W. Wayne Pettapiece, Ph.D., P.Ag.

forAlberta Soils Network

January, 2011

LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA(Concepts – Development – Uses)

1

TERMINOLOGY Land vs Soil , Suitability vs Capability , Agriculture

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEgoing on for a long time

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEMMost recent

USES (AND MISUSES) OF SUITABILITY SYSTEMSAgriculture, planning, environment, assessment

2

LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA

Terms commonly usedSoil Rating / Land RatingSoil Capability / Land CapabilitySoil Suitability / Land SuitabilitySoil Assessment / Land AssessmentSoil Evaluation / Land Evaluation

All have been used for the same meaningAll have been used for different meanings

PurposeAgriculture? Forestry? Engineering?Wheat/Alfalfa? Aspen/Pine? Subgrade/IrrigationEconomics? 3

TERMINOLOGY (1)

What terms should be used ?Soil vs Land

Original was “soil” – context assumed to be agriculture local extent so limited variability in topography and climateContext expanded from rating to capability

name didn’t change eg CLI – Soil Capability

Started to think in terms of systems (ecological) the term “land” seemed more appropriate

RecommendedThat “land “ be the generally used termThat “soil” be only used for specific situations

4

TERMINOLOGY (2)

30’s

60’s

80’s

What terms should be used ?Rating vs Capability vs Suitability

Rating was the original term It was understood (not stated) to be crop productivity All the terms are “ratings”

Capability is a broader concept It includes flexibility of crop options, sustainability

and management (input requirement) components

Suitability has the same concept as capability Used for more specific objectives Larger scale / more detail

5

TERMINOLOGY (3)

30’s

60’s

80’s

What terms should be used ?Rating vs Capability vs SuitabilityRecommended

That “Capability “ be the general term for broad uses e.g. agriculture or forestry or irrigation generally at scales of 1:1m – 1: 250K

That “Suitability” be used for specific crops or defined uses e.g. corn or aspen (or spring seeded small grains) generally at scales of > 1:100K

That “rating” only be used with a descriptive adjective e.g. productivity rating or capability rating or irrigation rating

6

TERMINOLOGY (4)

Pre 1930 (from about 1850)

Objective : agricultural potential

Broad, very subjective

Good – Fair – Poor

Land Surveyors (geodetic), soil surveyors, farm extension

Scale: 1:1M – 1: 250K (Township – section)

7

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (1)

1930 - 1960

Storie soil rating systemObjective : crop productivityMuch more specific (more scientific) Identified / rated specific soil parameters (texture, OM, pH etc)Absolute number (between 1 and 100)

8 classes with 8 = best

Well accepted by technical communityResearchers, soil specialists, soil surveyorsScale: > 1: 100K (1/4 sec - field)

8

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (2)

1960 - 1980

Canada Land Inventory: Soil Capability for Agriculture (CLI) Objective : Agricultural capability (potential)

Multiple land use context Included climate and landscape components Identified and considered specific soil parameters (texture, OM, pH etc) Comparative rating (specified limitations)

7 Classes with 1 = best) Very well accepted by the planning community Soil surveyors , soil specialists Scale: 1:1M – 1: 250K (Township – section) initially

Extended to < 1:100k (1/4 sec) with variable results9

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (3)

1980 – 1995 Canada Land Inventory: Soil capability for Agriculture (CLI)

Modifications , inconsistent use at more detailed scales, lacked specificity

Land Capability Classification for Arable Agriculture (Alberta) Objective : Agricultural capability in a structured defined relationship

Included all factors of the CLI

Incorporated specific criteria ratings like the Storie approach

Modular structure with Climate, Soil and Landscape handled separately

7 Class rating with specified limitations (like the CLI) final rating based on most limiting (of climate, soil or landscape)

Soil surveyors , soil specialists

Scale: not limiting10

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (4)

1995 – present Canada Land Inventory: Soil capability for Agriculture (CLI)

Modifications , inconsistent use at more detailed scales Ratings are dated and the system no longer supported by AAFC

Land Capability Classification for Arable Agriculture (Alberta) – renamed and modified for national application

Land Suitability Rating System (for small grains) (LSRS) Ratings comparable to the CLI but with defined, documented rules Ratings comparable across Canada System can be used as a continuous numerical rating or as Classes System has been modified to accommodate other crops

presently includes: canola, corn, soybeans, grass forages, legume forages

System designed to work with standard NSDB files (SNF, SLF) System has been automated 11

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (5)

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (6)

Pre 1930 1930 – 1960 1960 – 1980

Municipal Assessment- climate framework - economics

Subjective Individual Assessments - general feeling - texture - slope- drainage

Storie Rating System - specific factors - points assigned - specialists

Canada Land Inventory - factors include climate and topography - holistic - general

Irrigability Rating- drainage- sustainability

Agricultural potential Agric. productivity Agric. productivity Agricultural capability

1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec) 1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec)

12

Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (7)

1965 1975 1985 1995 +

Municipal AssessmentLocalModificat’ns

Canada Land Inventory (CLI) - factors include climate and topography - holistic - general

Land Capability Classification - modular structure - Storie type rating of individual factors - climate group - added organic soils

Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) - national climate link - NSDB link - nationally consistent - automated - more crops - more data sources

Irrigability Rating

LocalModificat’ns Reclamation Rating

Agricultural capability Agric. cap. Agric. capability Agricultural suitability

1:1M – 1:250K (Twp – sec) < 1:100K (< ¼ sec)

Any scale Any scale13

By 1980 – There were problems with the CLI

CLI - used beyond intended objectives / scale somewhat subjective at small scale was being modified for specific uses not specific at larger scales

Different agencies had their own systems hard to compare

In additiondid not deal with organic soils could not compare nationally

Lack of specificity14

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (1)

Basic approach retain 7 class CLI concept

be specific (including crop)

national - Land (climate linked)

generic and flexible

expert system approach (use existing data)

automate

15

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (2)

Basic approach separate climate, soil and landscape

independent controlflexibility

most limiting determines final ratinguse same crop for all conditions

RelationshipsCLIMATE (CROP) FLEXIBILITYSOIL PRODUCTIVITY LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY

16

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (3)

CRITERIA

Known to affect ability of soil to produce crops

known to affect ability of soil to respond to management

stress

Must be measurable (estimatable)

Should be commonly available

17

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (4)

Climate Factors

heat or energy factoreffective growing degree days

moisture factorprecipitation - potential evapotraspiration

modifying factorsexcess spring moisture, excess fall moisture, fall frostexcess heat

18

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (6)

Soil Factors

moisture supplytexture (with climate)water table

nutrient supplyorganic matter contentreaction

rooting conditionssurface conditionssubsurface conditions

19

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (7)

Soil Factors (cont)

chemical conditionssalinitysodicity

drainagewater table (with climate)

20

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (8)

Landscape Factors

erodability slope steepnessslope length (landform)

managementstoninessflooding

21

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (9)

Relationship between limitation concept, suitability class and calculated index

limitation for suitability indexspecified crop class pointsnone to slight 1 80 - 100slight 2 60 - 79moderate 3 45 - 59severe (marginal) 4 30 - 44very severe 5 20 - 29extremely severe 6 10 - 19 unsuitable 7 0 - 9

22

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (5)

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (10)

Factor Rating example – salinity effects on small grains

Salinity (dS/m) Limitation

Point deduction

2 No effect 0

4Slight limitation (Class 1-2)

20

8Moderate limitation (Class 3)

50

12Very sever limitation (Class 5)

70

16 Growth stopped (Class 7) 90

23

Point deductions for surface salinity

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

electical conductivity (dS/m)P

oin

t d

edu

ctio

n

y = -0.2067x + 10.001x - 18.002

R

2

= 0.9982

System Attributesprovides a standard approach for assessing land for crop

growthpragmatic and explicit

it uses present knowledge and available dataaccommodates defined proxies

documents all inputs and calculationsintegrates but partitionsuses an explicit, modular format adaptable to local conditions

flexible and adaptable

independent of scale24

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (11)

DOESassess ‘fitness for a specific use’assess ‘soil quality’ for a given set of conditionsassess disturbed conditions

DOES NOTmodel plant growth

Not an absolute – assesses the degree of limitationindicate best land useindicate most economical land use

25

LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (12)

Concept issues

Capability/Suitability vs ProductivitySoil component is the main contributor to productivityClimate component generally determines “What crops will grow”

Marginal climates do affect yields If area is restricted and assume appropriate crops

this module not required

Landscape Sustainability = “cost of production”Not a productivity issue

Productivity estimated by a capability method is comparativeBest or “least limited”, Can become bu/ac e.g. if linked to local values 26

USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (1)

Concept issues

Equivalent CapabilityCapability/suitability = holistic, system approach

Must consider all factors to determine a result

Capability assessed after disturbance/reclamation vs capability assessed for undisturbed condition

Unless otherwise specified can assumeSame site - so same climate (climate module not required)Same purpose – same crops / management

Given the aboveMust use same holistic procedures for pre and post conditionsMust decide on “equivalency” (e.g. +- 20%)LSRS or similar system should be used 27

USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (2)

Concept issues

Soil Health

This is a concept – it is an assessment of how well the soil is being sustained in its ecological niche

It must be interpreted and descriptive factors chosenFactors must be measurable, available and sensitive to changeE.g. OM, pH, salinity, structure, depth of topsoilOthers such as biomass are correlatedThe soil component of LSRS addresses these factors

Soil QualityThis is a different concept – must have a use (for something)

Quality over time can be interpreted as health 28

USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (3)

reification

29

LSRS APPLICATIONS (1)

Agricultural PotentialSpring Seeded Small Grains – Ratings for Alberta

results essentially the same as CLIlost Class 1 (total Classes 1-3 = same)added Class 4 climate

Linked to AGRASID (1:100K soil inventory database)Linked to modified Alberta 51-80 climateautomated roll-up (max of 3 component symbol)Available at Alberta Agriculture “Ropin’ the Web”

Go to “maps & multimedia” then “Alberta Soil Information Viewer”

30

LSRS APPLICATIONS (2)

Other Agricultural ConsiderationsOther crops

canola, corn, soybeans, brome forage, alfalfa forageClimate module modified to accommodate different elements AAFC platform can be viewed at (LSRS.landresources.ca/)(grapes, apples presently under development)

Climate change analysis PFRA / Agri-Environmental Services Branch (AAFC)

Land capability ct0 vs land capability ct30 using different climate databases (scenarios)

Biomass potential - PFRA / Agri-Environmental Services Branch (AAFC)

Used to approximate relative soil productivityUnlink climate and landscape modules (not climate data)

Other Agricultural Considerations (cont)

Soil Quality / Sustainability Assessmentdetermine the effect of present management

land capability t0 vs land capability t30

linked to EPIC (Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator)to calculate different soil inputs

Could also be termed Soil Health

31

LSRS APPLICATIONS (3)

32

SQAT CONCEPT

*EPIC EPIC

*LSRS LSRS

*Crop rotations*Management

*Soils*Climate

30yr simulation

SQ - SQ = SQ(0) (30)

trends

Soils

3 years 6 months

Inputs Models Analysis

Schematic of the Assessment Process

SQUAT RESULTS (1)

- 8

- 6

- 4

- 2

0

2

4

6

8

593 596 598 680 681 727 728 730 746 743 781 793 806 821 828

Ecodistrict

30 y

ear

pre

dic

ted

ch

an

ge

(%

)

Figure 1. Predicted percent change in land suitability ratings for the pilot areas.

34

SQUAT RESULTS (2)

828

D

C

B

A Aspen Parkland(Black soils)

Boreal Transition(Dark Grey and Grey soils)

Mixed Grassland(Brown soils)

Moist Mixed Grassland, Fescue Grassland(Dark Brown and Black soils)

Ecodistrict number

-0.5 to +0.5%

+0.5 to +2%

> +2%

Predicted Change

< -2%

-0.5 to -2%

PeaceRiver

Calgary

D

D

C

B

A

727

728

828

793

821

806781

746

743

730

680

598

593596

681

Lethbridge

Edmonton

Figure 4. Areal distribution of land suitability trends in Alberta

Forestry Considerations

Woodlot AssessmentModified soil and landscape factorsdifferent climatic framework Alberta Municipal Affairs

35

LSRS APPLICATIONS (4)

Reclamation Considerations

Pipeline Reclamation Assessment“Equivalent Capability”Level 2 soils component Nova, A. Env., CAPP

36

LSRS APPLICATIONS (5)

We covered

Some key terms Soil, land, capability, suitability, rating Equivalent capability, soil health, soil quality Capability/suitability vs productivity

The history of land assessments in Alberta (1850 – 2010) Emphasis on Storie, CLI, LSRS

Development of the Land Suitability Rating System Identified what it does and doesn’t do

Some uses of capabiity/suitability approaches Examples using the LSRS platform

37

SUMMARY

I would like to thank all the people who have contributed to the development and applications of soil/land ratings in Canada– for agriculture and other uses. They have provided a wealth of history, expertise and ideas.– Pioneering is not easy and often fraught with mistakes

(omissison more than commission)– Provincial and national working groups– Gerry Tychon – programming, geographical linkages

Thanks to the organizers of the Alberta Soils Network – For the opportunity to share my thoughts with you– For their initiative and diligence re things soils 38

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ARDA. 1965. Canada Land Inventory. Capability for Agriculture. The Canada Land Inventory Report No. 2, Dept of Forestry and Rural Development, Ottawa. 16 p.

Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. 1987. Land capability classification for arable agriculture in Alberta (1987). Edited by W.W. Pettapiece. Alberta Agriculture. 103 pp. 5 maps.

Agronomic Interpretations Working Group. 1995. Land suitability rating system for agricultural crops: 1. Spring- seeded small grains. Edited by W.W. Pettapiece. Tech. Bull. No. 1995-6E. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa. 90p, 2 maps.

Pettapiece, W.W., K.L. Haugen-Kozyra and L.D. Watson. 1998. Soil quality analysis and trends at a regional scale. Technical Bulletin No. 1998-1E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB. 30 pp. 1 diskette

NGTL External Advisory Board. 1999. Alberta Pipeline Reclamation Assessment Manual. Edited by A. Fedkenheuer

and W. Pettapiece. A report submitted to TransCanada Transmission Ltd. Calgary AB. 100p

Pettapiece, W.W., K. Glover and J. Ball. 2002. Land Assessment for Woodlot Production. Pages 121-126 In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop, February,2002. Available from Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.

Tychon, G. G. (Spatial Data Systems Consulting) and W. W. Pettapiece (Pettapiece Pedology). 2003, 2004. Land Suitability Rating System - interactive programs to accommodate Alberta (AGRASID) data bases and Area Specific ratings. Can be obtained from Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Computer programs (LSRS 2.1, LSRS 2.2) with documentation.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

40

THANKSand

Keep Digging