lake-bottom biodynamics—even though theirresearch arenas are more difficult to access and morecostly—are far ahead in understanding biodynamicprocesses in subaqueous soils than pedologists are in un-derstanding equivalent processes in subaerial soils.

Ironically, neither ‘‘bioturbation,’’ ‘‘biomantle,’’ normost of the concepts presented here—except the ob-scure biomantle note in 1975 Taxonomy23—are found inearlier or recent editions of the three North Americandocuments that most centrally express the conventionalsoil formational paradigm: the USDA’s Soil SurveyManual (1993) and Soil Taxonomy (1999) and the SoilScience Society of America’s Glossary of Soil ScienceTerms (2001). Inasmuch as these are mentoring, gate-keeper treatises that many scientists and students inmultiple disciplines consult and rely on for basic soilconcepts, their absence, indeed the total absence ofDarwin’s ‘‘animals as soil formers’’ legacy, attests to theexclusionary and thought-protective power of conven-tional paradigms in science, a point strongly emphasizedand lamented by one of us recently (Johnson 2002). Itbrings to mind Simonson’s aphorism—and warning—onthe power of conventional thought where collectiveideas ‘‘may rest on beliefs so deeply buried . . . that theirvery existence cannot be recognized’’ (Simonson 1968,11). It also frustratingly evokes the Russian proverb: ‘‘No

matter how far down the wrong road you’ve gone, turnback’’ (Martin 1997, B-3).

Summary and Conclusions

In our multithematic view, soil is the outer integu-ment or skin of landforms on lithic-composed planetsand their satellites. These integumental skins constituteplanetary pedospheres. On Earth, soil constitutes theskin of subaerial and subaqueous landforms, our planet-ary pedosphere—the global atmospheric, biospheric,hydrospheric, lithospheric interface of our planet. In-terest in our pedosphere transcends the domains ofarchaeology, biology, ecology, environmental sciences,geography, geomorphology, geology, ichnology, pedology,soil science, and space sciences. In fact, Earth’s soil is anessential part of all natural sciences insofar as it isthe substrate continuum upon which life plays out. Lifeconcentrates at this Earth-unique soil interface, as ex-pressed by Figure 6, and biodynamically transforms theupper layer, its epidermis, into a biomantle and alsosignificantly biomediates the subsoil. The biomantle isthe layer on which, and in which, most life dwells and alllife joins upon death. The domain of soil—what wethink it is, what we think its biomantle is, how we thinkthey form and ecologically function, how deep or thickwe think soil is, how we view its extent on Earth, how wedefine it, and whether that definition applies in whole orin part to other planets—are matters of interest to an-yone who ponders the environments of Earth and otherplanets. They are also all issues that should be philo-sophically projected by a healthy, holistic, and realisticsoil paradigm.

Our soil paradigm, and indeed our global environ-mental paradigm, as it were, should convey as firstprinciples the fundamental biodynamic roles that biotaplay in the evolution of soils and landforms, and par-ticularly the biomantle. Biodynamics should be a centralgenetic part of this paradigm.

We engage researchers and students—especially stu-dents—to view Earth’s landforms, soils, and their bio-mantles, as constantly coevolving biodynamic entities, asever-changing parts of a global subaerial-subaqueouscontinuum. (It is unfortunate that soil maps, howeversocietally useful, carry both an implied subaerial exclu-siveness and a staticness of soils that masks their truebiodynamic nature.) Insofar as all soilscape segments areunique, we further engage students to examine the in-tricacies of process dynamics that comprise the minorand major pathways of soil genesis. Finally, by expressingthese intricate dynamic pathways in digital animations,


new and different insights can be gained on the nature ofsoils and their biomantles, landforms, and landscapes

Acknowledgments and Dedication

We thank R. Bromley, and referees V. T. Holliday, G.S. Humphreys, and J. D. Phillips, for their collectivecriticisms and wisdom that improved this paper. We alsothank Koli B for directing us to the Ivory Coast roadcuts(Figure 2), and I. O. Carmo, C. L. Mello, M. N. O.Peixoto, and J, Moura for hosting us at the Bananal-Resende district roadcuts in Brazil (Figure 3). We alsothank the University of Illinois Research Board and theGeography Department for supporting many overseaslearning trips, and our inestimable librarians, especially,for huge investigative help covering many years—col-lective support which made this paper possible.

We dedicate this paper to the memory of J. Thorp,pedologist visionary, world traveler, and gentlemanfriend who introduced the term biomantle to our lexicon.One of us, particularly (DLJ), owes you for wise counseland thesis mentoring during your 1965–1966 residencyperiod in the Geography Department, University ofKansas, Lawrence, as senior visiting scientist from Earl-ham College, Richmond, Indiana. Thanks, Jim, for im-proving our views on how the world works.

Notes

1. This statement mirrors many late-nineteenth-century viewsamong English-speaking scientists on how soils form—inthis case on the Iowan Surface of midcontinental U.S. Infact, this statement by geologist Sam Calvin illustrates theinfluence of Charles Darwin’s (1881) work on animalprocesses across multiple sciences into the late 1920s, be-fore Dokuchaev’s ‘‘agronomic-plant-zonal soil-clorpt’’ doc-trine gained interhemispheric ascendancy and finalentrenchment during the late 1920s and 1930s as the rulinggenetic element of the evolving soil paradigm.

2. Because a thorough treatment of this history would bevoluminous, we offer a summary here and direct readers toseveral other papers that give this rich history more cov-erage: Tandarich et al. 2002; Johnson 1993a, b; Johnsonand Hole 1994; Johnson et al. forthcoming.

3. Organisms in the ‘‘five-factors’’ framework, regardless ofdisclaimers, essentially came to mean plants by both Do-kuchaev and Jenny and by most all who used, and still use,this model (see Johnson and Hole 1994).

4. V. T. Holliday, in his reviewer comments to this paper, notedthat, in the clorpt approach, ‘‘the external environmentalfactors drive the soil forming processes’’ and that the ‘‘o’’factor is ‘‘in fact a process’’ in contrast to the cl, r, p, and tfactors. Both points are worthy of more than casual reflection.

5. Summaries in Johnson (1993a, b, 1994, 1999a, b, 2002) andJohnson et al. (2004), and reflected in geologist Calvin’s

(1896) epigraph concerning animal-formed soil on the Io-wan Surface in the North American midcontinent.

6. That is, abjurative pressure not to wander from the ‘‘agro-nomic box,’’ as it were.

7. We had long suspected that James Thorp, pedologist ex-traordinaire and advisor to one of us (DLJ), who had a keenappreciation of the pedogenic place of biota, especiallyanimals, and who was for decades an active advisor in theUSDA Soil Survey program and close to those principallyresponsible for Soil Taxonomy, had a hand in producing thebiomantle statement cited here. R. J. Ahrens, Director ofthe National Soil Survey Center in Lincoln, Nebraska,confirmed our suspicions in a personal communication, 24July 2002. But Thorp’s influence was short-lived becausethe biomantle concept was omitted in the current (1999)edition of Soil Taxonomy.

8. Texture, as used in soils, refers to particle size, specifically, therelative amounts of mineral fine fraction (sand, silt, clay) andgravels in soil (fine fraction � 2mm, gravels > 2mm).

9. Beyond the production of saprolite via biologically mediatedweathering of rock, the translocational abilities of antsand termites in forming thick biomantles is clearly one ofthe most important soil-forming processes in the tropics(Figures 2–3), and failure to recognize this has clogged anextensive geomorphological, pedological, archaeologicalliterature with misinterpretations and confusion.

10. Ironically, loess-blanketed landscapes are atypical for muchof Earth, though some aerosol inputs to all world soilsmust occur annually, if only in trace amounts (aerosolsmake sunsets pink and must eventually settle or wash outonto soils).

11. Students: understanding such unparsimonius relationships,which have been virtually ignored by most fields, offers un-paralleled opportunities and challenges for thesis and re-lated work.

12. Such tropical stonelayers, often mistaken for fluvial-deposited placers, were the focus of some indigenous‘‘folk mining’’ that preceded commercial exploitation,which included some termite-mounded areas (Mawe 1812;Skertchly 1843; Mills 1889; Carroll 1969; Anonymous1970; West 1970; Aleva 1983).

13. Soil fabric refers to the volume arrangements and rela-tionships of all soil particles (mineral and organic) plusvoids, channels, air spaces, and pellets, including soilstructures, as observed in handheld clumps of soil and inthin-section microscopy (see Paton 1978, 45–53; Bullocket al. 1985). Biofabric is soil fabric produced by soil biota(see Johnson 1990; Humphreys 1994; Humphreys et al.1996) that includes all biologically produced solid organiccomponents of the soil (animal-plant bodies, humus, etc.)together with associated gaseous biopores, biopellets, bio-structures (crumb-granular soil structures and microag-gregates/agglutinates), krotovina, krotovinal traces, etc.,collectively produced by biodynamic processes. Some sub-soil macrostructures (e.g., prismatic) are doubtless bioticallymediated and probably formed by vertically growing plantroots and vertical infaunal (e.g., earthworm) burrows, butpostinitial, shrink-swell, and illuvial processes later playaugmenting roles. To qualify as a biomantle, the soil fabricmust consist of at least 50 percent biofabric as determined orestimated by field calls and/or by thin-section microscopyor other laboratory studies. The 50 percent value was


arbitrary (Johnson 1990) and seemed reasonable in light ofmany observations of biofabric in the field and under thin-section microscopy.

14. Or members of Woese and colleagues’ three ‘‘domains of lifescheme’’—Archaea, Bacteria, Eucarya (Woese et al. 1990).

15. By-products such as biosynthetic organic materials, bioex-udates, agglutinates, and biotically mediated mineraliza-tions such as manganese-iron-phosphate nodules, vivianite,etc.

16. In tropical biomantles, active termite bioturbation oftenoccurs throughout the biomantle and stonelayer and belowit, even to deep-water tables (West 1970). The biomantle inFigures 2b and 2c is very active termite-wise, for termitesliterally erupted from the soil during all cuts made acrossthe boundary between the upper, fine-fraction, ‘‘termiteearth’’ and the basal stonelayer.

17. For what it is worth, though stated differently, Darwinemphasized this very principle throughout his long career(Darwin 1837/1838, 1840, 1844, 1869, 1881), but hismessage fell on unlistening twentieth-century pedologicalears that were attuned to an agronomic ‘‘clorpt’’- and zonal,soil-nucleated paradigm (see Johnson 2002; Johnson et al.forthcoming).

18. The term stone-line was coined by Sharpe (1938) based onobservations of soil and surficial sediment in South Caro-lina. He defined it as a product (in his view) of abiotic, moreor less geogenic (mass transfer) slope processes. Sharpe wasapparently unaware that the phenomenon had been fre-quently alluded to in the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century geological literature as a ‘‘pebble line,’’ ‘‘gravelsheet,’’ and other names (Mawe 1812; Rafinesque 1819;Olmstead 1825; Rothe 1828; Anonymous 1837; Silliman1837; Smith 1837; Wilkes 1845; Hartt 1870; White 1870;Genthe 1872; Liais 1872; Le Conte 1874; von Haast 1880;Kerr 1881; Derby 1882; Belt 1888; Cornet 1896, 1897a, b)and even variously illustrated (e.g., Darwin 1840, 1881;Hartt 1870, 31; Webster 1888; Shaler 1891). Neither wasSharpe aware that the same feature had earlier been in-terpreted in the U.S. midcontinental area as the erodedupper part of a buried soil (the Yarmouth-Sangamon soil)that had been variously called the ‘‘ferretto zone’’ of Bain1898, and ‘‘pebble band’’ and ‘‘pebble concentrate,’’ amongother names by Sardeson (1899), Calvin (1901), Norton(1902), Savage (1905a, b), Tilton (1913), Leverett (1926),Kay (1928, 1931), and many others. (The term stonelayer isa better term, as noted by referee G. Humphreys—andadvocated by Paton et al. (1995)—since it is a layer or sheetof stones, not a line, and we agree.)

19. At least obvious stonelayers will not be produced, thoughsubtle ones, difficult to detect, that consist of human arti-facts or intermittent bird or other animal gastroliths/bioliths, including bezoar stones, can be and often areproduced (see T. Cox 1994, 1998).

20. In soils formed in loess, where many major elements of oursoil paradigm evolved, stonelayers either do not occur, orare so subtle, being composed mainly of small and sparsebioliths (T. Cox 1994, 1998; Johnson 2002), that theycommonly go undetected (likewise, for soils formed ineolian sands).

21. Hole (1981), drawing on Kevan (1962), referred to animalsliving in soil as endopedonic (e.g., moles), and those living onsoil as exopedonic (e.g., elephants).

22. It is an irony of biogeography that whereas the Earth is ablue planet with water covering nearly three-fourths of itssurface, land environments—especially its soils—are biot-ically far more complex and host a far greater species di-versity than water environments.

23. Though the term biomantle appeared in the first edition ofTaxonomy in 1975, it was dropped from the second (1999)edition, probably for the same reason, we infer, thatbioturbation is absent from most USDA and SSSA soil-mentoring documents—the thought-restrictive and exclu-sionary power of conventional paradigms to notions andapproaches perceived as ‘‘unconventional.’’

References

Agassiz, L. 1867. Letter from Agassiz to Jules Marcou on thegeology of the Amazon Basin. Societe Geologıque de France(Ser. 2) 24:109–10.

Aleva, G. J. J. 1983. On weathering and denudation of humidtropical interfluves and their triple planation surfaces.Geologie en Mijnbouw 62:383–88.

Alexandre, J., and F. Malaisse, eds. 1987. Stone-lines. Geo-Eco-Trop 11 (1–4): 239.

Anonymous. 1837. United States’ gold mine near Fredericks-burgh, Va. American Journal of Science 32:183–84.

Anonymous. 1970. First ‘termite mine’ already producing gold.Chamber of Mines Journal 12 (10): 26.

Bailey, L. H., ed. 1907. Cyclopedia of American agriculture.4th ed. Vol.1, Farms. Part 3. New York: Macmillan and Co.

Bain, H. F. 1898. The Aftonian and pre-Kansan deposits insouthwestern Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sci-ences 5:86–101.

Balek, C. L. 2002. Buried artifacts in stable upland sites andthe role of bioturbation: A review. Geoarchaeology 17:41–51.

Belt, T. 1888. The naturalist in Nicaragua. 2nd ed. London: Ed-ward Bumpus.

Bibus, E. 1984. Morphological criteria for recent climatic oscil-lations in the northern periphery of the Pantanal in MatoGrosso. Zentralblatt fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Teil I (11/12):1431–40.

Birkeland, P. J. 1984. Soils and geomorphology. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

FFF. 1992. Quaternary soil chronosequences in various en-vironments—extremely arid to humid tropical. In Weath-ering, soils & paleosols, ed. I. P. Martini and W. Chesworth,261–81. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bocek, B. 1986. Rodent ecology and burrowing behavior: Pre-dicted effects on archaeological site formation. AmericanAntiquity 51:589–603.

FFF. 1992. The Jasper Ridge reexcavation experiment:Rates of artifact mixing by rodents. American Antiquity57:261–69.

Branner, J. C. 1900. Ants as geologic agents in the tropics. Jour-nal of Geology 8:151–53.

FFF. 1910. Geologic work of ants in tropical America. Ge-ological Society of America Bulletin 21:449–96.

Brink, A. B. A. 1985. Engineering geology of Southern Africa 4:Post-Gondwana deposits. Pretoria: Building Publications.

Brink, A. B. A., T. C. Partridge, and A. A. B. Williams. 1982.Soil survey for engineering. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.


Bromley, R. G. 1996. Trace fossils: Biology, taphonomy, and appli-cations. London: Chapman & Hall.

Brussard, L., et al. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioningin soil. Ambio 26:563–70.

Budel, J. 1957. Die ‘‘doppelten einebnungsflachen’’ in den feu-chten tropen [The ‘‘double planation surfaces’’ in the hu-mid tropics]. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 2:201–28.

Bullock, P., N. Fedoroff, A. Jongerius, G. Stoops, and T. Tursina.1985. Handbook for soil thin section description, Prepared byInternational Society of Soil Sciences. Wolverhampton,U.K.: Waine Research Publications.

Buurman, P. 1975. Submarine soil formation changing fossilterrestric soils. Soil Science 119:24–7.

Cadee, G. C. 2001. Sediment dynamics by bioturbating organ-isms. In Ecological comparisons of sedimentary shores, ed. K.Reise, 127–48. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Calvin, S. 1896. Geology of Jones County. Iowa Geological Sur-vey Annual Report 5:33–112.

FFF. 1901. Geology of Page County. Iowa Geological SurveyAnnual Report 11:397–460.

Canti, M. G. 2003. Earthworm activity and archaeological stra-tigraphy: A review of products and processes. Journal ofArchaeological Sciences 30:135–48.

Carroll, P. H. 1969. Soil-dwelling termites in the southwest re-gion of the Ivory Coast. Soil Survey Horizons 10:3–16.

Charter, C. F. 1949. The characteristics of the principalcocoa soils. In Proceedings of the Cocoa Conference, 1949,105–12. London: Cocoa, Chocolate, and ConfectionersAlliance.

Cornet, J. 1896. Les depots superficiels et l’ erosion continentaledans le Basin du Congo [Surface deposits and erosion in theCongo Basin]. Bulletin de la Societe Belge de Geologie, dePaleontologie et d’Hydrologie, (Bruxelles) 10:44–116.

FFF. 1897a. Etudes sur la geologie du Congo Occidentalentre la cote et le confluent du Ruke. Bulletin de la SocieteBelge de Geologie, de Paleontologie et d’Hydrologie, [Studies ofthe geology in the western Congo between the coast andRuke confluence] (Bruxelles) 11:311–77.

FFF. 1897b. L’age de la pierre dans le Congo Occidental[The stone age and the western Congo]. Bulletin de laSociete d’Anthropologie de Bruxelles 15:196–203.

Cox, G. W., and D. W. Allen. 1987a. Soil translocation by pocketgophers in a Mima moundfield. Oecologia 72:207–10.

FFF. 1987b. Sorted stone nets and circles of theColumbia Plateau: A hypothesis. Northwest Science 61 (3):179–85.

Cox, G. W., C. G. Gakahu, and D. G. Allen. 1987. Small-stonecontent of Mima mounds of the Columbia Plateau andRocky Mountain regions: Implications for mound origins.Great Basin Naturalist 47 (4): 609–19.

Cox, T. 1994. The formation of gastrolith derived stone-lines indeep loess upland soils: Mid-continental USA. Master’sthesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.

FFF. 1998. Origin of stone concentrations in loess-derivedinterfluve soils. In Paleopedology revisited: Transactions ofthe 2nd international symposium on paleopedology, ed. L. R.Follmer, D. L. Johnson, and J. A. Catt. Quarternary Inter-national 51/52:74–75.

Dalquest, W. W., and V. B. Scheffer. 1942. The origin of theMima mounds of western Washington. Journal of Geology50:68–84.

Darwin, C. 1837/1838. On the formation of mould. Proceedingsof the Geological Society of London 2:574–76.

FFF. 1840. On the formation of mould. Transactions, Geo-logical Society of London 5:505–9. (repub. of 1837/38 paper,with added wood-cut).

FFF. 1844. On the origin of mould. Gardener’s Chronicle andAgricultural Gazette, London, 6 April, 218.

FFF. 1869. The formation of mould by worms. Gardener’sChronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 15 May 530.

FFF. 1881. The formation of vegetable mould through the actionof worms, with observations on their habits. New York: Ap-pleton.

Davison, C. 1891. On the amount of sand brought up by lob-worms to the surface. Geological Magazine (new series)8:489–93.

Deelman, J. C. 1972. Recent and fossil submarine soils. Soil Sci-ence 114:164–70.

FFF. 1973. Submarine soil formation in carbonate sedim-ents: A correlation of uncorrelated data. Zentrallblat fuerGeologie und Palaeontologie I (Abt, Jg. 1973):12–35.

Demas, G. P. 1993. Submerged soils: A new frontier in soil sur-vey. Soil Survey Horizons 34:44–47.

FFF. 1999. Subaqueous soils: Pedogenesis in a submersedenvironment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:1250–57.

FFF. 2001. Factors of subaqueous soil formation: A systemof quantitative pedology for submerged environments. Ge-oderma 102:189–204.

Demas, G. P., and M. C. Rabenhorst. 1998. Subaqueous soils: Aresource inventory protocol. Proceedings World Congressof Soil Science 16th, Symposium 17. International Society ofSoil Science, Montpelier, France.

Demas, G. P., M. C. Rabenhorst, and J. C. Stevenson. 1996.Subaqueous soils: A pedological approach to the study ofshallow-water habitats. Estuaries 19 (2A): 229–37.

Derby, O. A. 1882. Modes of occurrence of the dia-mond in Brazil. American Journal of Science, (3rd Ser.) 24:34–42.

Dimo, N. A. 1905. Iz’ nabliudenii nad’ murav’iami (Pedozoo-logicheskiia zametki) [Some observations on ants (Pedolog-ical notes)]. Saratovskoga Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei iLyubitelei. Trudy 4 (2): 109–25.

FFF. 1938. Zemlianye chervi v pochvakh srednei azii [Earth-worms in the soils of middle Asia]. Pochvovedenie 4:494–526.

FFF. 1955. Nabliudenia i issledovania po faune poch [Obser-vations and studies on soil fauna]. Kishinev: Moldova StatePublishing.

Dobrovol’ski, G. V. 1983. The role of V. V. Dokuchaev’s‘‘Russian Chernozem’’ in the formation and developmentof soil science. Moscow State University Soil Science Bulletin38:3–8.

Dokuchaev, V. V. 1883. Russian Chernozem. In Selected works ofV. V. Dokuchaev 1:14–419, Moscow, 1948. Israel Programfor Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1967.

FFF. 1892. Russian steppes in the past and the present.(Originally published in Pravital ‘Stevnnyi Vestnik, The Gov-ernment Gazette, 15 January, 1892; Republished in Izbran-nye Sochineniya 2:163–228. Israel Program for ScientificTranslations, Jerusalem, 1967.)

Ekdale, A. A., R. G. Bromley, and S. G. Pemberton. 1984.Ichnology, the use of trace fossils in sedimentology andstratigraphy. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Miner-alogists (SEPM) Short Course Number 15:1–317. SEPM,Tulsa, OK.


Feller, C., G. G. Brown, E. Blanchart, P. Deleparte, and S. S.Chernyanskii. 2003. Charles Darwin, earthworms and thenatural sciences: Various lessons from past to future. Agri-culture, Ecosystems and Environment 99:29–49.

Formosov, A. M. 1928. Mammals in the steppe biocenose. Ecol-ogy 9:449–60.

Genthe, F. A. 1872. On the mineral resources of NorthCarolina. Journal of the Franklin Institute 63 (v. 93): 48–61.114–30.

Gerasimov, I. P. 1946. V. V. Dokuchaev’s doctrine of naturalzones. Pochvovedenie 6:353–60.

Ghilarov, M. S. 1939. Pochvennaia fauna i zhizn’ pochvy [Thesoil fauna and the life of the soil.]. Pochvovedenia 6:3–15.

Glinka, K. D. 1927. Dokuchaiev’s ideas in the development ofpedology and cognate sciences. Russian Pedological Investi-gations 1:1–32.

Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Gregoryev, A. A., and I. P. Gerasimov eds. 1946. V. V. Dokuchaevand geography. Moscow: Academy of Science.

Grinnell, J. 1923. The burrowing rodents of California as agentsin soil formation. Journal of Mammalogy 4:137–49.

Hanor, J. S., and N. F. Marshall. 1971. Mixing of sediment byorganisms. In Trace fossils: A field guide, ed. B. F. Perkins,127–35. Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University School ofGeosciences.

Hartt, C. F. 1870. Geology and physical geography of Brazil. Bos-ton: Fields, Osgood, and Co.

FFF. 1871. Amazonian drift. American Journal of Science,(Ser. 3) 1:294–96.

Hoeksema, I. K. J. 1953. De natuurlijke homogenisatie van hetbodemprofiel in nederland [The natural homogenization ofthe soil profile in the Netherlands.]. Boor en Spade 6:24–30.

Hole, F. D. 1981. Effects of animals on soil. Geoderma 25:75–112.

Horwath, J. L. 2002. An assessment of Mima-type mounds, theirsoils, and associated vegetation, Newton County, Missouri.Master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

Horwath, J. L., D. L. Johnson, and A. J. Stumpf. 2002. Evolutionof a gravelly Mima-type moundfield in southwestern Mis-souri. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs34 (6): 369.

Humphreys, G. S. 1994. Bioturbation, biofabrics and the bio-mantle: An example from the Sydney Basin. In Micro-morphology: Studies in management and genesis, ed. A. J.Ringrose-Voase and G. S. Humphreys, 421–36. Amster-dam: Elsevier.

Humphreys, G. S., and D. A. Adamson. 2000. Inadequatepedogeomorphic evidence for dry and cold climatic con-ditions in the southeastern Brazil. Zeitschrift fur Geo-morphologie, N.F. 44 (4): 529–31.

Humphreys, G. S., and P. B. Mitchell. 1983. A preliminary as-sessment of the role of bioturbation and rainwash on sand-stone hillslopes in the Sydney Basin. In Aspects of Australiansandstone landscapes: Australia and New Zealand, ed. R. W.Young and G. C. Nanson, 66–80. Geomorphology GroupSpecial Publication No. 1. Wollongong, Australia.

FFF. 1988. Bioturbation: An important pedological andgeomorphological process. Abstracts 1, 265. Twenty-sixthCongress, International Geographic Union, Sydney.

Humphreys, G. S., P. B. Mitchell, and T. R. Paton. 1996. Biotur-bation and soil formation: Towards a new paradigm. ASSSIand NZSSS National Soils Conference, July 1966, 133–34.

Iriondo, M. 1997. A tropical loess-like sediment. Abstracts 3:224. 30th International Geological Congress, Beijing.

Iriondo, M., and D. M. Krohling. 1997. The tropical loess. Pro-ceedings of the 30th International Geological Congress 21:61–77.

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation. New York: McGraw Hill.Jettmar, H. M. 1926. Die Bauten einiger transbaikalischer

Saugetiere in schematischer Darstellung [The burrow sys-tems of some Transbaikal mammals in schematic represen-tation]. Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 1:13–22.

Joffe, J. S. 1949. Pedology. Somerville, NJ: Somerset Press, Inc.Johnson, D. L. 1989. Subsurface stone lines, stone zones, arti-

fact-manuport layers, and biomantles produced by bio-turbation via pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). AmericanAntiquity 54:370–89.

FFF. 1990a. Biomantle evolution and the redistribution ofEarth materials and artifacts. Soil Science 149:84–102.

FFF. 1990b. The soil evolution model as a framework forevaluating pedoturbation in archaeological site formation.Geological Society of America Centennial Special Volume4:541–60. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

FFF. 1993a. Biomechanical processes and the Gaia para-digm in a pedo-geomorphic and pedo-archaeologic frame-work: Dynamic denudation. In Proceedings of the firstinternational conference on pedo-archaeology, ed. J. E. Foss,M. W. Morris, and M. E. Timpson, 41–68. Knoxville, TN:Special publication, Agriculture Experiment Station, Uni-versity of Tennessee, Knoxville.

FFF. 1993b. Dynamic denudation evolution of tropical,subtropical, and temperate landscapes with three tieredsoils: Toward a general theory of landscape evolution. Qua-ternary International 17:67–78.

FFF. 1994a. Reassessment of early and modern soil horizondesignation frameworks and associated pedogenetic proc-esses: Are midlatitude A E B-C horizons equivalent totropical M S W horizons? Soil Science (Trends in AgriculturalScience) 2:77–91.

FFF. 1994b. Response to D. R. Muhs. GSA (Geological So-ciety of America) News 4:74–5.

FFF. 1997. Geomorphological, geoecological, geoarchaeo-logical and surficial mapping study of McGregor GuidedMissile Range, Fort Bliss, New Mexico. Miscellaneous Reportof Investigations No. 157, Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, TX. http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.asp?ABBR5ADA334541&starDB5GRAHIST (last accessed 4 January 2005).

FFF. 1998. Lithologic (geogenic) discontinuities . . . or soil(pedogenic) stone-lines? Geological Society of America Ab-stracts with Programs 30 (7): A–215.

FFF. 1999a. Darwin the archaeologist: A lesson in unful-filled language. Discovering Archaeology 1:6–7.

FFF. 1999b. Early antecedent term concepts of pedogenicstone lines. Abstracts, Regional conference on geomorphol-ogy, International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG),and Brazilian Geomorphological Union (UGB), 102–103.Rio de Janeiro, 17–22 July 1999.

FFF. 2002. Darwin would be proud: Bioturbation, dynamicdenudation, and the power of theory in science. Geoar-chaeology 17:7–40. 631–32.

Johnson, D. L., and C. L. Balek. 1991. The genesis of quater-nary landscapes with stone-lines. Physical Geography 12:385–95.

Johnson, D. L., J. E. J. Domier, and D. N. Johnson. Forthcoming.Animating the biodynamics of soil thickness using process


vector analysis: A dynamic denudation approach to soilformation. Geomorphology.

Johnson, D. L., and F. D. Hole. 1994. Soil formation theory:A summary of its principal impacts on geography, geo-morphology, soil-geomorphology, quaternary geology andpaleopedology. In Factors of soil formation: A fiftieth anni-versary retrospective, 111–26. Madison, WI: Soil ScienceSociety of America Special Publication 33.

Johnson, D. L., J. Horwath, and D. N. Johnson. 2003. Mima andother animal mounds as point centered biomantles. Geolog-ical Society of America Abstracts with Programs 34 (7): 258.

Johnson, D. L., D. N. Johnson, and J. Horwath. 2002. In praiseof the coarse fraction and bioturbation: Gravelly Mimamounds as two-layered biomantles. Geological Society ofAmerica Abstracts with Programs 34 (6): 369.

Johnson, D. L., and D. Watson-Stegner. 1987. Evolution modelof pedogenesis. Soil Science 143:349–66.

Johnson, D. L., D. Watson-Stegner, D. N. Johnson, and R. J.Schaetzl. 1987. Proisotropic and proanisotropic processes ofpedoturbation. Soil Science 143:278–92.

Kay, G. F. 1928. The relative ages of the Iowan and Illinoian driftsheets. American Journal of Science, (5th Ser.) 216:497–518.

FFF. 1931. Origin of the pebble band on Iowan till. Journalof Geology 39:377–80.

Keilhack, K. 1899. Uber die bodenbildende Thatigkeit der ins-ekten [On soil formation by insects]. Zeitschrift der Deutsc-hen Geologischen Gesellschaft 51:138–41.

Kellogg, C. E. 1936. Development and significance of the great soilgroups of the United States, Miscellaneous Publication 229.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Kerr, W. C. 1881. On the action of frost in the arrangement ofsuperficial earthy material. American Journal of Science (3rdSer.) 21:345–59.

Kevan, D. K. McE. 1955. Soil zoology. London: ButterworthsScientific Publications.

FFF. 1962. Soil animals. London: H. F. & G. Witherby, Ltd.Kuhnelt, W. 1961. Soil biology, with special reference to the animal

kingdom. London: Faber and Faber (also Rodale Books,Emmaus, PA).

Le Conte, J. 1874. On the great lava-flood of the northwest; andon the structures and age of the Cascade Mountains. Amer-ican Journal of Science (Ser. 3) 7:167–80. 259–67.

Leverett, F. 1926. The Pleistocene glacial stages: Were theremore than four? American Philosophical Society Proceedings65:105–18.

Liais, E. 1872. Climats, geologie, faune et geographie botanique duBresil. Paris: Garnier Freres, Libraires-Editeurs.

Lichte, M. 1990. Stonelines as a definite cyclic feature in south-east Brazil: A geomorphological and pedological case study.Pedologie 40:101–9.

Lichte, M., and H. Behling. 1999. Dry and cold climatic con-ditions in the formation of the present landscape inSoutheastern Brazil: An interdiscliplinary approach to acontroversially discussed topic. Zeitschrift fur Geomorpholo-gie, N.F. 43 (3): 341–58.

Marbut, C. F. 1921. The contribution of soil surveys to soil sci-ence. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Agricul-tural Science 41:116–42.

FFF. 1923. Soils of the Great Plains. Annals of the Associationof American Geographers 13:41–66.

FFF. 1935. Soils of the United States, Part III. Atlas ofAmerican agriculture, ed. E. O. Baker. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Margulis, L., and K. V. Schwartz. 1999. Five kingdoms: An illus-trated guide to the phyla of life on Earth. New York: W.H.Freeman and Company.

Martin, K. 1997. Champaign-Urbana (IL) News-Gazette, 30November, B-3.

Mawe, J. 1812. Travels in the interior of Brazil. London: Longman,Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown.

Medawar, P. B. 1979. Advice to a young scientist. New York:Harper Collins.

Michie, J. L. 1983. Bioturbation, gravity, and site formationprocesses in the coastal plain of South Carolina. In Bulletin26, Abstracts of the 40th Southeastern Archaeological Confer-ence, ed. S. W. Green and A. Goodyear, 23. Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.

Miklos, A. A. W. 1999. Stone-lines and oxic horizons: Bio-genetic organisations—soil fauna. Abstracts, Regional vonfer-ence on geomorphology, International Association ofGeomorphologists (IAG), and Brazilian GeomorphologicalUnion (UGB), 103. Rio de Janeiro 17–22 July.

Millot, G. 1983. Planation of continents by intertropical weath-ering and pedogenetic processes. In Laterisation process:Proceedings of the II international seminar on laterisation, SaoPaulo, 4–12 July 1982, ed. A. J. Mel and A. Carvalho53–63. Instituto Astronomico e Geofisico, University ofSao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Mills, J. E. 1889. Quaternary deposits and Quaternary or recentelevation of regions and mountains in Brazil with deduc-tions as to the origin of loess from its observed conditionsthere. American Geology 3:345–61.

Millson, A. 1890. Notes on the soil and cultivation of Yoruba-Land, with special remarks on the work of earthworms inWest Africa. Kew Bulletin 46:240–44.

Nardi, J. B. 2003. The world beneath our feet: A guide to life in thesoil. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nikiforoff, C. C. 1959. Reappraisal of the soil. Science 129:186–96.

Norton, W. H. 1902. Geology of Cedar County. Iowa GeologicalSurvey Annual Report 11:279–396.

Nye, P. H. 1954. Some soil-forming processes in the humidtropics I: A field study of a catena in the West African for-est. Journal of Soil Science 5:7–21.

FFF. 1955a. Some soil-forming processes in the humid trop-ics II. The development of the upper-slope member of thecatena. Journal of Soil Science 6:51–62.

FFF. 1955b. Some soil-forming processes in the humidtropics III. Laboratory studies on the development of atypical catena over granitic gneiss. Journal of Soil Science6:63–72.

FFF. 1955c. Some soil-forming processes in the humid trop-ics IV. The action of the soil fauna. Journal of Soil Science6:73–83.

Ognev, S. I. 1948/1963. Mammals of U.S.S.R. and AdjacentCountries 6, Rodents. Jerusalem: Israel Program for ScientificTranslations.

FFF. 1950/1964. Mammals of U.S.S.R. and Adjacent Coun-tries 7, Rodents. Jerusalem: Israel Program for ScientificTranslations.

Ollier, C. D. 1959. A two-cycle theory of tropical pedology.Journal of Soil Science 10:137–48.

Olmstead, D. 1825. On the gold mines of North Carolina.American Journal of Science and Arts 9:5–15.

Passarge, S. 1904. Die Kalahari [The Kalahari]. Berlin: DietrichReimer (Ernst Vohsen).


Paton, T. R. 1978. The formation of soil material. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin.

Paton, T. R., G. S. Humphreys, and P. B. Mitchell. 1995. Soils: Anew global view. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Peacock, E., and D. W. Fant. 2002. Biomantle formation andartifact translocation in upland sandy soils: An examplefrom the Holly Springs National Forest, north-central Mis-sissippi, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 17:91–114.

Peterson, C. G. J. 1914. Valuation of the sea II. The animalcommunities of the sea-bottom and their importance formarine zoogeography. Report of the Danish Biological Station21 1913: 1–44. Copenhagen.

Prasolov, L. I. 1947. V.V. Dokuchaev—The founder ofcontemporary scientific pedology. Pochvovedenie No. 2:73–81.

Quinton, L. J. 2001. An investigation into the genetic origins offour regolith profiles in the Grahamstown area, EasternCape, South Africa. Master’s thesis, Rhodes University,Grahamstown, South Africa.

Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Thoughts on atmospheric dust. Amer-ican Journal Science 1:397–400.

Ramann, E. 1928. Evolution and classification of soils, Trans. C. L.Whittles. Cambridge, U.K.: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd.

Rhoads, D. C. 1963. Rates of sediment reworking byYoldia limatula in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, and LongIsland Sound. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 33:723–27.

FFF. 1967. Biogenic reworking of intertidal and subtidal se-diments in Barnstable Harbor and Buzzards Bay, Massa-chusetts. Journal of Geology 75:461–76.

FFF. 1970. Mass properties, stability and ecology of marinemuds related to burrowing activity. In Trace fossils, ed. T. P.Crimes and J. Harper. Geological Journal, Special Issue 3:391–406.

FFF. 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy seafloor. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 12:263–300.

Rhoads, D. C., and D. J. Stanley. 1965. Biogenic graded bedding.Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 35:956–63.

Rohdenburg, H. 1969. Hangpedimentation und klimawechselals wichtigste faktoren der flachen - und stufenbildung inden wechselfeuchten tropen an beispielen aus Westafrika,besonders aus dem schichtstufenland Sudost-Nigerias [Ped-imentation on slopes and climatic change as key factors fordevelopment of flat and stepped surfaces in the changingwet tropics using examples from West Africa, especiallyfrom the stepped landscapes of Southeast Nigeria]. GiessenerGeographische Schriften 20:57–152.

Rothe, E. C. 1828. Remarks on the gold mines of North Caro-lina. American Journal of Science 13:201–17.

Ruhe, R. V. 1954. Geology of the soils of the Nioka-Ituri area,Belgian Congo. In Carte des Sols et de la Vegetation du CongoBelge et du Ruanda-Urundi, 4. Nioka (Ituri). Bruxelles: Pub-lications de I’INEAC, Series Science 66.

FFF. 1956. Geomorphic surfaces and the nature of soils. SoilScience 82:441–55.

FFF. 1959. Stone lines in soils. Soil Science 84:223–31.FFF. 1969. Quaternary landscapes in Iowa. Ames: Iowa State

University Press.Sardeson, F. W. 1899. What is the loess? American Journal of

Science (Ser. 4) 7:58–60.Savage, T. E. 1905a. Geology of Benton County. Iowa Geological

Survey Annual Report 15:125–225.

FFF. 1905b. Geology of Fayette County. Iowa GeologicalSurvey Annual Report 15:433–546.

Schafer, W. 1952. Biogene sedimentation im gefolge von biotur-bation. Senckenbergiana 33:1–12.

Seilacher, A. 1964. Biogenic sedimentary structures. In Ap-proaches to paleoecology, ed. J. Imbrie and J. Newell, 296–316. New York: John Wiley.

Shaler, N. S. 1888. Animal agency in soil-making. Popular Sci-ence Monthly 32:484–87.

FFF. 1891. The origin and nature of soils. U.S. GeologicalSurvey 12th Annual Report 1890–1891 part 1:213–345.

Sharpe, C. F. S. 1938. Landslides and related phenomena. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Sibirtsev, N. M. 1897/1965. Chernozem in various countries. InN. M. Sibirtsev, Selected works 2, Soil science and droughtcontrol, ed. S. S. Sobolev, 273–85. Jerusalem: Israel Programin Scientific Translations.

Silliman, B. 1837. Remarks on some of the gold mines, and onparts of the gold region of Virginia, founded on personalobservations, made in the months of August and Septem-ber, 1836. American Journal of Science 32:98–130.

Simonson, R. W. 1959. Outline of a generalized theory of soilgenesis. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 23:152–56.

FFF. 1968. Concept of soil. Advances in Agronomy 20:1–47.Skertchly, J. A. 1843. A visit to the gold-fields of Wassaw, West

Africa. New Edinburgh Philosophical Journal 35:274–83.Smith, F. L. 1837. Notice of some facts connected with the gold

of a portion of North Carolina. American Journal of Science32:130–33.

Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 2001. Glossary of soilscience terms, Soil Science Society of America, Madison,WI.

FFF. 1994. Factors of soil formation: A fiftieth anniversaryretrospective, SSSA Special Publication Number 33. SoilScience Society of America, Madison, WI.

Soil Survey Staff. 1937. Soil survey manual. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication274.

FFF. 1951. Soil survey manual. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture Handbook 18.

FFF. 1975. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classificationfor making and interpreting soil surveys, Agricultural Hand-book No. 436. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture.

FFF. 1993. Soil survey manual, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture Handbook No. 18. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture.

FFF. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classificationfor making and interpreting soil surveys. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sokolov, A. V. 1946. The role of the plant in the soil doctrine ofV. Dokuchaev. Pochvovedenie No. 6:366–73.

Stocking, M. A. 1978. Interpretation of stone-lines. South Af-rican Geographical Journal 60:121–34.

Tandarich, J. P. 1998a. Agricultural chemistry: Disciplinary his-tory. In Sciences of the earth: An encyclopedia of events, people,and phenomena. Vol. 1, A-G, ed. G. A. Good, 19–23. NewYork: Garland Publications, Inc. Taylor and Francis Group.

FFF. 1998b. Agricultural geology: Disciplinary history. InSciences of the earth: An encyclopedia of events, people, andphenomena. Vol. 1, A-G, ed. G. A. Good, 23–29. New York:Garland Publications, Inc. Taylor and Francis Group.


FFF. 1998c. Agricultural geology: Disciplinary history.In Sciences of the earth: An encyclopedia of events, people,and phenomena. Vol. 2, H-Z, ed. G. A. Good, 666–70.New York: Garland Publications, Inc. Taylor and FrancisGroup.

Tandarich, J. P., R. G. Darmody, L. R. Follmer, and D. L. John-son. 2002. Historical aspects of soil and weathering profileconcepts from Europe to the United States of America. SoilScience Society of America Journal 66:335–46.

Taylor, W. P. 1930. Animals a potent factor in soil formation.Ecology 11:787–88.

FFF. 1935. Some animal relations to soil. Ecology 16:127–36.

Thoms, S. R., G. Matisoff, P. L. McColl, and X. Wang. 1995.Models for alteration of sediments by benthic organisms, Project92-NPS-2. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment ResearchFoundation.

Thorp, J. 1936. Geography of the soils of China, National geolog-ical survey of China in cooperation with the Institute ofGeology of the National Academy, Peiping, and ChinaFoundation. Nanking: Ministries of Industries.

FFF. 1941. The influence of environment on soil formation.Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 6:39–46.

FFF. 1949. Effects of certain animals that live in the soil.Scientific Monthly 68:180–91.

Thorp, J., and E. Bellis. 1960. Soils of the Kenya highlands inrelation to land forms. Seventh International Congress of SoilScience, Madison, WI 46:329–34.

Tilton, J. L. 1913. A new section south from Des Moines, Iowa.Science (New Ser.) 38:133–35.

Van Nest, J. 2002. The good earthworm: How natural processespreserve upland Archaic archaeological sites of western Il-linois, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 17:53–90.

Van Straaten, L. M. J. U. 1952. Biogene textures and the for-mation of shell beds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. KoninklijkeNederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Pro-ceedings, Series B, Physical Science 55:500–16.

FFF. 1954. Composition and structure of recent marine se-diments in the Netherlands. Leidse Geologische Mededelin-gen 19:1–110.

Vilenski, D. G. 1946. The role and importance of Dokuchaev insoil science. Pochvovedenie 6:343–52.

von Haast, J. 1880. Notes on the ancient manufactory of stoneimplements at the mouth of the Otokai Creek, Brighton,Otago. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand In-stitute 12:150–53.

von Ihering, H. 1882. Uber schichtenbildung durch ameisen[On the formation of strata by ants]. Neues Jahrbuch furMineralogie, Geologie und Palaeontologie 1:156–57.

Wall, D. H., L. Brussard, P. A. Hutchings, M. A. Palmer, and P. V.R. Snelgrove. 1998. Soil and sediment biodiversity and ec-osystem functioning. Nature and Resources 34:41–51.

Wall Freckman, D. H., T. H. Blackburn, L. Brussard, P. Hutch-ings, M. A. Palmer, and P. V. R. Snelgrove. 1997. Linkingbiodiversity and ecosystem functioning of soils and sedim-ents. Ambio 26:556–62.

Wallace, A. R. 1870. The glaciation of Brazil. Nature 2:510–12.Warme, J. E. 1967. Graded bedding in the recent sediments of

Mugu Lagoon, California. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology37:540–47.

Watson, J. P. 1961. Some observations on soil horizons andinsect activity in granite soils. First Federal Science Con-gress, Proceedings, 1960 (Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia) 1:271–76.

FFF. 1970. Termites and the soil balance. International WaterErosion Symposium, Discussions 2:81–6. Prague.

Webster, C. L. 1888. On the glacial drift and loess of a portionof the northern-central basin of Iowa. American Naturalist22:972–79.

West, W. F. 1970. The Bulawayo symposium papers: No. 2. Ter-mite prospecting. Chamber of Mines Journal 12 (10): 26.

White, C. A. 1870. Report on the geological survey of the State ofIowa . . . within the years 1866–1869. Vols. 1–2. Des Moines,IA: Mills & Co.

Wilkes, C. 1845. Narrative of the United States exploring expeditionduring the year 1838–1842. vol. 4. Philadelphia: Lea &Blanchard.

Williams, M. A. J. 1968. Termites and soil development nearBrocks Creek, Northern Australia. Australian Journal ofScience 31:153–54.

Woese, C. R., O. Kandler, and M. L. Wheelis. 1990. Towards anatural system of organisms: Proposal for the domainsArchaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the Nation-al Academy of Sciences 87:4576–79.

Yarilov, A. A. 1946. Dokuchaev and his doctrine. Pochvovedenie6:374–76.

Zakarov, S. A. 1946. Dokuchaev as the founder and organizer ofthe new science of genetic soil science. Pochvovedenie 6:361–65.

Zavalishin, A. A. 1958. Dokuchaev’s doctrine of soil formingfactors as a basis of the comparative geographical method ofsoil investigation. Pochvovedenie 9:39–47.

Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (217: 356-7437, e-mail: [email protected] (D. L.Johnson); Illinois State Geological Survey, 615 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820, e-mail: [email protected] (Domier); GeosciencesConsultants, 713 So. Lynn St., Champaign, IL 61820, e-mail: [email protected] (D. N. Johnson).


Documents

Reﬂections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantlepfarrell/Soils/Readings/Soil as Biomantle.pdf · Reﬂections on the Nature of Soil and Its Biomantle D. L. Johnson,*w J. E. J